|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2012 16:53:39 GMT -5
Okay, let me put it this way. In the first five minutes of the movie Batman witnesses a mugging that he fails to intervene in and when he does confront the culprits he is immediately shot and falls over. If you don't see what's wrong with that then I dunno what to say. Most superhero movies are illogical when placed under scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Jul 11, 2012 17:06:55 GMT -5
I can't believe I'm the only one that hates how they make Arliss the protagonist for so much of the movie. He's like the most boring character of all time. He was an awful, awful character and just one of the dozens of problems I have with the first Batman movie. There's no way Arliss should have had the fourth biggest role in a goddamn Batman movie, especially since his character was about as interesting as a plank of wood. And honestly, I don't like any Joker outside of Heath Ledger and a couple of the animated ones (Hammil, and John Di Maggio did a solid take on him that was different from Mark in terms of voices), so I don't really care for Jack in the movie either. He's just being Jack in makeup, and I really just don't like that portrayal of Joker.
|
|
TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Jul 11, 2012 17:06:54 GMT -5
Okay, let me put it this way. In the first five minutes of the movie Batman witnesses a mugging that he fails to intervene in and when he does confront the culprits he is immediately shot and falls over. If you don't see what's wrong with that then I dunno what to say. Its not like he has precognition. The shooting and falling over is called playing possum. He even said that he wanted a favor and that was to tell all his friends about him. What low level thug/criminal would want to be confronted by crime fighter who can't be stopped with bullets??
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2012 17:11:49 GMT -5
Okay, let me put it this way. In the first five minutes of the movie Batman witnesses a mugging that he fails to intervene in and when he does confront the culprits he is immediately shot and falls over. If you don't see what's wrong with that then I dunno what to say. Its not like he has precognition. The shooting and falling over is called playing possum. He even said that he wanted a favor and that was to tell all his friends about him. What low level thug/criminal would want to be confronted by crime fighter who can't be stopped with bullets?? I think the latrer scene with the Joker goons was worse than the opening. Not only do they figure out he's just a guy in armor, but he almost gets unmasked if not for Vickie using her camera. TBH, though, most early comic book movies are more prototypes to what we had now and don't hold up as well over time due to the unfamiliarity of the genre compared to now.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Jul 11, 2012 17:32:07 GMT -5
Oh man, I loved the Alexander Knox character. He's set up as a romantic rival and a complete idiot, but in the end he's completely vindicated and even shows his heroic side when the Joker begins his gas attack.
I'm a huge fan of the Nolan movies, but a dream project of mine would be to write a continuation of the Burton films (in comic book form or whatever), picking up where Returns left off. There's so much left in that version of Gotham that was never properly explored.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 11, 2012 17:47:51 GMT -5
Okay, let me put it this way. In the first five minutes of the movie Batman witnesses a mugging that he fails to intervene in and when he does confront the culprits he is immediately shot and falls over. If you don't see what's wrong with that then I dunno what to say. Most superhero movies are illogical when placed under scrutiny. What scrutiny? These are events that play out onscreen for the viewer to see. They're right there. There's no analysis required. But you want more examples of how crappy Keaton's Batman is? He shows up at Axis chemicals just to sabotage Jim Gordon's operation, just stands there and let's Napier kill Eckhart, he takes advantage of Vickie (she's drunk off her ass and he's stone cold sober so obviously the truely heroic thing is to get into her pants), stands around with a really dumb look on his face while Joker kils his chief rival and has his goons fire off machines guns, gets shot AGAIN and almost unmasked, gives Vickie Vale the vital info about the Joker's tainted products instead of passing it to the proper authorities before knocking her out thus wasting valuble time while more people are poisioned, provokes a homocidal lunatic into shooting him somehow Joker would go for the chest and not shoot him in the head, blows up an entire chemical plant which likely has innocent people working there and finally kills the Joker and sends a letter to the DA describing how Gotham is better off for it. Keaton's Batman sucks. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2012 17:52:22 GMT -5
Most superhero movies are illogical when placed under scrutiny. What scrutiny? These are events that play out onscreen for the viewer to see. They're right there. There's no analysis required. Yet one is coming... All superhero movies would collapse if common sense and rationality was applied. If it happens to "Batman" it happens to them all.
|
|
wrasslinmachine
Don Corleone
Savagely protecting the innocent since 1987.
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by wrasslinmachine on Jul 11, 2012 17:52:45 GMT -5
Now it is uncool to like Batman 89?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on Jul 11, 2012 17:59:02 GMT -5
Just got done watching the entire thing for the first time. I'd seen bits and pieces previously. Never a huge fan of Batman '89 ... Returns is one of my favorite of the series, which I'm going to watch right now.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jul 11, 2012 18:00:43 GMT -5
Keaton's Batman sucks. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 11, 2012 18:07:11 GMT -5
If I'm coming off as hostile I apologise. If you like Batman 89 then you are of course free to hold that opinion. I'm not trying to shame anyone or anything. I just think Batman 89 is a good Tim Burton movie and on that basis I actually uite like it. But it's a horrible Batman movie. That's all. And that applies to it's sequel too. What scrutiny? These are events that play out onscreen for the viewer to see. They're right there. There's no analysis required. Yet one is coming... All superhero movies would collapse if common sense and rationality was applied. If it happens to "Batman" it happens to them all. That's still a list of things that happened, not an analysis. But you know what? Do it. I'd really like to see you actually construct that argument. Because I guarentee every other super hero movies has at least one instance of their heroes being, you know, heroic. The most heroic thing Bruce Wayne does in Batman 89 is give Knox a grant.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2012 18:18:03 GMT -5
If I'm coming off as hostile I apologise. If you like Batman 89 then you are of course free to hold that opinion. I'm not trying to shame anyone or anything. I just think Batman 89 is a good Tim Burton movie and on that basis I actually uite like it. But it's a horrible Batman movie. That's all. And that applies to it's sequel too. Yet one is coming... All superhero movies would collapse if common sense and rationality was applied. If it happens to "Batman" it happens to them all. That's still a list of things that happened, not an analysis. But you know what? Do it. I'd really like to see you actually construct that argument. Because I guarentee every other super hero movies has at least one instance of their heroes being, you know, heroic. The most heroic thing Bruce Wayne does in Batman 89 is give Knox a grant. What about when he figured out what items in Gotham had Joker's Smilex poison?
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 11, 2012 18:20:12 GMT -5
You know you might want to read the bottom right of the last panel in that link you posted.
|
|
|
Post by Todd's crazy , Man. on Jul 11, 2012 18:22:53 GMT -5
Most superhero movies are illogical when placed under scrutiny. What scrutiny? These are events that play out onscreen for the viewer to see. They're right there. There's no analysis required. But you want more examples of how crappy Keaton's Batman is? He shows up at Axis chemicals just to sabotage Jim Gordon's operation, just stands there and let's Napier kill Eckhart, he takes advantage of Vickie (she's drunk off her ass and he's stone cold sober so obviously the truely heroic thing is to get into her pants), stands around with a really dumb look on his face while Joker kils his chief rival and has his goons fire off machines guns, gets shot AGAIN and almost unmasked, gives Vickie Vale the vital info about the Joker's tainted products instead of passing it to the proper authorities before knocking her out thus wasting valuble time while more people are poisioned, provokes a homocidal lunatic into shooting him somehow Joker would go for the chest and not shoot him in the head, blows up an entire chemical plant which likely has innocent people working there and finally kills the Joker and sends a letter to the DA describing how Gotham is better off for it. Keaton's Batman sucks. Seriously. Uh in the comic books , Batman repeatedly allows The Joker (a man who has crippled his best friend's daughter and killed several thousand people by this point.) to escape from Akharm only to reput him in the SAME PLACE HE ESCAPE FROM WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO MAKE IT ANY MORE SECURE THEN IT WAS. Batman isn't really the most "sane" person in the world. I mean I get that he has a code against killing but what about a lobotomy? drug induced coma? Shipping him to another planet? Implanting his min in a rat? ANYTHING? Anything better then just letting him break out of prison to kill more people again.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 11, 2012 18:23:49 GMT -5
If I'm coming off as hostile I apologise. If you like Batman 89 then you are of course free to hold that opinion. I'm not trying to shame anyone or anything. I just think Batman 89 is a good Tim Burton movie and on that basis I actually uite like it. But it's a horrible Batman movie. That's all. And that applies to it's sequel too. That's still a list of things that happened, not an analysis. But you know what? Do it. I'd really like to see you actually construct that argument. Because I guarentee every other super hero movies has at least one instance of their heroes being, you know, heroic. The most heroic thing Bruce Wayne does in Batman 89 is give Knox a grant. What about when he figured out what items in Gotham had Joker's Smilex poison? But like I said, he holds onto the info and gives it to Vickie instead of the proper authorities himself, which as Vickie points he could have easily done.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 11, 2012 18:24:01 GMT -5
I think Dark Knight is a horrible Batman movie, A very good michael Mann movie but a pretty piss poor Batman movie.
I think Begins is the best Nolan Batmovie so far
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2012 18:25:37 GMT -5
What scrutiny? These are events that play out onscreen for the viewer to see. They're right there. There's no analysis required. But you want more examples of how crappy Keaton's Batman is? He shows up at Axis chemicals just to sabotage Jim Gordon's operation, just stands there and let's Napier kill Eckhart, he takes advantage of Vickie (she's drunk off her ass and he's stone cold sober so obviously the truely heroic thing is to get into her pants), stands around with a really dumb look on his face while Joker kils his chief rival and has his goons fire off machines guns, gets shot AGAIN and almost unmasked, gives Vickie Vale the vital info about the Joker's tainted products instead of passing it to the proper authorities before knocking her out thus wasting valuble time while more people are poisioned, provokes a homocidal lunatic into shooting him somehow Joker would go for the chest and not shoot him in the head, blows up an entire chemical plant which likely has innocent people working there and finally kills the Joker and sends a letter to the DA describing how Gotham is better off for it. Keaton's Batman sucks. Seriously. Uh in the comic books , Batman repeatedly allows The Joker (a man who has crippled his best friend's daughter and killed several thousand people by this point.) to escape from Akharm only to reput him in the SAME PLACE HE ESCAPE FROM WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO MAKE IT ANY MORE SECURE THEN IT WAS. Batman isn't really the most "sane" person in the world. I mean I get that he has a code against killing but what about a lobotomy? drug induced coma? Shipping him to another planet? Implanting his min in a rat? ANYTHING? Anything better then just letting him break out of prison to kill more people again. I think there was a Justice League episode that dealt with Gotham criminals in Arkham getting lobotomized by Superman's heat vision in some dark past. Creepy. Lesser extent, Batman did that in the 1966 series, with Black Widow. He used her mind control for "rehabilitation". Sort of a creepy move in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 11, 2012 18:27:04 GMT -5
What scrutiny? These are events that play out onscreen for the viewer to see. They're right there. There's no analysis required. But you want more examples of how crappy Keaton's Batman is? He shows up at Axis chemicals just to sabotage Jim Gordon's operation, just stands there and let's Napier kill Eckhart, he takes advantage of Vickie (she's drunk off her ass and he's stone cold sober so obviously the truely heroic thing is to get into her pants), stands around with a really dumb look on his face while Joker kils his chief rival and has his goons fire off machines guns, gets shot AGAIN and almost unmasked, gives Vickie Vale the vital info about the Joker's tainted products instead of passing it to the proper authorities before knocking her out thus wasting valuble time while more people are poisioned, provokes a homocidal lunatic into shooting him somehow Joker would go for the chest and not shoot him in the head, blows up an entire chemical plant which likely has innocent people working there and finally kills the Joker and sends a letter to the DA describing how Gotham is better off for it. Keaton's Batman sucks. Seriously. Uh in the comic books , Batman repeatedly allows The Joker (a man who has crippled his best friend's daughter and killed several thousand people by this point.) to escape from Akharm only to reput him in the SAME PLACE HE ESCAPE FROM WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO MAKE IT ANY MORE SECURE THEN IT WAS. Batman isn't really the most "sane" person in the world. I mean I get that he has a code against killing but what about a lobotomy? drug induced coma? Shipping him to another planet? Implanting his min in a rat? ANYTHING? Anything better then just letting him break out of prison to kill more people again. Why is any of that Batman's call? You want to blame someone for that blame Gotham's legal system. Look, this is gonna end up going in circles so I'll just say I don't care for Batman as portrayed in Batman 89 and leave it at that. Okay?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 11, 2012 18:27:28 GMT -5
What about when he figured out what items in Gotham had Joker's Smilex poison? But like I said, he holds onto the info and gives it to Vickie instead of the proper authorities himself, which as Vickie points he could have easily done. The paper was a better avenue for him, as it got the word out. Also, Batman was still on the wanted list, especially after the incident in the chemical works. It's why the reporter was asking if this Batman was actually a foe or a friend? I don't think this movie established his relationship with Gordon & the police until the end of the movie, with the reveal of the Bat signal.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 11, 2012 18:29:50 GMT -5
Comic Batman is against any form of mind Alteration, He threw a hiss fit and built Brother Eye because the JL altered Dr Light's/Catwoman's minds and mind wiped his for short period
|
|