|
Post by DSR on Dec 29, 2008 2:39:53 GMT -5
I think people wouldn't have given Burton a hard time over the choice to cast Kilmer in the lead-up to the movie coming out, but I think the movie itself would've been different because of it. No better, no worse, just different. That's just my opinion, I really don't have preference between Kilmer or Keaton. They were both pretty good at what they were doing, even if the movies they were in were sub-par (that goes more for Batman Returns than for the 89 movie, in Keaton's case).
|
|
|
Post by Free Hat on Dec 29, 2008 4:01:00 GMT -5
I think people wouldn't have given Burton a hard time over the choice to cast Kilmer in the lead-up to the movie coming out, but I think the movie itself would've been different because of it. No better, no worse, just different. That's just my opinion, I really don't have preference between Kilmer or Keaton. They were both pretty good at what they were doing, even if the movies they were in were sub-par (that goes more for Batman Returns than for the 89 movie, in Keaton's case). I actually prefer Returns over the first one. Sure the plot was a mess, but in a subtle way they managed to give Keaton's Batman some much needed depth, something that was largely missing from Batman 89.
|
|
Joie De Vivre
Hank Scorpio
There's always next year.
Posts: 5,278
|
Post by Joie De Vivre on Dec 29, 2008 4:17:15 GMT -5
Keaton was terrific as Batman, but I wish he played Bruce Wayne as more outgoing. I like when there's a duality of personalities between Batman and Bruce Wayne and Keaton played them both as "dark" and "mysterious".
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 29, 2008 4:26:01 GMT -5
I think people wouldn't have given Burton a hard time over the choice to cast Kilmer in the lead-up to the movie coming out, but I think the movie itself would've been different because of it. No better, no worse, just different. That's just my opinion, I really don't have preference between Kilmer or Keaton. They were both pretty good at what they were doing, even if the movies they were in were sub-par (that goes more for Batman Returns than for the 89 movie, in Keaton's case). I actually prefer Returns over the first one. Sure the plot was a mess, but in a subtle way they managed to give Keaton's Batman some much needed depth, something that was largely missing from Batman 89. Well to me Returns seemed to make Bruce Wayne slip further into the shadows than in Batman 89. I mean, at least in 89 he would hold events and stuff in his mansion. In Returns, he literally just sat brooding in the dark, waiting for the Bat-Signal to come up. I don't mind if they want to downplay Bruce, but when they use him, I think they should really use him as more than just "waitin' around for Batman" time. Add to that the fact of the plot being a big mess. I feel like Returns is as laughable as "And Robin", but because they chose a color palette of black, black, and really dark gray, people tend to look at Returns more favorably.
|
|
|
Post by tmc1982 on Dec 29, 2008 22:57:40 GMT -5
I actually prefer Returns over the first one. Sure the plot was a mess, but in a subtle way they managed to give Keaton's Batman some much needed depth, something that was largely missing from Batman 89. Well to me Returns seemed to make Bruce Wayne slip further into the shadows than in Batman 89. I mean, at least in 89 he would hold events and stuff in his mansion. In Returns, he literally just sat brooding in the dark, waiting for the Bat-Signal to come up. I don't mind if they want to downplay Bruce, but when they use him, I think they should really use him as more than just "waitin' around for Batman" time. Add to that the fact of the plot being a big mess. I feel like Returns is as laughable as "And Robin", but because they chose a color palette of black, black, and really dark gray, people tend to look at Returns more favorably. I kind of figure that Bruce Wayne was bummed out over Vicki Vale leaving him, due to his lifestyle. This could explain why he was so desperate to make things with Selina Kyle/Catwoman work.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 30, 2008 1:57:58 GMT -5
Well to me Returns seemed to make Bruce Wayne slip further into the shadows than in Batman 89. I mean, at least in 89 he would hold events and stuff in his mansion. In Returns, he literally just sat brooding in the dark, waiting for the Bat-Signal to come up. I don't mind if they want to downplay Bruce, but when they use him, I think they should really use him as more than just "waitin' around for Batman" time. Add to that the fact of the plot being a big mess. I feel like Returns is as laughable as "And Robin", but because they chose a color palette of black, black, and really dark gray, people tend to look at Returns more favorably. I kind of figure that Bruce Wayne was bummed out over Vicki Vale leaving him, due to his lifestyle. This could explain why he was so desperate to make things with Selina Kyle/Catwoman work. Sorry, I can't really buy into that. Not that Batman is incapable of those kinds of feelings, but Vicki really didn't feel, from a spectator's standpoint, like anything more than a token love interest. It's less of an "oh, he really loves her" and more of an "oh, well I guess the movie isn't a total sausage-fest." And, while I'm certainly willing to mock Batman Returns, I can at least buy Selina Kyle as an actual kindred spirit to Bruce, so I could see how THAT would make him want to make the relationship work more than the reason that he's on the rebound or whatever. What I think would be a more valid argument, in retrospect, actually involves a bit of dialogue from Batman Forever: -------------------------------------------------- Dick Grayson: All I can think about every second of the day is getting Two-Face. He took my whole life. And when I was out there tonight, I imagined it was him that I was fighting, even when I was fighting you. And all the pain went away. Do you understand? Bruce Wayne: Yes, I do. Dick Grayson: Good, cause you gotta help me find him. And when we do, I'm the one who kills him. Bruce Wayne: So, you're willing to take a life. Dick Grayson: Long as it's Two-Face. Bruce Wayne: Then it will happen this way: You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why. Dick Grayson: You can't understand. Your family wasn't killed by a maniac. Bruce Wayne: Yes, they were. We're the same. ---------------------------------------- See, my belief is that, in Returns, Bruce has slipped further into the darkness because his pain didn't really die when he killed the Joker in Batman '89. He sorta becomes consumed by that pain, until his relationship with Catwoman sort of pulls him out of it. Truth be told, this isn't really my theory, as someone else posted it in greater detail on this forum a month or so back, but it's a theory that I think at least makes some sort of sense. My problem with Batman Returns, however, is that we aren't given any evidence to support this theory UNTIL Batman Forever, and even then, we're really only left with theory, rather than explanation. Hell, even Tim Burton doesn't really have a great explanation, as he says in the commentary that he wants to give Batman "his space" in order to present him as more of a mythological figure. That's something I really don't get about Burton's movies, Batman is supposed to be a mythological figure to criminals. The audience really should be able to get into him somehow if we're supposed to relate to him as the hero of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Smokey McTrees on Dec 30, 2008 2:07:03 GMT -5
Kilmer was fine. He looked the part more then any of them. Its not his fault the movie was iffy. O' Donnell was a first-class douche. Tommy Lee Jones was the Joker lite. Jim Carrey was Jim Carrey.
|
|