Jam
Unicron
Spiral out
Posts: 2,934
|
Post by Jam on Feb 16, 2013 14:46:26 GMT -5
Still my favorite Batman movie.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 16, 2013 14:51:19 GMT -5
There is too a plot, and I don't see how it's hard to follow at all. Joker is poisoning the citizens of Gotham, is foiled by Batman. What's confusing about that? That plot point just seemed to be tacked on. There was no rhyme or reason for The Joker to performed this plan. It was as if the writer had to create some devious plan for The Joker so he came up with this. Say what you will about The Dark Knight, but at least The Joker's plan in that movie started from the beginning and made total sense. The Joker didn't need a reason. He was just insane and took pleasure in causing pain. For me, it came across as far more threatening than the overly complex and convienient plot in TDK. Nicholson's Joker didn't have any pretentious masterplan involving social commentary on the immorality of man etc....like Ledger's Joker. He was doing it all for the fun of it. Nothing more.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 16, 2013 15:05:18 GMT -5
There is too a plot, and I don't see how it's hard to follow at all. Joker is poisoning the citizens of Gotham, is foiled by Batman. What's confusing about that? That plot point just seemed to be tacked on. There was no rhyme or reason for The Joker to performed this plan. It was as if the writer had to create some devious plan for The Joker so he came up with this. Say what you will about The Dark Knight, but at least The Joker's plan in that movie started from the beginning and made total sense. That's exactly the kind of thing Joker does. You're talking about a character who has - Tied hostages to a giant cake like birthday candles, with explosives strapped to them (comics) - Poisoned a body of water so that all the fish would have Joker grins, so that he could put a patent on fish (comics and animated series) - Sneaked into a hospital dressed as a 1950's candy striper, despite the fact that it would have been much easier to just wear scrubs (The Dark Knight) - Called a crisis hotline and convinced the therapist that her life sucked and got her to kill herself, all because he was bored one night (novel) And countless other things. The Joker doesn't need a reason to do anything, because that's not how he functions. If I was watching/reading a Joker story and one minute he was going after Batman and the next minute he was painting City Hall purple and wearing a crown, I'd just roll with it because he's the Joker and that's just what he does. Anyhow, as for the movie itself, it still stands as my favorite Batman movie ever. I have a few gripes (Commissioner Gordon being a bumbling oaf, Joker having a clear origin), but it's so easy for me to push that stuff aside and enjoy the film because the good vastly outweighs the bad. Michael Keaton absolutely nailed what Christian Bale completely didn't understand. Batman's intensity comes from his eyes. There's no reason to growl like a buffoon and shake with anger. When Batman holds that thug over the roof and just calmly threatens him at the beginning of the movie, Keaton instantly wins you over as the character. Then you have Nicholson's Joker, which to me is still the best version of the character put on film. Ledger made an amazing movie villain, but he lacked a lot of what I think has made the Joker a phenomenal character for over 70 years. Nicholson brought the scary villain, but he also brought the character's over-the-top mannerisms and a sense of being completely unhinged. It's such a great performance, and it just smacks of Denny O'Neil's Joker.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Feb 16, 2013 15:08:17 GMT -5
I think this is the best Batman movie followed by "Phantasm"
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 16, 2013 15:12:35 GMT -5
I think this is the best Batman movie followed by "Phantasm" See, I'll never understand that movie. It devalues the impact of Thomas and Martha Wayne's deaths to such a degree that it ruins the Batman character. He admittedly got over his parents being murdered, and was finally pushed to become Batman because he got dumped by a girl. That's just ludicrous.
|
|
bigbadbull
Don Corleone
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by bigbadbull on Feb 16, 2013 15:42:39 GMT -5
That plot point just seemed to be tacked on. There was no rhyme or reason for The Joker to performed this plan. It was as if the writer had to create some devious plan for The Joker so he came up with this. Say what you will about The Dark Knight, but at least The Joker's plan in that movie started from the beginning and made total sense. That's exactly the kind of thing Joker does. You're talking about a character who has - Tied hostages to a giant cake like birthday candles, with explosives strapped to them (comics) - Poisoned a body of water so that all the fish would have Joker grins, so that he could put a patent on fish (comics and animated series) - Sneaked into a hospital dressed as a 1950's candy striper, despite the fact that it would have been much easier to just wear scrubs (The Dark Knight) - Called a crisis hotline and convinced the therapist that her life sucked and got her to kill herself, all because he was bored one night (novel) And countless other things. The Joker doesn't need a reason to do anything, because that's not how he functions. If I was watching/reading a Joker story and one minute he was going after Batman and the next minute he was painting City Hall purple and wearing a crown, I'd just roll with it because he's the Joker and that's just what he does. Anyhow, as for the movie itself, it still stands as my favorite Batman movie ever. I have a few gripes (Commissioner Gordon being a bumbling oaf, Joker having a clear origin), but it's so easy for me to push that stuff aside and enjoy the film because the good vastly outweighs the bad. Michael Keaton absolutely nailed what Christian Bale completely didn't understand. Batman's intensity comes from his eyes. There's no reason to growl like a buffoon and shake with anger. When Batman holds that thug over the roof and just calmly threatens him at the beginning of the movie, Keaton instantly wins you over as the character. Then you have Nicholson's Joker, which to me is still the best version of the character put on film. Ledger made an amazing movie villain, but he lacked a lot of what I think has made the Joker a phenomenal character for over 70 years. Nicholson brought the scary villain, but he also brought the character's over-the-top mannerisms and a sense of being completely unhinged. It's such a great performance, and it just smacks of Denny O'Neil's Joker. What I meant by no rhyme or reason is that, to me, the writers didn't come up with a plan on the first hand. I would have thought that some foreshadowing into The Joker being a chemist would come into play, but that fact came about when Batman read his criminal file.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Feb 16, 2013 17:20:40 GMT -5
Still my favorite Batman movie. One thing no one has mentioned yet is...while I realize the costume was hard to move around in, in real life, the Batman suit looked FAR superior to any non-animated costume to date. Cloony had the nipples, Kilmer just didn't look right, West looked silly, and the mask looked stupid on Bale.
In '89, Batman actually smiles...something fanboy idiots say Batman should never ever do...yet Keaton looks terrifying when he does it and it adds another layer of mystic to the character. Also, I'm sorry, but it's dumb that "oh, they could tell Keaton and Batman had the same voice..." or whatever is a goofy theory. Other than Vicky Vale, none of those thugs had ever been around Bruce friggin' Wayne to "hear what he sounds like" and the movie claimed he was more of a recluse than a playboy so no argument that "he'd make lots of speeches so someone could have been able to make the connection." Besides that, how many of these loser thugs would actually sit down and listen to a speech from Bruce Wayne about the new plaza opening up or whatever...or if they did listen...give two craps enough to really hear him to compare him to Batman...if they even ran into Batman and he spoke to them to begin with. Just a lot of holes in people's theories for why this movie "sucks" when it doesn't.
Anyway, of all the Batman movies, '89 is my favorite, followed by Year One, Red Hood, Returns, and Superman/Batman.
|
|
bigbadbull
Don Corleone
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by bigbadbull on Feb 16, 2013 17:38:01 GMT -5
Still my favorite Batman movie. One thing no one has mentioned yet is...while I realize the costume was hard to move around in, in real life, the Batman suit looked FAR superior to any non-animated costume to date. Cloony had the nipples, Kilmer just didn't look right, West looked silly, and the mask looked stupid on Bale. In '89, Batman actually smiles...something fanboy idiots say Batman should never ever do...yet Keaton looks terrifying when he does it and it adds another layer of mystic to the character. Also, I'm sorry, but it's dumb that "oh, they could tell Keaton and Batman had the same voice..." or whatever is a goofy theory. Other than Vicky Vale, none of those thugs had ever been around Bruce friggin' Wayne to "hear what he sounds like" and the movie claimed he was more of a recluse than a playboy so no argument that "he'd make lots of speeches so someone could have been able to make the connection." Besides that, how many of these loser thugs would actually sit down and listen to a speech from Bruce Wayne about the new plaza opening up or whatever...or if they did listen...give two craps enough to really hear him to compare him to Batman...if they even ran into Batman and he spoke to them to begin with. Just a lot of holes in people's theories for why this movie "sucks" when it doesn't. Anyway, of all the Batman movies, '89 is my favorite, followed by Year One, Red Hood, Returns, and Superman/Batman. One, I'm certain hoods have heard Wayne speaking on tv. Two, the suit is clunky, he could hardly move and could perform two moves: a punch and front kick. Three, The Suit for Kilmer was pretty good as he could move much more and looks more flexible. Four, Tim Burton didn't have a clue on what to do with Batman. Yes, his Gothic style is great and help to lead to Batman: TAS, but Burton didn't get to what made Bruce Wayne into Batman. That's why the Nolan films are superior to the Burton films and I might add that Forever, at least, tried to get to his childhood and the whys.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 16, 2013 18:47:19 GMT -5
If anything, the Nolan movies cover "what makes Batman who he is?" too much. Burton left it murkier and hinted at, rather then shown in great detail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 18:54:08 GMT -5
One of my favorite movies period - back in '89 this was pretty much THE greatest thing ever. Nostalgia wise, it's a gem and, as the OP said, I can never get sick of this movie.
Overall, it's not the greatest Batman movie (I think Nolan took that crown with BB and TDK) but it's well above most others and, as you look back and compare, it certainly carves out an interesting niche in the entirety of Bat-lore.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Feb 16, 2013 19:23:44 GMT -5
The Burton/Schumacher Batman Blu Ray set is out of print and it upsets me very much, I'd love to replace my DVD set. Pick up The Tim Burton Collection on blu-ray. It has Batman and Batman Returns in it, and it can usually be found in the $30-40 range.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 19:28:27 GMT -5
This is my favourite Batman movie of all time and Keaton just can't be topped IMO , everything about this movie just works for me..from the soundtrack to the atmosphere it feels like the most Batman movie of them all.
Nolans movie feel like a character study rather than an actual Batman movie to me.
|
|
|
Post by Bravo Echo November on Feb 16, 2013 19:37:03 GMT -5
The Burton/Schumacher Batman Blu Ray set is out of print and it upsets me very much, I'd love to replace my DVD set. They were OOP, but they are now exclusive to the WB Shop, and only $10 per title too! www.wbshop.com/search.do?query=batman+blu-ray
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Feb 16, 2013 19:41:15 GMT -5
Oh shit! diidn't know that! Guess you can disregard my suggestion, then.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Feb 16, 2013 19:44:37 GMT -5
Still my favorite Batman movie. One thing no one has mentioned yet is...while I realize the costume was hard to move around in, in real life, the Batman suit looked FAR superior to any non-animated costume to date. Cloony had the nipples, Kilmer just didn't look right, West looked silly, and the mask looked stupid on Bale. In '89, Batman actually smiles...something fanboy idiots say Batman should never ever do...yet Keaton looks terrifying when he does it and it adds another layer of mystic to the character. Also, I'm sorry, but it's dumb that "oh, they could tell Keaton and Batman had the same voice..." or whatever is a goofy theory. Other than Vicky Vale, none of those thugs had ever been around Bruce friggin' Wayne to "hear what he sounds like" and the movie claimed he was more of a recluse than a playboy so no argument that "he'd make lots of speeches so someone could have been able to make the connection." Besides that, how many of these loser thugs would actually sit down and listen to a speech from Bruce Wayne about the new plaza opening up or whatever...or if they did listen...give two craps enough to really hear him to compare him to Batman...if they even ran into Batman and he spoke to them to begin with. Just a lot of holes in people's theories for why this movie "sucks" when it doesn't. This post is so right on, and Burton understood the Batman character fine because he used the character's creators as consultants for the movie. Again, if someone wants to love The Dark Knight and have it be their favorite Batman movie they can go right ahead, but don't try to give me all this hair-brained reasoning for why it's wrong for me to have a different opinion. I almost think it's hilarious that anyone seriously finds it strange that a person might favor a performance from legendary actor Jack Nicholson over one from Heath Ledger. And I don't mean that as a knock on Ledger.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Feb 16, 2013 20:59:25 GMT -5
The Burton/Schumacher Batman Blu Ray set is out of print and it upsets me very much, I'd love to replace my DVD set. They were OOP, but they are now exclusive to the WB Shop, and only $10 per title too! www.wbshop.com/search.do?query=batman+blu-rayThat's awesome!!! Thanks for the tip man EDIT: They ship to US only. I'm in Canada. I wanna cry
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Feb 16, 2013 21:22:09 GMT -5
Still my favorite Batman movie. One thing no one has mentioned yet is...while I realize the costume was hard to move around in, in real life, the Batman suit looked FAR superior to any non-animated costume to date. Cloony had the nipples, Kilmer just didn't look right, West looked silly, and the mask looked stupid on Bale. In '89, Batman actually smiles...something fanboy idiots say Batman should never ever do...yet Keaton looks terrifying when he does it and it adds another layer of mystic to the character. Also, I'm sorry, but it's dumb that "oh, they could tell Keaton and Batman had the same voice..." or whatever is a goofy theory. Other than Vicky Vale, none of those thugs had ever been around Bruce friggin' Wayne to "hear what he sounds like" and the movie claimed he was more of a recluse than a playboy so no argument that "he'd make lots of speeches so someone could have been able to make the connection." Besides that, how many of these loser thugs would actually sit down and listen to a speech from Bruce Wayne about the new plaza opening up or whatever...or if they did listen...give two craps enough to really hear him to compare him to Batman...if they even ran into Batman and he spoke to them to begin with. Just a lot of holes in people's theories for why this movie "sucks" when it doesn't. Anyway, of all the Batman movies, '89 is my favorite, followed by Year One, Red Hood, Returns, and Superman/Batman. One, I'm certain hoods have heard Wayne speaking on tv. Two, the suit is clunky, he could hardly move and could perform two moves: a punch and front kick. Three, The Suit for Kilmer was pretty good as he could move much more and looks more flexible. Four, Tim Burton didn't have a clue on what to do with Batman. Yes, his Gothic style is great and help to lead to Batman: TAS, but Burton didn't get to what made Bruce Wayne into Batman. That's why the Nolan films are superior to the Burton films and I might add that Forever, at least, tried to get to his childhood and the whys. One, even if hoods did hear Bruce Wayne speaking about something on television, I guarantee they didn't go "hey, he said 'Die punk!' just like Batman did to me last night! They must be the same guy!" These are hoods, thugs, and goons. They aren't too bright. Two, I assume you missed the part where I typed "even the in real life the suit was clunky and hard to move in." I guess it did hurt the fight scenes because it was so difficult to move in, but it still looked the closest, of all the suits, to what the costume in the comics looked like. Three, going back and looking at some pics, yeah, you're right, Kilmer didn't look as bad as I remember him looking. Four, I dunno if he really did or not, I can't really say. I get that he completely ignored the "I don't kill" stuff of Batman, but comics like "The Dark Knight Returns" were doing that at the time as well. He had his take on it, that's for sure. As far as the Nolan movies vs. the Burton movies, I honestly can't say which is better. I think Batman Returns gets crapped on more than it deserves, while at the same time I think that Batman Begins gets way more praise than it ever should get (the movie is awful, really don't know why Nolan fans can't see that). '89 and The Dark Knight are each awesome in their own way and honestly, trying to compare the two is pointless, as they are products of their time. The Dark Knight Rises was a very good film, but there isn't a third Burton film to compare it to. I think, though, that there's way too many flaws and it's the movie that gets away from the comics it's based on more so than the other movies.
|
|
|
Post by mike2789 on Feb 16, 2013 21:32:26 GMT -5
This is a great thread. Here is my spin.
I take Batman, Returns, and Forever over the Nolan Series (if I am under the influence of anything I will watch Batman and Robin and enjoy it)
Batman is fantastic. I thought MK did a great job as Batman and was dominate. Bale just never felt right. I thought Val Kilmer is the second best Batman, even though the movie was not all that great. Bale felt more like Batman.
I personally think that Batman Begins is overly praised. It had a few moments but the whole middle part of the movie was just BLEH. Very Bleh.
TDK was so GOOD. I loved it, but when I watch Batman I expect some comedy or wit about it. Nolan series doesn't really do that. Not even dark humor really.
I will watch all the movies besides (Batman and Robin) at any given time. But BATMAN (89) will always be my favorite.
The style of it was fantastic, the acting was great, and it was what I expect.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Feb 16, 2013 22:27:14 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that Bane is kind of a lame character compared to a lot of other villains who haven't been in a movie yet. I'd rather see Clayface or Man-Bat (either one could make for a really scary villain in a more horror-oriented Batman film, which could take place on Halloween or something), or we still haven't gotten a "gritty" version of the Riddler since Burton and Nolan both passed on the character. I'm still interested in seeing what that would be like. Bane is more than passable for a comic villain but I think when it came time to choose the villains for the followup to Dark Knight there are more interesting characters they could have gone with. One of the most striking things about Bane in the comics was his enormous size compared to Batman's usual foes and that might have been enough for the comic, but it doesn't really add much to a movie I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on Feb 16, 2013 22:44:49 GMT -5
I'm not the Nolan'verse's biggest fan...but I prefer those movies to this one.
It just doesn't feel right, admittedly less so than Returns when things went off the rails completely. Bruce & Batman aren't performed very well, not to say Keaton was bad...he just never made me believe who he was playing was Bruce & Batman. The understanding of the character on the writers' part seemed flawed at best. Same with The Joker, and I never cared for Jack's performance. He was Jack in clown make-up, that's it, one can tell he's going through the motions and picking up a paycheck. And, I never felt his look really fit The Joker, which isn't on Jack Nicholson, it's on the people that cast him as the character.
The plot is...a mess, to put it lightly, and all over the place. And, the entire thing is a crystallized image of Burton slamming the franchise before and after the movie was released in interviews like he did. He had no respect for the source material or the fans of said material, and it shows.
In an age where as I was growing up there was Adam West's Batman, Timm'verse and this? I preferred the first two vastly over this. Even if 60's Batman was campy, it still understood the characters better than this impending trainwreck of a cash grab.
That said, I'd prefer to watch this to Returns or Forever, which make this film seem coherent in comparison. But then again, everything's relative.
|
|