|
Post by mike2789 on Feb 17, 2013 9:25:21 GMT -5
I just don't understand how you feel it is a mess. Not bashing your opinion but I just don't understand. The plot was very simple and straight forward. I agree that the Batman and Bruce Wayne character could have been stronger. But in a way, throughout the original series (89- Batman and Robin) the Bruce Wayne character was pretty much the same. He was a reclusive who did business, and always had a lady to the side which made him a playboy)
The only thing I remember and still hate is how they brought back the parent storyline in Batman Forever. I felt that was stupid.
Also from what I have seen in the news Jack Nicholson is a pretty down to earth guy. From all accounts he is not as eccentric or Joker like as many think. The guy has lived in the same house since the early 70's and the only thing he actually spends a decent amount of money on is art. He has one of the largest private art collections in the world.
But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
They are going to do a reboot on the series, and if they are smart they will wait to bring in Joker as a bad guy because Jack and Heath did do a great job and it would be difficult to do another one so soon.
Bane was done decent in the TDKR and as everyone will agree was retarded in Batman and Robin. Bane could be such a great villain because of his comic book history which TDKR did sort of do. I just felt there was WAY to many plot holes in the last movie
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Feb 17, 2013 9:31:56 GMT -5
If they do a reboot, I'd love to see Mad Hatter & a better done Scarecrow used
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Feb 17, 2013 10:24:11 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. This whole thing is hilarious. Especially the part about Jack Nicholson who hammed it up and stole the show as the Joker "going through the motions for a paycheck". The Joker character in general became a lot more popular because of this movie and specifically Nicholson's performance. Whether you personally liked it or not, if you can't admit that you're either trying to rewrite history or you weren't around at the time.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Feb 17, 2013 11:26:39 GMT -5
I feel Keaton & Bale are 2 actors that were not just playing Batman, but in effect became Batman.
|
|
|
Post by hotshotalex on Feb 17, 2013 11:45:57 GMT -5
I I agree that the Batman and Bruce Wayne character could have been stronger. But in a way, throughout the original series (89- Batman and Robin) the Bruce Wayne character was pretty much the same. Wut? In the first movie he was doing all he could to keep Batman's existence secret from the public and by the last movie he was attending charity auctions as Batman.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 17, 2013 11:51:36 GMT -5
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. They got Bruce/Batman's character much more right in Batman '89 than Christopher Nolan did. Being someone who just claimed to watch the Animated Series, you should see that. Keaton's Batman was driven to a point where people around him questioned his sanity. He was chilling and calculating, and had no idea how to interact with people. That's EXACTLY the character. In Nolan's films, Bruce is portrayed as a normal guy who just wants to live a happy life with his childhood girlfriend, but feels some kind of obligation to Gotham to be Batman. That is NOT the character. As for the Joker, I've grown ridiculously tired of the "Jack was playing Jack" argument. Has anyone who ever said this A) Read a classic Joker story or B) Watched the Animated Series? Nicholson was cast as this character because the Joker read like a Jack Nicholson character. Also, Jack Nicholson is a very calm, grouchy looking fellow. In Batman, he constantly laughed his ass off at inappropriate things, shot his most loyal henchman for a reason that only made sense to him, and danced around a museum while trashing the joint. That's not Jack Nicholson. That's the Joker, and far more of the Joker than anyone saw in The Dark Knight.
|
|
DragonMasterP
King Koopa
I'd change my avatar, but beardless Luke Harper is too funny.
Posts: 12,019
|
Post by DragonMasterP on Feb 17, 2013 11:55:35 GMT -5
I've always held on to the notion that this was the best Batman movie. It had it's flaws, sure, but it was still great.
Plus, it had probably the best ending of any Batman movie:
|
|
|
Post by hotshotalex on Feb 17, 2013 12:05:57 GMT -5
To quote Bat Mite on the Brave and Bold:
"Batman's rich history allows him to be interpreted in a multitude of ways. To be sure, this is a lighter incarnation, but it's certainly no less valid and true to the character's roots than the tortured avenger crying out for mommy and daddy."
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Feb 17, 2013 12:15:06 GMT -5
One thing I never get about the "Jack was just playing Jack with Joker make-up on"...even disregarding the fact that Nicholson probably doesn't dance around art museums listening to Prince every day, isn't that just saying Nicholson is a perfect natural choice for the Joker? Going back to his BBS days, you could see that blend of humor and danger in Nicholson's performances that made him such a great Joker.
Think back to the initial announcement that Heath Ledger would be the Joker. 100% outrage with most fans stating he would never top Nicholson. Ledger had to throw out his complete image when he played the Joker, whereas when Nicholson was cast, it just made complete sense. It's a weird twist on the Dustin Hoffman/Laurence Olivier "Try acting, dear boy" anecdote. How it became a knock on Nicholson's performance that his acting persona was naturally close to the Joker's baffles me.
Also, why is it that one has to always be better or you can only be a fan of one, especially when they're portraying a character that has it written into his comic continuity that his personality is always in flux? Both Nicholson and Ledger, despite the differences in their acting choices, were phenomenal Jokers.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,524
|
Post by FinalGwen on Feb 17, 2013 12:38:32 GMT -5
Never much liked this one as a kid, and recent rewatches haven't done anything to change my opinion. Seemed like 20 minutes of plot stretched out to a full movie, with most scenes plodding along at such a slow pace that they could barely be said to be moving. Also, sorry to all the dedicated Nicholson fans here, but hated his version of Joker, and since it focuses so much on him, that's probably the main reason I don't like the film.
The one thing I love is the score. Some of Elfman's best movie work, and the main theme is iconic.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Feb 17, 2013 13:08:03 GMT -5
Never much liked this one as a kid, and recent rewatches haven't done anything to change my opinion. Seemed like 20 minutes of plot stretched out to a full movie, with most scenes plodding along at such a slow pace that they could barely be said to be moving. Also, sorry to all the dedicated Nicholson fans here, but hated his version of Joker, and since it focuses so much on him, that's probably the main reason I don't like the film. Well, that's what the character is. That's the Joker, not Jack Nicholson, so maybe you just don't really like the Joker. I almost don't even believe you though. I just checked your age and you're too young to remember this film from when it came out, which makes your post seem purposefully misleading like you're implying that you saw it when it was new and have the same perspective on it as those who did. This following Hit-Monkey post hits this monkey right on the head: 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. They got Bruce/Batman's character much more right in Batman '89 than Christopher Nolan did. Being someone who just claimed to watch the Animated Series, you should see that. Keaton's Batman was driven to a point where people around him questioned his sanity. He was chilling and calculating, and had no idea how to interact with people. That's EXACTLY the character. In Nolan's films, Bruce is portrayed as a normal guy who just wants to live a happy life with his childhood girlfriend, but feels some kind of obligation to Gotham to be Batman. That is NOT the character. As for the Joker, I've grown ridiculously tired of the "Jack was playing Jack" argument. Has anyone who ever said this A) Read a classic Joker story or B) Watched the Animated Series? Nicholson was cast as this character because the Joker read like a Jack Nicholson character. Also, Jack Nicholson is a very calm, grouchy looking fellow. In Batman, he constantly laughed his ass off at inappropriate things, shot his most loyal henchman for a reason that only made sense to him, and danced around a museum while trashing the joint. That's not Jack Nicholson. That's the Joker, and far more of the Joker than anyone saw in The Dark Knight.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,524
|
Post by FinalGwen on Feb 17, 2013 13:16:04 GMT -5
When it comes to my age... Why the hell does that matter? I didn't say I was there in the cinema when it was originally shown, I said I saw it as a kid, which is a fact. I'm not implying anything beyond that. Are only people who saw things on their original broadcast allowed to have opinions? What an incredibly asinine post
And there are many interpretations of the Joker that I do enjoy, from Hamill to Romero to Ledger, so your other point is equally stupid. I'm sorry you're bitter that someone else has a different opinion to you, but there really is no need to be so defensive.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on Feb 17, 2013 13:42:08 GMT -5
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Feb 17, 2013 13:43:04 GMT -5
I'm not being defensive, I'm telling you what I think. You got all frazzled and flamed me by calling me "stupid" and "asinine". THAT is being overly defensive. My point about your age is you weren't around to experience the Bat-mania that went along with this film so it's not a fair comparison. At least I don't think so.
I'll indulge you if it will make you feel better, what did you hate about Jack Nicholson's "take on the character"?
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,524
|
Post by FinalGwen on Feb 17, 2013 14:10:43 GMT -5
If the opening post said "If you were around to see it in 1989, did it stand up to the Batmania?" or something along those lines, then it might have been a valid point. As it is, it's merely a thread for posting opinions on the film, and you, for some reason, called me "purposefully misleading" just for posting my opinion. And quite honestly, I do consider that to be asinine. It'd be "misleading" for me to say otherwise.
Anyway, the Joker of the film would never have appealed to me regardless of the actor. Burton's take on him being a generic gangster character transformed into the Joker didn't really work that well for me. It's not the first new origin story the Joker's been given, but when I try and understand why he was made into a gangster rather than anything else, the only thing I can come up with is so that he could have an explanation for all his underlings running around. When you compare it to what was done with the origin story the previous year with The Killing Joke, it doesn't compare. Now granted, the movie had to fit in a lot more than The Killing Joke, given that it needed to establish Batman and Joker at the same time, but still, it's a take on the character that I don't enjoy. As for how the character was acted, it's another Jack that comes to mind, rather than Nicholson or Napier. It's "jack of all trades". They seemed at points like they were trying to make him the serious, grim character then realising that it wasn't that Jokerish, and throwing in a laughing fit or some dancing hoping it'd make the scene as a whole seem more Joker-esque. Now, all Jokers have had their serious moments, but it never felt particularly cohesive here. Other people may disagree, and hey, that's your right.
|
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,403
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Feb 17, 2013 14:16:40 GMT -5
Never rub another man's rhubarb!
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Feb 17, 2013 14:24:54 GMT -5
Loved it. Great film that still works.
The only good movie from the Nolan films was TDK. Begins was slow as hell and Rises was a giant mess of half-ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 17, 2013 14:40:24 GMT -5
Jack wasn't playing Jack. They just had the incredible good fortune to have an actor who was capable of embodying everything that made the character appealing and great.
|
|
|
Post by hotshotalex on Feb 18, 2013 15:28:03 GMT -5
It's funny how defensive people get over their preference in Batman movies.
I've been to other forums were Burton Batman vs Nolan Batman threads have turned into flame wars.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Feb 18, 2013 16:07:56 GMT -5
Bats 89 is probably the truest version of Batman the comic book character put to live action, and while a lot of people claim Prince was coasting through the soundtrack, it's still pretty damn good.
But just out of personal enjoyment, I rank them like this: - The Dark Knight (I just think it's the most exciting of them all and takes the most risks, and I still love Ledger's Joker) - Phantasm (Not perfect, but it does allow Batman to be the detective he's supposed to be) - Returns (DeVito steals the show) - Dark Knight Rises (Wrapped up the Nolan trilogy well, JGL and Hardy kick ass) - Begins (Solid origin story, a bit slow in spots) - Batman 1989 (I think Begins gets more into depth regarding the character) - Batman & Robin (Stupid as hell, but unintentionally hilarious) - Forever (It did give us Kiss From A Rose, but as a movie I think this is the weakest, and what especially pissed me off is Tommy Lee Jones, one of my favorite actors, stinking up the joint with his lame ass Two Face)
Didn't see Batman 66.
|
|