HOME | DD
KooboriSapphire β RIP Batman Movies
Published: 2010-11-02 03:28:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 3330; Favourites: 56; Downloads: 21
Redirect to original
Description
PLEASE LOOK THROUGH MY GALLERY FOR I HAVE BETTER THINGS IN THERE THAN STAMPS & MOTIVATIONAL POSTERS
It needed to be done.
No, for real. The Batman movies died after "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm". Sure Batman Forever was pretty good, but I just wasn't feeling it up to the level of goodness as the others. And Nolan's version (this realistic shit) of Batman was just Boring, & missed the point of Batman completely. Yeah Nolan's Batman was closer to the comic books, but even so, it didn't help. And don't get me started on his version of a Batman Score.
The only thing keeping Batman alive now other than the movies are the animated series.
Related content
Comments: 85
π: 0 β©: 0
Am i the only one who thinks this sounds very nostalgia-biased?Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Love the Nolanverse films, but the Tim Burton films I miss the most because his art matches up to the gothic atmosphere of the Batman universe.
π: 0 β©: 0
I watched Burton's "Batman" and Nolan's TDK and liked both of them for different reasons...
TDK doesn't feel like a comic book film AT ALL to me. It feels like a film set in the real world with Batman characters forcibly pulled into it. Nolan somehow manages to make this daft idea make sense, but it still doesn't make the film look and feel like a comic book. Gotham itself isn't nearly stylized enough, it just looks like a regular modern city with some beautiful night cinematography plastered all over it.
The dialogue is really good and I loved the acting. Heath Ledger is amazing as The Joker, better acting than even Jack Nicholson's version. On the other hand, Jack Nicholson's Joker makes more sense as a comic book villain and was better scripted... and Michael Keaton is much better than Christian Bale as Batman, though I do think I slightly prefer Bale's Bruce Wayne.
TDK ranges from meh to good until it gets to Harvey Dent's fall from grace, at which the point the story kicks up a notch and becomes all kinds of fantastic, with lots of sometimes cheesy but very moving and inspirational moment. Aaron Eckhart is very good as Two-Face. Still, even then the movie has problems that it never fully irons out and those bug me.
Burton's "Batman" is an incredible, all-around awesome, enjoyable comic book film experience. Everything fits perfectly and is great through and through. The overall feel is much better than that of TDK. I do think, though, that in its best moments, TDK outshines Burton's Batman... but only in its best, which is not that often.
TDK's music score has the Joker theme, which is all kinds of epic and really sells an already amazing performance by Heath Ledger, but the rest of the music is just MEH and BLEH and more MEH and BLEH. Very forgettable. Danny Elfman's score, OTOH, is amazing, the Batman theme kicks so much ass.
TDK has more action scenes (or so it feels) and are more EXPLOSIVE-ZOOM-WAHBOOM but Burton's action scenes are filmed much better with more clarity and grace. IMO, Nolan is trying too hard to be Michael Bay in his action sequences and what works for Bay doesn't necessarily work for Nolan.
In conclusion, I'd compare Burton's film to an extraordinarily graceful dancer, whose movements feel like perfection. Then TDK comes along and walks across several tightropes until we're dizzy from admiration... but then, after climbing off the tightropes, he trips on sidewalks over and over again. The admiration is still there, but the "perfection" is forever shattered.
Burton's "Batman" -- even, consistently enjoyable, all-around epic experience. TDK -- ridiculously uneven, has lots of problems, but the best-best moments occasionally far outshine Burton's film... but it happens too rarely.
In the end, I think I'd give a slight edge to Burton, but I did like both films and would recommend them both to most viewers. However, only one of them (the Burton one) feels like a comic book film, so if for a particular viewer this happens to be a particularly important distinction, then TDK is a no-no.
I have not watched any other Batman movie or series and I have not read any Batman comics, so take my opinion with a huge grain of salt. Just my 2 cents, nothing more.
π: 0 β©: 0
I personally think that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are so bad it's good movies while the Burton Batman movies and the animated seriesΒ are just AWESOME.Β The Nolan movies are just boring (the only thing I liked was their interpretation of Two Face)
π: 0 β©: 0
Personally, I think batman and robin is so bad that it is hilarious. Much like The Room of Comic book movies. So bad, it's hilarious.
π: 0 β©: 1
I could only go the distance with Batman and Robin until that scene where Poison Ivy breaks the Coolinator--er--I mean--Mr. Freeze out of prison. So to me, it's hard to try to watch Batman and Robin as a "so bad it's good" movie.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sorry but Burton's Batman movies are all style and no substance, sure they were fine long ago but that is changed.
Nolan's Batman movies are the definitive batman movies.
Nolan's films are Frank Miller's and Alan Moore's vision, read them
π: 0 β©: 1
Nolan's Batman movies just need to jump of a damn cliff.
π: 0 β©: 1
Burton's films are a joke
π: 0 β©: 1
At least I can call them Batman, unlike the other live action adaptions (despite being closer to the comics).
π: 0 β©: 0
Batman and Robin was good!
said no one ever.
π: 0 β©: 1
Pffft! Batman and robin was the funniest and most hillarious of the batman movies. I like saying the ice puns by mr freeze when i play as an ice related character in a video game.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
The Christopher Nolan movies over killed it because it was uncanon to the comics
Joker was more creepy than he should be
Two-Face isn't blonde and has never been
Bane doesn't use venom, the main reason he can stand up to heroes like Cyborg or maybe even Superman
so... no, it's not close to the comics. Forever was close to the comics, 1989 was close to the comics, HELL Batman and Robin was close to the comics!!!
π: 0 β©: 2
Nolan's movies are based on Frank Miller's take.
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? So were Burton's with the added bonus of The Killing Joke, Burton even said it himself!
π: 0 β©: 0
Nolan's are closer to the comics, but they have nothing to do with the DC universe.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have to disagree.
π: 0 β©: 1
You have to disagree, fine, then show me one Superman reference in those films, or a Wonder Woman reference, or a Justice Society reference.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes! Someone who agrees!Β
I've never been interested in Batman before, however when everyone talked about how great Nolan's re-imagining was, I decided to sit down in front of the T.V and take a chance....I wanted to fall asleep.Β
Sure the actions scenes were well done, and the Joker was pretty damn creepy, but Bale's voice for Batman was laughable and there was so much realistic political crap that I could barely understand what was going one. In the end, it just didn't work out for me.Β
I will say, though, that it's caught my eye on the hero Batman is, and I try to watch Tim Burton's films should the chance come
π: 0 β©: 0
I liked the first two Nolan movies, but "The Dark Knight Rises" was boring and disappointing. Maybe that's why James Holmes went on that rampage.
π: 0 β©: 1
How was it disappointing & boring? It was the best of the franchise & definitely made up for that borefest second one. The second one was loaded with inconsistencies.
π: 0 β©: 1
Bruce Wayne was only Batman for about ten minutes, Bane looked and sounded ridiculous, Bruce was too quick to trust Selina after she robbed him and lead him to Bane, Bane was taken out anti-climactically, and that reveal with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character's birth name being Robin was such a stupid way to incorporate Robin into the story.
Many more plot holes can be pointed out in this video: [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Nope. Nolan's wasn't closer. Batman has been everything from swashbuckler to noir to science fiction. Officially, there is no "right" batman. So why don't you like the Dark Knight?
π: 0 β©: 1
It had a lot of inconsistencies, loaded with continuities, & was executed with an overlong run time that felt like nothing more than an extended episode of CSI with Sherlock Holmes wearing a Batman costume but without the actual Batman feel. Plus I don't recall the Joker wearing makeup & Batman sounding like he had to up chuck something from his throat. The score to the movie as well as the previous one was also bad, possibly one of the weakest heroic scores to date.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I had problems with Burton making the Joker Bruce's parents' killer. The whole point of Batman was that crime was anonymous, so Batman had to be anonymous if he wanted to make a difference. And Batman kills a warehouse full of people and has guns on the batmobile. Pretty much contradicting his entire moral code. And I prefer the Joker anonymous. Nobody knows who he is or why he does what he does, he's a psychopath just as mysterious as Batman. If he had the chemical skin, the fanboys would instantly know what his deal is, and why he wants the Batman dead.
Sure, Nolan's score wasn't as atmospheric, Bale was really over the top, and I wanted to see the Joker gas, but it was a better treatment than Burton's first batman. His second, on the other hand, was pure awesomeness.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh the first one, while I loved it, made me lul when I saw that he made Bruce's killer the Joker, but that being said Burton did make it clear he wanted to make his own version of Batman. Yes Joker is anonymous, but I like the Joker to be both the sinister & comical villain he's always been. Nolan's Joker, while the performance of a lifetime by Ledger, only stood more on the sinister side than the comical one, which was a major flaw in him. But unlike Nolan's Batman, I can actually call Burton's Batman, both of them, Batman, because when I see his movies, the world of Gotham city is as it should be, towering buildings with a gothic & Guignol look to them, large humanoid figures & faces all over the place, a dark look to them, & beautiful setting. Nolan's Batman just looks like an over-sized New York City, & I recall Begins being so dark that I could barely see anything on the screen (no pun intended).
Batman Returns is still the better of the live-action Batman movies.
π: 0 β©: 1
You did make some good points. I think the Nolan movies are better on average, but I really wonder where Burton would have gone after Returns. I think Burton's hit-or-miss, but I really couldn't see him failing if you handed him Mr. Freeze or Two-Face.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh no, Two-Face & Mr. Freeze are way off on his style. Maybe Harley or Poison Ivy would work, but never those two.
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? Those two(not in the same movie, of course) would fit the gotham that Burton created well. The people in his gotham could pretty much be grouped into four categories:
The toughest, smartest, luckiest bastards in the world
People with mob connections
Wealthy jerks who are oblivious to the problems of gotham
The people who are under pressure because they are none of the above. All they need to do is loose a bet, or make the wrong person angry to crack. Then they start wearing brightly colored suits and exploding people who they don't like.
Burton did that with the Joker and Catwoman, and Harvey Dent appeared in Returns, so I think two-face was right up his alley. I don't think the animated series had showed Harley's origin yet, and the Joker's dead anyway. And Nicholson demanded a bajillion dollars to appear in the first movie, so no way he would be coming back. And I'm sorry, Ivy works in the comics and the cartoon, but she would NOT translate well to film.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ivy CAN translate well into the movies, you just need a real good way to do it, & seeing how well Burton is with female characters, he can do great with her.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't think of any way other than a r-rated horror/crime thriller. But Burton's okay with vastly changing characters to fit his movie, so Ivy could have been anything.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not to backlash or anything but you might wanna reconsider batman forever mainly cause it was actually suppose to be darker then what came out,Infact before the films release there was a special screening for news paper writers and what i read from their notes they said that batman forever was actually good in depth with the characters and on the almost level of batman returns (yes it was that dark)but when wb heard about this they had to cut down the film to what it is today so parents wouldn't be on their asses about another dark batman film so they removed 75% of burton moments and added alternate shots/dialog to make the film lighter and campy not only that but tommy lee jones was actually closer to his comic book counterpart then you believe but as said earlier they had to use alternate dialog to make him less serious and more jokery with jim carrey not only that but i also read there was more killing in the film but were cut due to wb.
feel free to hate on me for it just thought i'd let you and everyone else know that joel did make a dark batman film like burton but was force to change or cut everything cause of wb
π: 0 β©: 1
I actually watched it two or three weeks back, it sucked.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's because you watched the theatrical cut not the un-cut version
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with you. I don't care to much for Nolan's version of Batman. Don't get me wrong but I do think that Christian Bale was a good Batman but I didn't like how he growled at the bad guys. I'm old school and I like the old Batman movies better. Plus I also loved the 1989 Batman theme because it was a great theme for Batman. They even did a great theme for the cartoon series and it's familiar to the 89 theme. I don't think there was anything wrong with Nolan having his own theme but I don't care too much of it.
I respect people for liking the new Batman but I just like the old school Batman better.
π: 0 β©: 0
Love this.
I hate the new Dark Night movie.
It was boring,it had no plot,and it was just a bunch of shitty editing put together that was a fuckload of hours long.
I didn't even know what I just watched.
I like batman but hate the shitty new movies.
i liked the old books better.
π: 0 β©: 1
I disagree completely on the plot. All of the new Batman movies have a plot, as much as you didn't like them.
π: 0 β©: 0
The Batman character deserves a supernatural feeling for the audiences regarding both the character and audience.
π: 0 β©: 0
Batman movies are still good if you've seen -
Batman Beyond - Return of the Joker
Batman Superman apocalypses
Batman under the red hood
Batman Knight of Gotham
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, but those weren't shown in theaters.
π: 0 β©: 1
also there were Batman movies before Batman 89
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, the campy, crappy Adam West ones.
π: 0 β©: 1
they were good but in there own way
π: 0 β©: 0
I feel the exact same way about TDK as you do.
π: 0 β©: 0
Like in the Wonka piece, pardon for such a late comment on an old piece. I found it through the Burton club.
Personally, I enjoy the two Burton movies and the Nolan movies. As it was the case with Wonka for me, I think they are so good they balance each other out. The beauty of Batman is that even though at the core of these adaptations lie the same story (young boy witnesses the murder of his parents, traumatizing him into believing that he should bring justice to the city though not with murder and extreme violence) they all take their liberties and have unique ways of telling it.
Burton's Batman movies (especially Batman Returns) nails the beautiful gothic look of Gotham City and its denizens. It really does feel like you are watching a comic book come to life. Returns in particular is drop dead gorgeous in its design and the performances are VERY striking. It perfectly mixes the somewhat goofy appeal of the old 60s Batman show with the grim realities of Batman and friends, creating something that may look goofy but one that is very emotionally satisfying.
Nolan's Batman is a very cerebral approach to the Batman mythos, and I can definitely see why people wouldn't enjoy them. Batman has always been sort of a cerebral super hero, but there was a fantastic level to him that made it breathtaking. Nolan's Batman I am afraid strips a lot of that. What we get is definitely a VERY good commentary of heroes, modern crime and characters that are very familiar but are presented in such a realistic way (Ledger's Joker was amazing in my book). But I think Nolan at times tries TOO HARD to be serious and forgets to have a little bit of fun with Batman.
But like I said, Batman is a hero that has been told in many ways: though 60s camp, comic gothic, cartoons and in a philosophical manner. It all boils down to preference as save for the Schumaker (sp?) movies, they all tend to be highly well received, because at the end of the day the story of Batman is just that damn good.
π: 1 β©: 1
You sir, have nailed it down. Burton's Batman is still better because when I watch his Batman, I can call it Batman as well as Gotham city because it has that Batman & Gotham look & feel to it. While the Nolan ones, the best I can say for those is a heavily extended episode of CSI with a a guy in a mask.
π: 0 β©: 1
The other thing that bothers me about Nolan's Batman is that he refuses to write a story with Robin in it. I get that people don't like Robin that much and consider him a damsel in distress, but great stories CAN be told with him. He doesn't HAVE to be a damsel in distress or a punk. It is silly how Nolan re-invented everything about Batman yet can't or doesn't want to integrate an important element of the story to his version.
Even hardcore fans of Nolan's Batman have agreed that he needs to lighten up when it comes to including Robin in a future movie.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>