Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 7, 2009 16:42:47 GMT -5
It's called an INTERPRETATION, moron. Haha, and for awhile I thought LOG was free of temper-tantrums. To the above poster...sorry man, but Burton was actually way more into the A-list cast than Nolan. Bale was a virtual nobody, save American Psycho, and Heath Ledger..well lets just say he was vastly less known than oh, I dunno, Jack Nicholson! Danny DeVito! Michelle Pfeiffer! I mean, c'mon. Burton makes great movies. I'm an avid Tim Burton fan myself. I love his work..I love his vision. I do not, however, LOVE his Batman films. They should be called "Tim Burton presents: Batman", becuause its strictly his vision. Nolan, on the other hand, while not perfect, has taken way more from the comics and accepted bat-lore with his films. Are the movies perfect? No. Bale's voice, btw, was amplified in editing to be more growly..a big mistake as far as most fans are concerned. In the first movie it wasn't so ..cookie monster. I enjoy both directors for what they are. The only one I don't enjoy, is Mr. Schumacher. Nicholson and DeVito were the casts that you just couldn't beat. They WERE the characters to begin with (not to mention Jack was Bob Kane's personal pick). As for Pfeiffer, I'd say she was on the same level as Bale to begin with. I think Ledger did have his share of popularity previous to TDK. The Brokeback Mountain was big at the Academy Awards... Although the common-man might not have known his name, the fangirls sure did. And amen to your Schumacher statement.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 7, 2009 23:02:40 GMT -5
It's called an INTERPRETATION, moron. Haha, and for awhile I thought LOG was free of temper-tantrums. And for a while I thought LOG was free of ignorant people. Weird.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 8, 2009 1:21:20 GMT -5
IS THIS A JOKE? Burton all the way. First of all, the actors. Christopher Nolan was restricted to his precious A-list, while Time Burton took chances and hired the BEST Batman, Michael Keaton. Sorry Bale, maybe you'll get the voice right within the next 5 sequels. Honestly, I didn't even notice the voice being particularly bad the first time I watched. In watching it again, I agree that they should have toned it down. I think the idea is right though. Batman should have a different voice from Bruce, because his secret is important to his life and his cause. I think that your statement that Burton took a chance and hired the best Batman is rather funny though. Burton and Keaton had worked together in Beetlejuice. That was relying on someone he already knew could act. The people that were taking a chance were the network executives because Keaton had up until that point been more into comedy. I agree that Keaton did a good job, but I think Bale did a good job as well (moreso in Begins). Nolan tends to steer clear of A-list actors. Bale's work with Nolan has made him an A-list actor. I would not say that it is a stupid idea. Batman is one of the most realistic heroes out there. I think that if it weren't for team-ups with non-realistic DC superheroes, the Batman we know now would be even more realistic. I think it was a good idea to go for a new approach because there is no reason to make the exact same film that Burton did. Audiences have seen that approach. It is better to get some variation than becoming stagnant. Some people like the realism better. This is a matter of taste, most every fan will say that both series had their own merits. That isn't enough said. The tank goes with the realistic theme. We have established that you do not care for the realism. So unless you have more to say on the subject, this is more a matter of taste as well. I was so dissappointed that there was never a showdown between Scarecrow and Batman. I thought Scarecrow was portrayed well, but I was itching for a fight between the two. Neeson is a great actor, but I wouldn't consider him A-list. Perhaps we have different definitions of A-list celebrities. When Begins came out, the only other movie I had seen him in was Star Wars Ep. I. Now if it were someone like Al Pacino, that would be A-list. If Bruce were played by Keaneau (sp?) Reeves or Brad Pitt, that would be A-list. Two Face didn't randomly catch on fire. The oil that he had tipped over while trying to escape caught a flame and went up. To me, that makes more sense than acid only hitting one side of his face. I disagree that Jack's Joker was perfect. Rather than providing a character, Jack basically just acted the same way he does in every movie he is in. As far as your comment about Bob Kane, that is not really a far statement in that he had died before the new series was started up. I think if they were going for fangirls, they would have casted someone like Justin Timberlake or one of the Jonas brothers ;D. His acting was unlike anything I have seen before. The way that his voice sounded, the way that he walked, and so many subtle details were just a treat to watch. The Joker has been around for so many years and so locked into a certain look and feel that I thought the character could not be successfully changed. I believe I was wrong in that sense. I believe that Heath's performance rivals decades worth of interpretation. I thought the Joker was hilarious. Admittedly, the things he did were far more grotesque, I though a lot of what he did was hilarious. When he is asking everyone at the fundraiser if they had seen Dent, that was great. "I want to talk to him. It's just something little." As well when he let Rachel drop, "Poor choice of words." And his speech about "agressive expansion" was just awesome. Note: I'm not saying that Jack was not funny. Of course Heath has fake make up on. That is part of the story. Jack's make up is supposed to be real, but it looks worse. In all fairness, make up has gotten better since '89. I'm sure that Jack's make up was state of the art at the time. I love what they did with Joker's backstory. It is a nod to the fact that the Joker likes his origin to be multiple choice. I believe the reason that the Joker has differing backstories is that it is difficult to do the character justice. Why does the Joker need a backstory? Could you more clearly define such themes in Burton's films? I'm not saying they aren't there, but that I can't think of any at the moment.
|
|
batsy68
Legions Of Gothamite
"why do we fall bruce?" "errr.. so we can claim compo?"
Posts: 36
|
Post by batsy68 on Jan 8, 2009 6:28:42 GMT -5
The films are children of their times. You can't compare them really. Times and tastes have changed. The only thing I know is that for me, Keaton was a far better Batman. That crazed twinkle in his eyes gave him a definate edge. Keaton I would leave alone. Bale, I would slap his chubby chin.LOL
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 13:25:10 GMT -5
Haha, and for awhile I thought LOG was free of temper-tantrums. And for a while I thought LOG was free of ignorant people. Weird. Congratulations, you have succeeded in making an [edited] out of yourself by failing to make a legible post. Good job. Honestly, I didn't even notice the voice being particularly bad the first time I watched. In watching it again, I agree that they should have toned it down. I think the idea is right though. Batman should have a different voice from Bruce, because his secret is important to his life and his cause. I think that your statement that Burton took a chance and hired the best Batman is rather funny though. Burton and Keaton had worked together in Beetlejuice. That was relying on someone he already knew could act. The people that were taking a chance were the network executives because Keaton had up until that point been more into comedy. I agree that Keaton did a good job, but I think Bale did a good job as well (moreso in Begins). Nolan tends to steer clear of A-list actors. Bale's work with Nolan has made him an A-list actor. I wasn’t really going anywhere with Bale’s Bat-Voice, it’s still a trademark of Batman ever since Keaton’s days as Batman. The best Batman is really opinion, they all have their upsides (but Clooney and West didn’t disguise their voices that well). I would not say that it is a stupid idea. Batman is one of the most realistic heroes out there. I think that if it weren't for team-ups with non-realistic DC superheroes, the Batman we know now would be even more realistic. I think it was a good idea to go for a new approach because there is no reason to make the exact same film that Burton did. Audiences have seen that approach. It is better to get some variation than becoming stagnant. Some people like the realism better. This is a matter of taste, most every fan will say that both series had their own merits. From the beginning, Batman was more realistic from the rest, so what makes Nolan’s more so? I think it’s just been a trait of Batman’s and you really shouldn’t have to publicize the ‘realism’ in it. That isn't enough said. The tank goes with the realistic theme. We have established that you do not care for the realism. So unless you have more to say on the subject, this is more a matter of taste as well Well, I guess this is a matter of opinion as well. To me, it was just a ginormous tank. Keaton’s also had to be constructed and working in real life too (I’m not sure about that cocoon mode or Batmissile mode though). I was so dissappointed that there was never a showdown between Scarecrow and Batman. I thought Scarecrow was portrayed well, but I was itching for a fight between the two. Although the actor was simply a Batman reject, I think it was mostly Nolan’s design that made him come to life and make us want more of the character, but he could have been more able. AT LEAST he’s still on the run though and didn’t go away like a complete [edited]. Neeson is a great actor, but I wouldn't consider him A-list. Perhaps we have different definitions of A-list celebrities. When Begins came out, the only other movie I had seen him in was Star Wars Ep. I. Now if it were someone like Al Pacino, that would be A-list. If Bruce were played by Keaneau (sp?) Reeves or Brad Pitt, that would be A-list. A-list or not, who cares if he fulfilled the role. Two Face didn't randomly catch on fire. The oil that he had tipped over while trying to escape caught a flame and went up. To me, that makes more sense than acid only hitting one side of his face. I KNOW he didn’t, but it seemed like it happened all too fast. I just prefer the original method. Jack's make up is supposed to be real, but it looks worse. It was their job to create what a botched plastic surgery and permanent smile would look like. I think they achieved that much. They also used acrylics, which looked much better when giving the ‘bleached’ look than face paint would. Then again Heath wasn’t even bleached. Why does the Joker need a backstory? To me, it’s courtesy to the viewer. We want the scoop on the Joker. He kinda pops out of nowhere THEN starts acting like the Joker. Could you more clearly define such themes in Burton's films? I'm not saying they aren't there, but that I can't think of any at the moment. To me, a surreal atmosphere with fictional characters and situations. Real enough so you can relate, but still with a classic comic style to it. Batsy68, I also like your attitude towards it all.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Jan 8, 2009 14:00:42 GMT -5
To everyone... this thread should probably be locked at this point but Im giving you all a chance to refrain from any further insults and name calling and inappropriate language. Period.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 8, 2009 14:01:04 GMT -5
FYI, the next person to post any sort of personal jab of any kind will be temporarily banned from the site. Lets give it a rest and talk Batman.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 8, 2009 14:05:34 GMT -5
Nicholson and DeVito were the casts that you just couldn't beat. They WERE the characters to begin with (not to mention Jack was Bob Kane's personal pick). As for Pfeiffer, I'd say she was on the same level as Bale to begin with. I think Ledger did have his share of popularity previous to TDK. The Brokeback Mountain was big at the Academy Awards... Although the common-man might not have known his name, the fangirls sure did. And amen to your Schumacher statement. Ok, firstly..I respect your opinions on Burton. I know that many Batman fans really came into loving Batman because of the Burton films and its made the franchise what it is today. That aside, I think Jack was a horrid choice for Joker. He was, however, a great choice for Joker in Tim Buton's universe. Being a fan for my entire life, I've experienced a number of incarnations of Batman and I think I have learned to compartmentalize them all. If you watch cartoons or read comics very long, you have to be able to do this, I think. The Burton Bat-Verse is great. Love it. The Nolan Bat-Verse is great. Love it even more. Heath was never "popular". Was his name known to some? Sure. But Jack Nicholson was definately known to more people, which was your point as far as "A-List" casting. Burton used a lot more A-listers than Nolan, hands down. I think both have their place. In the eclectic time of 1989-1992, Burton was the better directorial choice. In the new millenium..Nolan is definately our boy.
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 14:15:01 GMT -5
Yeah, you have the right general outline of it all. Another thing to consider is that Nolan's wouldn't be half as great if it hadn't been for Burton's. Heath would just be a carbon-copy of Jack, Batman would be flambouyant, Robin would probably find his place in, and it would be like 1966, but with better effects. Not to mention the Black-Suit Batman was also created with Batman. I think it's up to opinion at this point, but nostalgia doesn't matter at all.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 8, 2009 15:21:58 GMT -5
Well, I think its most definately up to opinion either way. There is no right or wrong. Unless you're talking about Schumacher! lol
Honestly, though...I think that many things came from Burton's Batman...Batman: The Animated Series being the most notable. But honestly, we can credit the Englehart/Rogers team back in the 70s for "de-camping" Batman..and then Frank Miller in the 80s. If Burton's Batman was responsible for making Batman serious, then why did we get Batman Forever and Batman & Robin?! lol. The Nolans and Goyer looked to the work of Miller and Loeb when working on these films, more than Tim Burton, imo.
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 17:42:20 GMT -5
I guess 'ole Joel wasn't a fan of the whole 'serious Batman' issue. He was hired to take down what Burton already imagined for the sake of Grandmas and 3-year-olds everywhere.
Now, I believe Batman was a serious concept from the beginning, and that continued in the comics. The '60s show popularized it and made the public eye believe Batman was campy. I think Burton showed the general public what a serious Batman is.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 8, 2009 18:13:21 GMT -5
the comics were campy long before the tv show. That started in the 50's after that "dr." claimed that batman and robin were living a "homosexual fantasy" and that the comics had the potential to turn readers into homosexuals.
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 18:40:30 GMT -5
On the theme of Batman and homosexuals... Well, I already got a warning for using profound language, but believe me; I am tempted. While Batman existed in its fame and glory, some basement-dweller with nothing better to do with his time started making absurd statements to get publicity. That's my interpretation of the story. This "Dr." was the evil mastermind behind the... [shriek] Comics Code Authority! Come to think of it, I think his book turned peoplpe into homosexuals...
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 8, 2009 18:48:49 GMT -5
i was just explaining why they got campy...
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 18:52:24 GMT -5
Sorry, but the "rumor" is still around today, and we have him to blame for it.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 8, 2009 19:07:45 GMT -5
what are you talking about man? it's not a rumor. this dude who was a doctor actually made the case that batman and robin were homosexuals. we all know that they're not, but back in the day people actually bought into this crap. you blamed the campiness on the tv show and i was just saying that, no, the campiness was due to this dr guy.
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 19:19:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I know he actually tried to present a case, but I was just saying that the homosexual rumors aren't going away.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 8, 2009 19:26:37 GMT -5
oh, well of course, it's a great subject of comedy and parody. but we all know that they aren't really gay, not that there's anything wrong with that lifestyle.
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 8, 2009 20:15:55 GMT -5
Let's not get into the moral issue of it all, but I just see it as some guy trying to get dirt on the Bat.
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on Jan 8, 2009 20:48:25 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]I am siding with snooch on this subject.
The physiologist that presented this case was named Fredric Wertham. Not only did he say Batman was homosexual, he also said that Wonder Woman was also homosexual. So all comic books ended up having to be approved of with the Comics Code Authority. Then comics became known as campy!
But I would like to state that the producers of the 1960s series wanted the show to be campy. Just like the comics at the time!
And trust me, people believed Batman was a homosexual long before this guy did. [/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 8, 2009 21:07:28 GMT -5
Thank you, jacktheskull
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Jan 8, 2009 21:25:53 GMT -5
Not to get off the main topic of this thread, but the term "camp" was genericaly adopted to define that whole era because of the show. The comic books were not "campy", they were simple light hearted, sci fi styled adventures. As were all the comics of that period. The television show was originally planned to go a more serious route but Dozier thought that taking the series in the camp comedy direction would be the only way it would work so that it would appeal to both children and adults.
Camp....a critical analysis and at the same time a big joke. Camp takes “something” (normally a social norm, object, phrase, or style), does a very acute analysis of what the “something” is, then takes the “something” and presents it humorously. As a performance, camp is meant to be an allusion. A person being campy has a generalization they are intentionally making fun of or manipulating. Though camp is a joke it's also a very serious analysis done by people who are willing to make a joke out of themselves to prove a point.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jan 9, 2009 7:48:55 GMT -5
I thought this was the NOlan vs BUrton thread and not the "is batman gay?" thread.
lets get back to the issue at hand guys
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 9, 2009 10:47:43 GMT -5
I'm with havedunter74 on this one...lets stick to the topic. If you guys want an "Is Batman Gay?" thread you're sorely disappointed, all we'll have is an ethical debate on whether being gay is acceptable, and I won't tolerate open homophobia on the boards here, so lets just avoid it.
|
|
Slash
Legions Of Gothamite
The REAL Batman
Posts: 55
|
Post by Slash on Jan 9, 2009 16:01:44 GMT -5
There is no debate to whether he is gay or not, we've estabolished that was just made up by some quack.
I'm done with THAT topic.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jan 9, 2009 17:25:22 GMT -5
for sure, I have to say that I enjoyed each of the films by both directors cos Im just a huge Batman fan and these films have bought me hours of pleasure (apart from Batman and Robin,Batman Forever is bearable).
I use this site to discuss Batman issue's, if people want to discuss Batman sexual orientation then they are very sad and are not welcome on this site
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Jan 10, 2009 0:00:17 GMT -5
no one was discussing their sexuality, just the fact that it was called into question and was partly the reason the series went camp
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jan 10, 2009 5:40:42 GMT -5
even so, it is a thread about the pro's and con's about Tim Burton and Chris Nolans movie's so I think we should stick to the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by svengali1337 on Jan 10, 2009 11:02:59 GMT -5
^Agree'd, i've been away and it seems (with my absence of course) that this thread has gotten chaoticly intense. But now im back, so everything is going to be ok
|
|
|
Post by Jack-Ups on Jan 10, 2009 12:53:43 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Dark Nightwing sums up my thoughts back on page 1. IMO Nolan got the character far better than Burton did, Burton made Batman too kooky and weird, and you can tell Burton's thoughts on Comics by watching those films, i still enjoy them for there history, but as a Batman fan Nolan's series is just on a different level when presenting and respecting the characters, they did there comic research and it paid off by staying true to what the characters should be.
Burton's Batman is not Batman, he quite close to the first appearance Batman , but at the comics in 89 Batman wasn't like that. I respect people's opinions and its what you prefer style wise at the end of the day, but its clear as day that Nolan's Batman has been the better one, from overall critical and fan feedback.[/glow]
|
|