Batman >> View Thread

Author
The Mandarin


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,100


I thought Penguin was a more compelling villain than Joker. I thought Catwoman was a more compelling character than Vicki Vale.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Knight


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,692



NT





It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,781




    Quote:
    I thought Penguin was a more compelling villain than Joker. I thought Catwoman was a more compelling character than Vicki Vale.


I liked Batman Returns better. But man neither movie has aged well.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,493



    Quote:
    I thought Penguin was a more compelling villain than Joker. I thought Catwoman was a more compelling character than Vicki Vale.


I agree with both of those statements but still think the first Batman was better than the sequel, which was just too campy for me. Giant penguins in the sewer and stuff like that? That belongs in the 1966 Batman. But neither movie is that good, especially compared to Nolan's first two Batman movies.



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
thuggernaut


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 557


No, I think Batman 89 is better movie BUT Returns is awesome. An understated Xmas story that people weren't prepared for in the summer of 92.

But as a movie itself, very satisfying. Pfeiffer killed it as Catwoman! Devito was also good, but not nearly as impressive as Nicholson's Joker.

BURTON BAT > NOLAN BAT


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
D. Strange


Member Since: Tue Sep 19, 2017
Posts: 106


I think Mask of the Phantasm was the best theatrical released Batman film.

Yes, it was opened in theaters.

And the arcs for every character were better defined, and the characters more human.

Returns had too much dark for the sake of dark, which can be entertaining, but I have never been too fond of Burton's art school kid style.

In all honesty, Catwoman just seems goofy and over the top to me. I view Batman returns as a dark adaption of the 60s TV show than the comics. Penguin running from Mayor is even a plot in one of those episodes.

Penguin as the toast of Gotham never made sense to me, his scheme and Catwoman's choices never seemed realistic.

I know, I know comic logic.

The great sin in fiction is not plot holes or illogic... it is being uninteresting enough to distract the audience from noticing.

So, then I guess mileage may vary.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
Jeff M


Member Since: Fri Jul 29, 2011
Posts: 96


We just watched all the Burton/ Schumacher films as a family, my wife and daughter had no real connection to them when they came out.

Yes, the Nolan films are better movies, and form a coherent picture of a realistic, finite Batman story.

Yes, I agree with Dr Strange that Mask of the Phantasm was the best Batman movie so far.


Out of the 4 80's and 90's films, Batman and Robin holds up to its intent the best.

Batman was the first well made serious superhero film in a long time, but hasn't aged well.
Return had extra of the cool Tim Burton aesthetic, but had little to do with any version of historical Batman.
Forever had a good (if extreme) Riddler, but a flat lead and a lot of transitional stuff.

Batman and Robin is still exactly what is was designed to be:
An all ages, merchandising driven, as goofy as 1950's era comics, kinda stupid but fun film, with some of the best Bruce/Alfred relationship stuff ever filmed.

Is it anywhere near Oscar territory? Lord, No.
Does it line up with the modern version of comic book Batman? No.

But it was the first non-Adam West live action Batman film I could show my daughter when she was little. And its still her favorite.

And though it may destroy most of my credibility of being a life long comic book reader, I still crack up at Arnold singing the Snow Miser song.

Jeff
www.dogfoodforchairs.com






Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 7
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,027




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Iron Matt


Member Since: Wed Apr 17, 2013
Posts: 452


The plot was also more complex.

To be clear, I did like the 1989 Batman film. I just liked Batman Returns better. (Unlike the Joel Schumacher films that followed...)


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Linux
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,493



    Quote:
    We just [tortured ourselves and] watched all the Burton/ Schumacher films as a family, my wife and daughter had no real connection to them when they came out.



    Quote:

    Out of the 4 80's and 90's films, Batman and Robin holds up to its intent the best is just the worst.



    Quote:
    Batman was the first [almost] well made serious superhero film in a long time, but hasn't aged well. Return had extra of the cool campy Tim Burton aesthetic, but had little to do with any version of historical Batman.
    Forever had a good (if extreme) tiresomely over-the-top Riddler, but a flat lead and a lot of transitional stuff.



    Quote:
    Batman and Robin is still exactly what is was designed to be:
    An all ages, merchandising driven, as goofy as 1950's era comics, kinda very stupid but fun film, with some of the best worst Bruce/Alfred relationship stuff ever filmed.



    Quote:
    Is it anywhere near Oscar Razzy territory? Lord, No Yes.
    Does it line up with the modern version of comic book Batman? No.

Fixed.





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Jeff M


Member Since: Fri Jul 29, 2011
Posts: 96


Um...yeah.

I gotta ask.

Have you ever watched the Schumacher films with children, their admitted intended audience?

There were bunches in the theater when they came out, and I've since seen them with friends and family.  Kids loved em.
The director mentions multiple times in the commentary, he took the opinion, and was directed to by the studio, that kids like Batman and to make the films geared towards them.

Batman Forever was very successful when  released.

Minor correction- The Burton films weren't "camp"  Adam West's series and the Schumacher films were. 


Jeff



Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software