Eighties and Nineties Message Board >> View Thread

Author
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139


Two with Michael Keaton. One with Val Kilmer. One with George Clooney. Along the way we got the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, the Riddler, Robin, and others I can't recall. The aesthetic was one part Kane/Fingeroth and one part Nightmare Before Christmas. The first Batman actor might legitimately, under another director, have been cast as the Joker - and I've sometimes wondered if that was the point, that Batman could have been the Joker, and the Joker could have been Batman, or so Tim Burton was trying to imply.

How do you rank these films? Best ever? Worst ever? Better than the 60s film with its celebration of campiness? Worse than the Christopher Nolan films? Better than the Ben Affleck stuff? Worse even than that?

I think Burton's strong point was the villains and the City. I think his weak point was Batman. What do you think?

BONUS QUESTION: How did you react back then?

I was strongly anti-Burton because I was strongly anti-Keaton. I liked Michael Keaton a lot in roles I considered meant for him. I didn't think Batman was meant for him and I couldn't get past it. He would have made a better Joker. Sort of in the Keith Ledger vein.

I also, at the time, wanted zero camp. I wanted all dark all the time. Which of course is what we got with Christopher Nolan's version, pretty much, and I wasn't thrilled with that either. In the end, I think Burton was moving in the right direction. I wonder what Joss Whedon would have done. Probably something closer to Burton than to Nolan.














Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
thuggernaut


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,435


The movies were utterly revolutionary in look and atmosphere, as everyone will concede. BUT they were also SPECTACULAR in character and psychological undertones. I think it's fair to say plot was the weaker point of the two films.

These movies were the zenith of reborn modern Bat-mania and the DIRECT launch point for BTAS (best Batman ever) along with the bronze age comics.

Loved 89 Batman and was blown away by a portrait of two madmen on a collision course for the fate of a dark city. I liked Returns when I saw in in 92, but was a little disappointed because it was so subdued and Christmasy for a summer blockbuster. Pfeiffer's Catwoman was definitive, I've come to appreciate Devito's Penguin more and more, and I still appreciate the movie to this day.


Keaton's two performances as Batman are nothing less than understated leading man genius. Genius, yes I said it. There was something so human and organically real about it. I can watch so many of these scenes over and over again and glean so much of the subtle psychological insight and blackness that went into this character. Keaton's Bat was deeply wounded, distrubed, internal, conflicted, but not yet insane (as many claim). There was just this bottled up madness and anger at the surface seething and waiting to explode. This looming obsession. The way Keaton would *glare* as Batman was fantastic. No words. Just the LOOK. Probably similar to the dark and accusing look young Bruce Wayne gave to Joe Chill in the comics origin.

And I loved how Keaton *looked* in the mask. Besides his supernatural blue eyes, his naturally tented eyebrows fit beautifully with the high arched cowl. It just seemed right, y'know? The first actor to change the voices between Wayne and Batman and he beautifully succeeded. His voice was as chilly as the grave and sounded natural. Not like a kid putting on a tough guy voice. While Kevin Conroy, probably is definitive voice of Batman with the deep resonance and epic gruffness, I find Keaton's voice even more compelling on some level. It's just ice cold and repressed.

I loved the Keaton fighting style. I realize a lot of the "mechanical" quality of it was a function of an unwieldy suit (that looked great). I think the term "bat turn" was coined by the quick turn necessary because he couldn't turn his head. But somehow it worked. It was just quick surgical strikes and precise movements. To quote: "In his Batsuit, Keaton's movements are stylized, almost robotic, and the stiffness of movement carries Arthurian associations, as if he were indeed a dark knight, armored for battle."

On the other hand, I find the Bale's turn as Batman deeply uncompelling and forgettable (except for that voice!). I can really only enjoy the Nolan films for Ledger, marveling at the sheer portentousness, and their snuff film vibe, quite frankly. But this is NOT a bash thread, so I digress!

Back to the long lost Mr. Keaton. I LOVE his Bruce Wayne. Its without precedent in any age of the comic books, yes. But I still love it. I love the fact he's an aloof and reclusive and most people in Gotham wouldn't even know what Bruce Wayne looks like. I prefer the eccentric to the outright playboy act; at least in live action.



Here is the ultimate write-up on the BURTON/KEATON greatness:

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/01/batman-in-movies.html

Some interesting snippets from the article:

This is a true star performance, subtle, authoritative and sexually vibrant.there's genuine pain in the performance, signs of a wounded man trying to shake free of childhood traumas.

His psyche is scarred almost beyond repair. He's a vacuum, in danger of imploding. It is a riveting, understated performance

He only speaks when absolutely necessary, and when he does it's in a ghost - like whisper. When he does speak, you know without doubt he means what he is saying. The obvious way to play a superhero is a gruff yell, but Keaton dials it down to a whisper, which makes him seem all the more intense.

I thought a lot about the character. I wanted to deal with understandable human issues. Loneliness is a big part of it. The kid's 10 years old and he sees something very bad happen and he shuts down. He becomes a very lonely, isolated person

I wanted Michael from the start. I knew he could do it after working with him on Beetlejuice. And there is something in his eyes, a dimension of feeling, even with the mask on.

Again, I felt less is more with him in the sense of who he is. (…) Michael’s eyes - it goes back to kind of like silent movie acting. I like when people sort of just look. It’s a movie so you kinda get more between the lines then you do [from] the actual lines (…) There's a loneliness to that character and witheldness. He’s a character that is sad and is private"
"Even when he's standing there looking there's an electricity about him. Again this is why I wanted him for Batman because its all about that."

Keaton does locate the troubled human inside Batman's armature.

After all these years of internal pain and revenge driven life, he meets someone who is hurting as much as he does inside, and also as fractured, someone who shares the pain - someone who understands. In her he saw a reflection of himself, that she was another psychologically damaged person like him out for revenge. . .

I wanted to see and to show that transition when he goes from Bruce Wayne to Batman, the time when he’s about to don the suit and go out and wreak some havoc. That’s not a casual thing, obviously, it’s not putting on a jacket to go out for the evening. So what is that transition like? So there was a thing we did early on that showed him going into a sort of trance and it justified this shift in him. So we did that scene and it never made it into the film but I think helped me in a way. It was part of the way he became this other thing and even if you didn’t see it, it was part of the character and the way we created him

"You totally destroy your credibility if you show the literal process by which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman"



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 65.0 on Windows 7
Incriptus


Location: Incriptus
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,734






Only Drax the Legend can quote Drax the Legend. NT · Drax the Legend
Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,073



    Quote:
    Two with Michael Keaton. One with Val Kilmer. One with George Clooney. Along the way we got the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, the Riddler, Robin, and others I can't recall. The aesthetic was one part Kane/Fingeroth and one part Nightmare Before Christmas. The first Batman actor might legitimately, under another director, have been cast as the Joker - and I've sometimes wondered if that was the point, that Batman could have been the Joker, and the Joker could have been Batman, or so Tim Burton was trying to imply.


Fingeroth? Don't you mean Finger? And in any case Bill Finger and Danny Fingeroth are/were writers, so I'm not sure what their (visual) aesthetics are/were.


    Quote:
    How do you rank these films? Best ever? Worst ever? Better than the 60s film with its celebration of campiness? Worse than the Christopher Nolan films? Better than the Ben Affleck stuff? Worse even than that?


As far as I am concerned, "Batman" (the first Burton/Keaton film) is the best, it had the right mix of darkness and craziness. "Batman Returns" was a good film, but not as good and had a few weak points, especially in the Penguin story. I think that the four films demonstrated that it can cause problems if you set up a solo superhero against more than one villain, something which I'd say is also to blame for the drop in quality in the Spider-Man movies after Spider-Man 2 (Superman II is not really an exception to the rule - Lex Luthor had already been introduced in the previous film and so could afford to be downgraded to a supporting role to Zod, while Ursa and Non essentially were Zod's henchmen, did not pursue goals that brought them into conflict with him, and shared his origin story, so the three functioned as a unit). It did not help that the Joker was killed in the first movie and that Burton and his successors felt that the Batman's recurring other villains were not "big" enough to carry a movie on their own, hence the combinations of the Penguin and Catwoman (also Max Schreck), Two-Face and the Riddler, and Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy (and Bane), all with separate origin stories and goals.


    Quote:
    I think Burton's strong point was the villains and the City. I think his weak point was Batman. What do you think?


Well, I could have done without the Red Triangle Gang (unlike Tim Burton, I'm not hung up about evil clowns) and the sillyness of Oswald Cobblepot being raised by actual penguins. That broke my suspension of disbelief. And the villains of the third and fourth movie veered too much into "camp" territory. But Michael Keaton convinced me as Batman. The soundtrack, especially in the first film, was another strong point. It's no wonder that Danny Elfman's main theme was adapted for TV. Ah, yes, let's not forget that Burton's films to a large extent set the tone and paved the way for the best Batman adaptation of them all, Batman: The Animated Series. One definite weakness of the tetralogy was the lack of cohesion. Two directors, three actors playing Batman (and two playing Harvey Dent), no follow-up to the romantic subplots (in four films Bruce Wayne goes through four love interests, none of whom makes a return appearance, even though Vicki Vale, Selina Kyle and Chase Meridian all figure out his secret and you essentially have the same type of plot four times in a row with four different characters, only two of which - Vicki and Selina - can be described as memorable). This is in marked contrast to the way e.g. Margot Kidder appeared as Lois Lane in all four Christopher Reeve Superman films or Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane was a huge factor holding together Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. And the odd thing is that Batman really is a character who does not need to be in a romantic plot to "work", so one could easily have done "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" without a perfunctory romanatic subplot for Bruce Wayne (indeed, the fourth movie could have focused on Robin and Batgirl, if they wanted romance so much).


    Quote:
    BONUS QUESTION: How did you react back then?



    Quote:
    I was strongly anti-Burton because I was strongly anti-Keaton. I liked Michael Keaton a lot in roles I considered meant for him. I didn't think Batman was meant for him and I couldn't get past it. He would have made a better Joker. Sort of in the Keith Ledger vein.


I was impressed with him, but I did not get why he got so much hate beforehand. Also, since I did not get to see Beetlejuice until after I had seen Batman, I did not see him as predestined for nothing but deranged characters. (I note that when Mad Magazine did their parody of the film they upbraided him for his previous comedic roles, calling him "Mr. Bat-Mom".)


    Quote:
    I also, at the time, wanted zero camp. I wanted all dark all the time. Which of course is what we got with Christopher Nolan's version, pretty much, and I wasn't thrilled with that either. In the end, I think Burton was moving in the right direction. I wonder what Joss Whedon would have done. Probably something closer to Burton than to Nolan.


Nolan, I think, erred too much onto the dark side. I saw Batman Begins and at the end was left with the half-serious question: "Why doesn't the US government drop an A-bomb on Gotham already, the city is clearly beyond redemption." And I didn't watch the sequels. Just think of what a killing I could make at Humiliation(1), a superhero fan who hasn't yet seen "The Dark Knight"!

(1) Humiliation is a party game invented by Professor Swallow in David Lodge's campus novel "Changing Places". A player has to name a book that s/he hasn't read (by extension: a film s/he hasn't watched) and gets a point for each of the other players who HAS read the book (watched the film). Since this is set in an academic milieu, mentioning that one hasn't read a certain book can lead to humiliation, and the winner is the one who humiliated themselves the most.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 65.0 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139


I didn't catch any of what you're talking about when I watched it in 1989. And wouldn't you know, the film is NOT streaming on Netflix or Hulu. (Insert Meteoric Bah here.)

I think my personal failure back in 1989 was coming to the movie with a preconceived notion; I.e., Michael Keaton didn't look like he could beat me up, so he couldn't be a good Batman. How dumb is that? First of all, I bet Michael Keaton probably could in fact beat me up. But more importantly, who cares? I should have been looking at other things. Things that have to do with, well... acting. (What a concept.)

That was a thought-provoking post, Thuggernaut.







Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
Iron Man Unit 007

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,938


Okay first Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are disregarded by me, all blame to Schumaker.

Batman and Batman Returns: Burton looked like he was going for Dark but with perhaps a little camp thrown in such as Penguin being raised by penguins. Or how the bat-rope stopped him and Vale from a fatal fall at the end without whiplash or being torn off his utility belt....or how Batwing's weapons didn't seem to lock on Joker....either Batman adjusted his aim at the last minute or something else happened...

Batman Returns does seem to get a bad rap, yet on an 80 million budget it did 266 million box office, while the previous one had a 35 million budget and did 411 million. However I think we can thank Jack as Joker for that box office take more then Keaton or Burton.

Joker is a blank slate that can be played many ways, but they were going with the homicidal artist that finds art in death, destruction and misery vs. Ledger as an anarchic force of chaos that wants to bring people down to his level, and his version of Joker seemed to have a death wish knowing that whoever kills him will definitely stoop to his level.

Jack however brought a nice mix of calm and crazy to the Joker that I honestly to this day prefer over Ledger.

Keaton: well he definitely needed the batsuit, but then Batman should be wearing some serious body armor anyway. Also his Bat-voice was more of a menacing whisper whereas Nolan's bat-voice was basically Clint Eastwood with smoker's cough after a 10 mile uphill hike.

Keaton did a good job of portraying the silent torment that Wayne/batman goes through every day. As a kid he sees his parents gunned down by a random act of violence and could do nothing....talk about feeling helpless. He blames himself for not being able to do anything even though there was nothing he could do. So Wayne does kind of go a bit crazy but instead channels it into actions that help prevent others from suffering what he suffered. Of course dressing as a giant bat makes one wonder about his mental health despite any fear factor he generates.

Then Burton changed it up and instead of Joe Chill being the killer, it was a pre-Joker Jack Napier thus showing that they created each other and could have been each other.

Despite the fact that this movie is in the pre-cellphone/pre-internet era I think it holds up rather well.

I still love the scene when they are fleeing and he tells her to get in the car, she asks which one and then stops at the site of the Batmobile \:\)


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 65.0 on Windows 7
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I like a lot Tim Burton & Christopher Nolan because, even though we are talking about commercial superhero movies, these films have clever scripts, outstanding visuals and excellent casts.

The difference in style comes from the sensibilities of the two directors and also their main influences :

- Tim Burton : gothic horror monsters, retrofuture, film noir, Tod Browning , Lon Chaney, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Robert Wiene, ...

- Christopher Nolan : tech noir, hardboiled, thrillers, James Bond, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, A Tale of Two Cities ...

I think that the Smylex commercial in Batman 1989 was a brilliant idea. So was Joker luring the citizens of Gotham to a parade with the promise of free money.

And there are the excellent production designs of Anton Furst (Batman 1989) and Bo Welch (Batman Returns).

For example, the rendition of the Batmobile by Tim Burton & Anton Furst has become one of the most iconic movie cars ever.





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    The difference in style comes from the sensibilities of the two directors and also their main influences :



    Quote:
    - Tim Burton : gothic horror monsters, retrofuture, film noir, Tod Browning , Lon Chaney, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Robert Wiene, ...


Lon Chaney! Interesting...


    Quote:
    - Christopher Nolan : tech noir, hardboiled, thrillers, James Bond, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, A Tale of Two Cities ...


A Tale of Two Cities! Interesting...


    Quote:
    I think that the Smylex commercial in Batman 1989 was a brilliant idea. So was Joker luring the citizens of Gotham to a parade with the promise of free money.


Jack Nicholson's execution of that idea was equally brilliant. Even when I was against the movie for reasons I now find silly, I recognized the genius of Nicholson. Also I've always loved the Prince soundtrack.


    Quote:
    And there are the excellent production designs of Anton Furst (Batman 1989) and Bo Welch (Batman Returns).


Gotham City has never looked cooler than in Burton's films.


    Quote:
    For example, the rendition of the Batmobile by Tim Burton & Anton Furst has become one of the most iconic movie cars ever.


Far and away my favorite Batmobile, even surpassing the 1960s version, which is my second favorite.






Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
Iron Man Unit 007

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,938


They are follow-ups or sequels to previous movies that were awesome and set the bar very high for the sequels.

Montalbon as Khan

The three Kryptonian villains

And of course, jack as joker


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 58.0 on Windows 10
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Lon Chaney! Interesting...


Yes \:\-\)
https://www.batman-online.com/features/2008/7/26/classic-monsters-references-in-burtons-batman
https://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/8/26/cultural-allusions-in-batman-returns/3
https://www.batman-online.com/features/2017/1/30/cultural-allusions-in-batman-1989/3

Penguin was reinvented by Tim Burton as a living homage of the 1920s & 1930s freaks of horror movies (especially the Pre-Code Hollywood films like Tod Browning's Freaks).


    Quote:
    A Tale of Two Cities! Interesting...


Yes, it is the text that Alfred reads when they wrongly believe that Bruce Wayne is dead at the end of the movie.

Also, the plan of Bane & Talia includes turning Gotham into a city reminiscent of the Paris of French Terror.


Nota Bene : I also noticed that the dance scenes of Batman Returns and Dark Knight Rises serve exactly the same purpose in the two movies.

The two directors probably sold the dance scenes to the producers as a courtship display but, in truth, they are much more subtle than that. In both cases, it is also a moment of truth.

Still, even if the two scenes look remarkably similar, they have opposite results.

In Batman Returns, Selina is revealed as an outlaw revenge seeker whose main goal is to murder Max Shreck in cold blood, even if it costs her any potential relationship with Bruce Wayne. Also, she no longer believes that she could ever be the fairytale princess in the castle of prince charming Bruce Wayne. After that, Selina seemingly dies and there is no happy ending for the doomed relationship of Batman & Catwoman. Still, Bruce Wayne has the feeling that she may not have died after all and the end of the movie reveals that it might be true.

In Dark Knight Rises, Selina is an outlaw pragmatist, despising the richest 1%, and ready to do what is necessary to remain free of societal constraints. At the end of the movie, Bruce seemingly dies but is still alive, actually. Free of the burden of Bruce Wayne and the responsibility of Batman, Bruce can start a new life with Selina Kyle.





    Quote:

    Jack Nicholson's execution of that idea was equally brilliant. Even when I was against the movie for reasons I now find silly, I recognized the genius of Nicholson. Also I've always loved the Prince soundtrack.


I think that, in Batman Returns, Danny De Vito, Michelle Pfeiffer & Christopher Walken were brilliant as well. \:\-\)



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,073


I love the Burton/Furst Batmobile! It is probably the most blatantly overt execution of the concept of "car as a phallic symbol" (made even more obvious in Batman Returns when it turned into the "Batmissile" to race through a narrow alley), but done with such style and panache that it was just great. \(teehee\)

As a kid I liked the '60s 'mobile too. Of course I had a Corgi Toys model and even bought another one when the first had been worn down by too much play use. But by 1989 I was too old to play with toy cars... \:\-\)



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 65.0 on Windows 10
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Batman and Batman Returns: Burton looked like he was going for Dark but with perhaps a little camp thrown in such as Penguin being raised by penguins.


Indeed, it is true that the beginning of the movie is misleading.

It leads the watcher to think that the baby was raised by penguins.

Actually, the zookeepers probably sold the baby to the Red Triangle Circus. Later, we learned that Cobblepot was known as "Aquatic Bird Boy" when he was one of the performers of the freak show.
We also learned, thanks to Batman's investigation, that Penguin lied about his past. When he was Aquatic Bird Boy, decades ago, he had come back to Gotham, learned who his parents were and killed numerous children before disappearing (probably in the sewers).

Still, it was an uncanny coincidence that an "aquatic bird baby" would end precisely in the penguins' lair just after his parents dropped him in the river. Since we don't know what his appearance was when Cobblepot was a baby (it is left to our imagination), it is also possible that Cobblepot suffered from some kind of animalistic atavism and that his biology adapted itself to the penguins'lair when he was a baby. I agree that the movie didn't focus enough on these aspects of the Penguin's origin and that it could be considered a plot hole. The movie should have been a bit longer to explain all this better.

By the way, voluntarily or not, the origin of the Penguin in the movie is nearly the same than ... 1980s Killer Croc (if a penguin replaces the crocodile).

I think that the beginning of the movie is misleading because Tim Burton wanted it to be an ironic & satirical Christmas tale. Cobblepot's birth is a cruel version of the birth of Moses & Jesus. Tim Burton will follow a similar approach again when he will write the script of Nightmare before Christmas.

To be frank, this introduction is one of the many reasons that I love this movie.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,073



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Batman and Batman Returns: Burton looked like he was going for Dark but with perhaps a little camp thrown in such as Penguin being raised by penguins.



    Quote:
    Indeed, it is true that the beginning of the movie is misleading.



    Quote:
    It leads the watcher to think that the baby was raised by penguins.



    Quote:
    Actually, the zookeepers probably sold the baby to the Red Triangle Circus. Later, we learned that Cobblepot was known as "Aquatic Bird Boy" when he was one of the performers of the freak show.
    We also learned, thanks to Batman's investigation, that Penguin lied about his past. When he was Aquatic Bird Boy, decades ago, he had come back to Gotham, learned who his parents were and killed numerous children before disappearing (probably in the sewers).



    Quote:
    Still, it was an uncanny coincidence that an "aquatic bird baby" would end precisely in the penguins' lair just after his parents dropped him in the river. Since we don't know what his appearance was when Cobblepot was a baby (it is left to our imagination), it is also possible that Cobblepot suffered from some kind of animalistic atavism and that his biology adapted itself to the penguins'lair when he was a baby. I agree that the movie didn't focus enough on these aspects of the Penguin's origin and that it could be considered a plot hole. The movie should have been a bit longer to explain all this better.



    Quote:
    By the way, voluntarily or not, the origin of the Penguin in the movie is nearly the same than ... 1980s Killer Croc (if a penguin replaces the crocodile).



    Quote:
    I think that the beginning of the movie is misleading because Tim Burton wanted it to be an ironic & satirical Christmas tale. Cobblepot's birth is a cruel version of the birth of Moses & Jesus. Tim Burton will follow a similar approach again when he will write the script of Nightmare before Christmas.



    Quote:
    To be frank, this introduction is one of the many reasons that I love this movie.


I'm not convinced that the opening is misleading as what you speculate about is not supported by in-story evidence - for instance, one does not see any zookeepers, leading to the wikipedia page to describe Cobblepot as raised by penguins in an "abandoned zoo".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Returns#Cast

And Gotham's penguins evidently are capable of stuff that penguins don't do in the real world: After the Penguin dies they take his body and lay it to rest.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 65.0 on Windows 10
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


... the flippers ...



I understand why they were important to Tim Burton.



But I think that Oswald looked like a penguin monster even without them.



Also, it is a bit of nitpicking but ... The penguins' lair should have been named Antarctic World instead of Artic World with the polar bear.





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Iron Man Unit 007

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,938


If they did a live action batman beyond should Keaton play bruce?


And if they have joker in it should they get Jack back?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 58.0 on Windows 7
Nose Norton


Location: Plainville
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,626


Great banner!

I love the first Batman movie, but I'm going to get right to your main question first: Does it hold up?

In my mind, yes, but I can't get my kids, 14 and 12 and big fans of the MCU and the Arrowverse, to sit through it. I don't know why. They've loved Batman since the Brave And The Bold cartoon(2008-11). They've gone through phases with the 60s show. I don't know why they don't get the Burton movies. The first one is a defining point in the superhero movie genre. It's a great melding of 30s/40s pulp, 60s camp and 80s/90s grit. I can still watch it over and over but what does the next generation think?

I remember being very excited for the first movie and I saw it in the theater with my brother opening week. The casting of the two main characters was odd but in a good way and it worked.
Michael Keaton at the time was known for comedy movies. I knew him best from Night Shift, Johnny Dangerously and Mr. Mom. He did score a big hit with Clean And Sober, though, so he was obviously a better actor than I thought at the time. I think he was a pretty good Bruce Wayne and the costume and stunts helped make him an imposing Batman.
Jack Nicholson(52) was too old to play the Joker at the time but he still knocked it out of the park simply by being Jack. He was chubby and not very physical but, damn, he hit some great Joker moments. And he looked great as a trenchcoated gangster.
The plot, atmosphere, and setting worked great. Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Michael Gough, Jack Palance and William Hootkins(Eckhardt) were all great but that might've been better casting than actual acting as all the players seemed to just play themselves.

I've seen all the other movies but don't really feel connected enough to comment on them, not like the 1989 movie, which is my favorite Batman movie.


Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


(1) Hugo Strange
Bruce Timm's animated short could be a source of inspiration. \:\-\)

https://www.dccomics.com/videos/batman-strange-days-bruce-timms-batman-75th-anniversary-short






(2) Clayface(s)









Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software