The Big Picture: Batman Revisited, Part 4
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wanted to hear this entire series of videos before I commented on it.
Generally speaking I think the problem that has afflicted the entire Batman movie series, and to a lesser extent other super hero movies, has simply been that the guys doing it always want to make the property their own. While some good, and hugely successful movies have come from this, I don't think we have ever seen what could come from someone approaching the material respectfully, and trying to keep it more or less as it is within the comics without needing to "re-envision" everything.
I also think a big problem is the need for reboots, and deciding to pretty much constantly re-tell the origin stories of various characters. On a lot of levels, I think super hero movies would work better if they were done by jumping into the middle of the mythos, assuming audience familiarity to an extent, rather than needing to rehash the basics constantly. Half the problem seems to start with writers wanting to tell a well known story of a hero's origin, but to make it "differant" at the same time to put their own mark on it.
Ultimatly I think the correct attitude is simply that it's Batman's world (or whatever hero) and the guys doing these movies are just guests there, as opposed to those actually controlling it.
To be honest a lot of these characters have endured this long because the stories, as they have stood, have more or less worked for decades. "Let's make Batman a Ninja trained by Ras Al Ghul" might have worked for a movie, and spawned the popular Nolanverse, but really I think it's the tip of the iceberg compared to what would happen if they just decided to do Batman more or less without modification of the basics by the writers and directors. So far we have yet to really see a true "Batman" movie, since even the original vehicle with Jack Nicholson messed with the backround to have "The Joker" kill his parents, and what's more also killed the villain off at the end of the movie...
At any rate, I think right now we're seeing the potential for comic book characters in movies, but we haven't yet seen what can really be done.
-
On a final note I think the problem with a gay director doing the last couple of Batman movies is that those sensibilities had no real place in a movie that was dealing with characters that were not gay. The thing is that he didn't just set out to make a good movie, he set out to put as much overtly gay "style" into it as possible, involving things like the bat nipples, codpieces, and other things that were inserted into the movie which just didn't fit the characters. Sure a gay super hero might very well decide to express than sensibility, but Batman, as well defined within that same movie series, is not gay, and wouldn't dress like that. This turned the movie into a bad joke.
As lauded as Joel might be, I think the bottom line is he's a crap director, at least for this. Being gay doesn't matter as long as he knows when to keep those sensibilities out of something, and really he's proven that he doesn't. Nobody would have noticed or cared (either pro or anti- gay) had he have been able to prevent himself from being so bloody flamboyant. Indeed I'd argue that people know Joel is openly gay in the popular culture largely because of this movie, few people really commented on it (or cared if they did) before these movies, rather the results of his work is what made it the pop culture issue that it is.
It should also be noted that whether the movie is that terrible objectively, it should be noted that there is more to this than the objective analysis. It can be argued that what Joel did was insulting to a very popular IP, and that he basically defaced it. You don't have to be radically anti-gay to have a problem with what was done with some of the characters in those movies (starting with the costumes). The overall thing comes accross as basically him creating his own personal Batman fantasia, rather than even attempting to do it right, and then subjecting all of us to it.
Also Ahnald's Mr. Freeze.... "Bane"... ugh. See the previous celebrity villains could at least carry it off to some extent, I don't think even one of the castings or writing for the villains worked. Even Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy fell flat, in part because while she's sexy enough she just doesn't sell the whole Poison Ivy thing either physically or performance wise. While they were there aside, Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey did sell their roles substantially better.
Generally speaking I think the problem that has afflicted the entire Batman movie series, and to a lesser extent other super hero movies, has simply been that the guys doing it always want to make the property their own. While some good, and hugely successful movies have come from this, I don't think we have ever seen what could come from someone approaching the material respectfully, and trying to keep it more or less as it is within the comics without needing to "re-envision" everything.
I also think a big problem is the need for reboots, and deciding to pretty much constantly re-tell the origin stories of various characters. On a lot of levels, I think super hero movies would work better if they were done by jumping into the middle of the mythos, assuming audience familiarity to an extent, rather than needing to rehash the basics constantly. Half the problem seems to start with writers wanting to tell a well known story of a hero's origin, but to make it "differant" at the same time to put their own mark on it.
Ultimatly I think the correct attitude is simply that it's Batman's world (or whatever hero) and the guys doing these movies are just guests there, as opposed to those actually controlling it.
To be honest a lot of these characters have endured this long because the stories, as they have stood, have more or less worked for decades. "Let's make Batman a Ninja trained by Ras Al Ghul" might have worked for a movie, and spawned the popular Nolanverse, but really I think it's the tip of the iceberg compared to what would happen if they just decided to do Batman more or less without modification of the basics by the writers and directors. So far we have yet to really see a true "Batman" movie, since even the original vehicle with Jack Nicholson messed with the backround to have "The Joker" kill his parents, and what's more also killed the villain off at the end of the movie...
At any rate, I think right now we're seeing the potential for comic book characters in movies, but we haven't yet seen what can really be done.
-
On a final note I think the problem with a gay director doing the last couple of Batman movies is that those sensibilities had no real place in a movie that was dealing with characters that were not gay. The thing is that he didn't just set out to make a good movie, he set out to put as much overtly gay "style" into it as possible, involving things like the bat nipples, codpieces, and other things that were inserted into the movie which just didn't fit the characters. Sure a gay super hero might very well decide to express than sensibility, but Batman, as well defined within that same movie series, is not gay, and wouldn't dress like that. This turned the movie into a bad joke.
As lauded as Joel might be, I think the bottom line is he's a crap director, at least for this. Being gay doesn't matter as long as he knows when to keep those sensibilities out of something, and really he's proven that he doesn't. Nobody would have noticed or cared (either pro or anti- gay) had he have been able to prevent himself from being so bloody flamboyant. Indeed I'd argue that people know Joel is openly gay in the popular culture largely because of this movie, few people really commented on it (or cared if they did) before these movies, rather the results of his work is what made it the pop culture issue that it is.
It should also be noted that whether the movie is that terrible objectively, it should be noted that there is more to this than the objective analysis. It can be argued that what Joel did was insulting to a very popular IP, and that he basically defaced it. You don't have to be radically anti-gay to have a problem with what was done with some of the characters in those movies (starting with the costumes). The overall thing comes accross as basically him creating his own personal Batman fantasia, rather than even attempting to do it right, and then subjecting all of us to it.
Also Ahnald's Mr. Freeze.... "Bane"... ugh. See the previous celebrity villains could at least carry it off to some extent, I don't think even one of the castings or writing for the villains worked. Even Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy fell flat, in part because while she's sexy enough she just doesn't sell the whole Poison Ivy thing either physically or performance wise. While they were there aside, Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey did sell their roles substantially better.
The Silver Age was the era of so-bad-it's-good. NONE of those stories could be taken seriously. It's actually kinda silly how so many modern day writers try to force Silver Age stuff into the current run of stuff when it just ends up kinda hilariousInvadergray said:
Nice to see someone actually knew the timeline to respond. If I remember Silver Age started with the creation of the CCA, but maybe it's declared later than that.Falseprophet said:
I think people want a Dark Batman because of the 90's. At the time everyone thought that the US would go into a crime ridden slum. That was the basis behind things like RoboCop. The Crime ridden Apocalypse never happened but a lot of the things from the 90's are clearly influenced by that eras logic. Sometime in the next 10 years we'll see what the 00 years have done to our cultural logic. I seem to recall those years with more sugar pop but that might just be me.
As for why Batman is targeted to be "Dark" probably has a bit to do with his origin is honestly Dark Depression Era Pulp, and there is no way around that.
This needn't be long winded, but Bob's doing his thing again where he makes a small unfair bias in a group of opinions out to be some widespread amoral sickness by attaching it to some ancillary inflammatory subject and be comfortable to say "shame on you". And it's getting tiresome.
I didn't like "Batman and Robin", but I wasn't old enough to hate it. I didn't like it because it was kinda stupid, much like the Adam West Batman was kinda stupid. That sort of silly on purpose stuff just didn't fit Batman who I knew of beginning with the animated series.
Yeah the batnipples and loving ass shots of Batman were pretty gay and I said so at the time and they still are, but that's hardly why I didn't like this take on Batman. Hell I didn't even know the director was gay and I still don't care.
Like it or not we came to know Batman as a paragon of the idea of vigilante justice. He's not a character study, he's barely a character. He's a representation of our desires for the bad guy to get punishment in the end no matter how crafty or shifty. His personality is whatever version of ourselves we think is cool and fits who we think we would be if we had the power. Heck that even kinda sounds like what Schumacher may have did with his version.
I didn't like "Batman and Robin", but I wasn't old enough to hate it. I didn't like it because it was kinda stupid, much like the Adam West Batman was kinda stupid. That sort of silly on purpose stuff just didn't fit Batman who I knew of beginning with the animated series.
Yeah the batnipples and loving ass shots of Batman were pretty gay and I said so at the time and they still are, but that's hardly why I didn't like this take on Batman. Hell I didn't even know the director was gay and I still don't care.
Like it or not we came to know Batman as a paragon of the idea of vigilante justice. He's not a character study, he's barely a character. He's a representation of our desires for the bad guy to get punishment in the end no matter how crafty or shifty. His personality is whatever version of ourselves we think is cool and fits who we think we would be if we had the power. Heck that even kinda sounds like what Schumacher may have did with his version.
Oooooooooohh Lordy, I was dreading this episode. But Bob made it sound not so bad, & brilliantly explained why & how it nosedived. And YAY, Batman of Zur-En-Arh! On another note: looking back, Uma Thurman was NOT a wise choice to play Poison Ivy. Yeesh!
Here's an idea, Bob: 10-year retrospective of Firefly? I heard their panel @ Comic-Con was a smash hit & the Science channel had a marathon of it for July 4th, so hey, why not?
Here's an idea, Bob: 10-year retrospective of Firefly? I heard their panel @ Comic-Con was a smash hit & the Science channel had a marathon of it for July 4th, so hey, why not?
Oh their are many more things wrong with this movie. Some bigger than others.
<youtube=Cqon0nVWA4A>
<youtube=Cqon0nVWA4A>
could be argued that 90's were the dawn of a golden age of gaming but lets face it, everything else entered their dark ages, movie's, comics, tv and while not everything was bad as a whole they suffered.ZippyDSMlee said:
In response to all the Batman movies that have been made or will be made, I don't think Batman works as a live action adaptation. That's why every movie has this lingering awkward element that us fans file away as "a bad telling of material", and to expand... I feel this from every "comic book" movie. It just seems like these characters don't belong in a realistic format.
I "am" a fan of Batman but all of the important evolution that I have witnessed and enjoyed has been in the animated stories/ movies, graphic novels and more importantly the Arkham Games.
I "am" a fan of Batman but all of the important evolution that I have witnessed and enjoyed has been in the animated stories/ movies, graphic novels and more importantly the Arkham Games.
I actually quite liked that movie when I was younger. My first experience of Batman was the Adam West TV show, which was unadulterated AWESOME, so that 'camp' didn't really jar for me. I actually dislike the newer 'grittydark' batman because his maudlin self absorption makes me want to slap him.
I can accept without question that the film-making of the movie was sub par, but when you're a kid, that doesn't really matter to you. It was a fun, colourful excuse to eat popcorn in a large dark room.
I will admit, though, even as a child I was a bit puzzled as to why the nipples were so carefully modelled on the suits. It didn't really gel with my mental impression of 'armor', but I guess I didn't really devote a lot of thought to it. After all, rubber suits don't really gel with my mental image of 'armor' either, so... =P
I can accept without question that the film-making of the movie was sub par, but when you're a kid, that doesn't really matter to you. It was a fun, colourful excuse to eat popcorn in a large dark room.
I will admit, though, even as a child I was a bit puzzled as to why the nipples were so carefully modelled on the suits. It didn't really gel with my mental impression of 'armor', but I guess I didn't really devote a lot of thought to it. After all, rubber suits don't really gel with my mental image of 'armor' either, so... =P