Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Batman returns once more: Christopher Nolan does it again!!!
Shallow:
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 08:40:59 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dollaz + $ense on February 14, 2010, 07:50:33 PM ---
--- Quote from: Special Agent Jaydc M.D. on February 14, 2010, 07:43:36 PM ---Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
--- End quote ---
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
--- End quote ---
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
--- End quote ---
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
JohnnyL:
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 15, 2010, 10:49:06 AM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 08:40:59 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dollaz + $ense on February 14, 2010, 07:50:33 PM ---
--- Quote from: Special Agent Jaydc M.D. on February 14, 2010, 07:43:36 PM ---Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
--- End quote ---
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
--- End quote ---
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
--- End quote ---
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
--- End quote ---
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 11:25:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 15, 2010, 10:49:06 AM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 08:40:59 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dollaz + $ense on February 14, 2010, 07:50:33 PM ---
--- Quote from: Special Agent Jaydc M.D. on February 14, 2010, 07:43:36 PM ---Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
--- End quote ---
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
--- End quote ---
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
--- End quote ---
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
--- End quote ---
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
--- End quote ---
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
JohnnyL:
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 15, 2010, 02:15:44 PM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 11:25:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 15, 2010, 10:49:06 AM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 08:40:59 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dollaz + $ense on February 14, 2010, 07:50:33 PM ---
--- Quote from: Special Agent Jaydc M.D. on February 14, 2010, 07:43:36 PM ---Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
--- End quote ---
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
--- End quote ---
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
--- End quote ---
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
--- End quote ---
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
--- End quote ---
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
--- End quote ---
I understand that the Burton films used satire. The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's. I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's. The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy. But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion. Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews. But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics. There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show. It had it's place. But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show. And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 03:18:19 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 15, 2010, 02:15:44 PM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 11:25:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 15, 2010, 10:49:06 AM ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on February 15, 2010, 08:40:59 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dollaz + $ense on February 14, 2010, 07:50:33 PM ---
--- Quote from: Special Agent Jaydc M.D. on February 14, 2010, 07:43:36 PM ---Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
--- End quote ---
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
--- End quote ---
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
--- End quote ---
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
--- End quote ---
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
--- End quote ---
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
--- End quote ---
I understand that the Burton films used satire. The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's. I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's. The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy. But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion. Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews. But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics. There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show. It had it's place. But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show. And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.
--- End quote ---
The 60s TV show was satire, not Burton's film. I know Joel took from the TV show. What I'm arguing is that just like his only window into Batman was the TV show, so was Burton's. The only thing Tim Burton knew about Batman was from the TV show, and it shows. The film sucked then and it sucks now. At least the TV show was trying to be funny for a certain audience. Burton took the show and mixed it with Beetlejuice. Batman The Animated Series blows anything Burton did out of the water, and I'm not the hugest fan of that show either.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version