West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Big BpG on June 27, 2006, 11:48:30 AM
-
Who's going to see it? I've always been a Superman fan. I'll be going tonight to see it tonight... I'll post my review after I see it.
-
Batman > Superman.
Shit looks too childish for me...
-
i'll see it, but not this weekend
-
Batman > Superman.
Shit looks too childish for me...
Despite the rave reviews I can't imagine it being better than Batman Begins, but Superman from the 70s was better than every other superhero movie next to Batman Begins.
-
i will be seeing it without a doubt
-
Batman begins is an excellent movie. It was the first time I watched a batman movie and thought... "wow, batman is cool" ... All the other batman movies were terrible... I did not like one until batman begins... as for superman, the first reeve movie was spectacular... and so was the 2nd... the third and fourth weren't as good, but those first two were awesome... As for this new, it seems like it will be on par with "batman begins" ... I expect Superman to have some qualities like the old films and some creative qualities like the new batman. It looks darker than most superman movies... I'm anticipating it. I hear it's almost 3 hours long... that makes it exciting
-
"Batman" and "Batman Returns" shits on anything the "Superman" franchise has put out AND "Batman Begins"...
-
"Batman" and "Batman Returns" shits on anything the "Superman" franchise has put out AND "Batman Begins"...
Yeah "Batman Returns" is my favorite Batman and probably favorite superhero movie. "Batman Begins" is also very good. Oh and Michael Keaton was by far the best Bruce Wayne.
-
"Batman" and "Batman Returns" shits on anything the "Superman" franchise has put out AND "Batman Begins"...
WORD cant fuck with the Prince Soundtrack either!
-
Just got back from the movie. Awesome? Good? OK? Bad?
The movie was very good. Not Awesome, but more than good. Superman fans will definetly enjoy this one. There are many many references to the old films and a lot of humour that you'll find funny only if you've seen the first movies. Routh's character plays Superman quite well. He resembles Reeve in so many ways even down to the way he talks. He does at time seem young for the role, but he pulls it off. I love the Lois character, very well done and Spacey does excellent as Lex.
The one downside is the special effects. They're excellent, in fact great, but there isn't anything that we haven't seen in past superman movies. He flies, he has eye beams, he can breathe cold air, he has super strength, and he's the man of steel.
The plot is good, they organized the main story well. The story does have one big surprise. In fact a HUGE surprise that I won't spoil for anyone. Either way, this movie will have a sequel... the actors have already talked about the sequel, but you can't help but wonder where these films are headed... can Superman just continue to fight bad guys over and over again...
Well here's my theory...
**SPOIL WARNING**
This spoiler doesn't ruin the plot in anyway, but in one scene, superman is saving people from evil. He's seen in Moscow, He's seen in New York, London and then he is seen in "Gotham" ... so this is the first time Gotham is mentioned in any superman movie... if you've paid real close attention to superman, you'll know that about two years ago there was talks of a "batman vs superman" movie... however that idea fizzled and in sprang the idea of creating two new movies... "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns"
So, with the success of Batman, and the probable success of Superman comes the idea that these two characters will find themselves on screen together... in fact, if you watched the MTV movie awards, you'll remember Christian Bale saying to Brandon Routh "Sorry Superman, but Batman is the Bad Ass" ... while it was an improv quote, you can't help but wonder if these two films will collide into one.
**END OF SPOILER**
In the end Superman Returns is a must-see for Superman fans and fans of the genre. It has the love story, It has the action, It has it all... and remember, There is one HUGE SPOILER... here at least in our theatre, the people gasped.
-BpG
-
I'm definately going to see it tonight. You can't go wrong with superman, even the comic books, when they got lazy and were just doing tired plots, it was still pretty good because the character is so fucking strong.
-
I might go out to the movies for this one, it looks interesting.
I didn't think much of Batman Begins, I actually found it quite boring. Superman Returns on the other hand looks great, well, the preview does. It's all you need for a superhero movie......full on action, amazing special effects and a straight forward storyline. Forget tryna make a superhero real, you kinda sway from the genre.
Batman & Batman Returns were the shit!!!!! Especially the villians in both movies!!
-
It was pretty good.
-
I saw it, they did a good job with the movie.
-
Superman vs Batman is on the cards, but it will be Superman & Batman, they won't be fighting, so it will be a 'Worlds Finest' of sorts.. and it wont be until after another movie or so of each character if it ever happens
-
Superman vs Batman is on the cards, but it will be Superman & Batman, they won't be fighting, so it will be a 'Worlds Finest' of sorts.. and it wont be until after another movie or so of each character if it ever happens
please no!!!
-
Superman vs Batman is on the cards, but it will be Superman & Batman, they won't be fighting, so it will be a 'Worlds Finest' of sorts.. and it wont be until after another movie or so of each character if it ever happens
"Freddy vs. Jason" > "Superman vs. Batman"
-
I saw it and honestly, it did nothing for me. It was well done, but I dunno, just seemed to lack something.
Kevin Spacey did really well as Lex Luthor.
-
One thing about the movie that was pretty much bullshit is how the whored the Superman character out. About 3 glaring things strike out at me.
1. There's a scene where the guy says "He stands for Truth, Justice..." and then doesn't say "And the American Way!". Now, i know that's probably to be p.c. and to sell all over the world, but fuck that. Why change something that's been the same (kind of ) since the 30's? The film makers have no testicles.
2. SPOILER DO NOT READ
SPOILER DO NOT READ
SPOILER DO NOT READ!!!
Superman apparently fucked Lois Lane then flew away for 5 years leaving her to raise a kid alone? That's not superman, that's supermale. Men take care of their children, and they don't have unprotected sex with somebody then take off for 5 years while she figures it out.
3. Lois Lane is fucking some dude and letting him think that the kid's his. Plus they live together. That's I guess 'modern' day reality, but that doesn't mean it's right. So a kid goes to see this movie, and what should he think? Little girls that see this movie get the message that it's alright to fuck somebody out of wedlock; it's alright to have kids out of wedlock; it's alright to live with somebody out of wedlock; and it's alright to work extremely long hours and leave your young children at home to grow up by themselves without you. That's all bullshit.
-
I Thought The Movie Was Super! Sike ,On The Real, It Was Cool. Great Effects And Visuals. The Part Where He's Getting Shot at With The Gattling Gun Was Awesome. Wish It Had More Action Though
-
3. Lois Lane is fucking some dude and letting him think that the kid's his. Plus they live together. That's I guess 'modern' day reality, but that doesn't mean it's right. So a kid goes to see this movie, and what should he think? Little girls that see this movie get the message that it's alright to fuck somebody out of wedlock; it's alright to have kids out of wedlock; it's alright to live with somebody out of wedlock; and it's alright to work extremely long hours and leave your young children at home to grow up by themselves without you. That's all bullshit.
No offense, but that's a pretty petty reason to not like the flick.
-
Nah, I liked the movie. And that's not petty. That's part of what's wrong with the world today, things like that are trivialized. The kid in the movie had a mom who was unavailable to him, she thought her job was more important than her kid having a mom. I don't agree with that.
-
It's just a movie. Take it easy.
-
I am taking it easy, but I'm not allowed to make observations? I didn't even mention it in my first post above, I just mentioned it later as an afterthought of something interesting I noticed that your brain just absorbed without seeing the meaning and the message behind it.
-
You make great points because "Superman" is suppose to represent the Truth, Justice and theAmerican way. In fact, in the early days he was used as a political figure... even listen to the lines of his father during the movie... he describes humans as having the potential to be great, but we always make mistakes... however, you are my son, and you lead by example and show them how good they can be... then he bangs lois and disappears... if you compare Clark to Superman, Clark is the sweet guy, who would never do something like that to Lois, but Superman will do that.... I must say, they mis-represent what Superman is suppose to Represent... the good in all of us...
-
"Batman" and "Batman Returns" shits on anything the "Superman" franchise has put out AND "Batman Begins"...
WORD cant fuck with the Prince Soundtrack either!
everything these dudes said is pure bible scripture, nobody can offer a different opinion. NOBODY!
-
You make great points because "Superman" is suppose to represent the Truth, Justice and theAmerican way. In fact, in the early days he was used as a political figure... even listen to the lines of his father during the movie... he describes humans as having the potential to be great, but we always make mistakes... however, you are my son, and you lead by example and show them how good they can be... then he bangs lois and disappears... if you compare Clark to Superman, Clark is the sweet guy, who would never do something like that to Lois, but Superman will do that.... I must say, they mis-represent what Superman is suppose to Represent... the good in all of us...
SPOILER. DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM
In Superman 2 when Clark tells his parents he wants to be with Lois they make him a mortal, then he and Lois get together, sleep togther, and get or are about to get married. Then Zod takes over and Clark gets his powers back to fight him and when it's all over he does the mind trick to Lois and makes her forget everything that happened between him and her. That is where this movie starts from. When the astrologists say they found Krypton, I'd assume it was very shortly after the Superman 2 story line ends, Superman leaves to go find it and it takes 5 years to get there and back (yet it took thousands of years to go from Krypton to Earth as a baby in the space ship as Jorel reminds us in this move. Weird, I know, but they never explain how he got back and forth so who knows). Anyway, Superman had no idea the child was even conceived and he didn't know it was his until later in the film so it was hardly lack of judgement on Superman, and I'm pretty sure Cyclops knows the kid isn't his, or atleat he should, unless he got with Lois only a few weeks after Superman 2 ended.
I have my qualms with the film but overall I thought it was the best comic movie next to Superman 1, Batman Begins and Sin City. DC is really hitting homeruns as of late.
"Batman" and "Batman Returns" shits on anything the "Superman" franchise has put out AND "Batman Begins"...
WORD cant fuck with the Prince Soundtrack either!
everything these dudes said is pure bible scripture, nobody can offer a different opinion. NOBODY!
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
-
^ i agree pretty much 100% except for the DC hitting home runs and superman returns being the best
-
^ i agree pretty much 100% except for the DC hitting home runs and superman returns being the best
I never said it was the best. I said it was worse than Superman 1 (I like it better than 2), Batman Begins, and Sin City. Let me know if I'm missing something. I think the last DC films were amazing when compared to the Marvel films. I haven't really liked any recent Marvel films except maybe the first X Men and I like returns more than X1.
Where do you think DC has swung and missed? You thought Returns was bad?
-
i thought Returns could've been better. i'm more a fan of the evil scientist/genius Lex Luthor rather than the Gene Hackman style with the Henchmen etc. I also thought Brandon Routh was trying to be too much like Christopher Reeve, but that's just me.
i think Batman Begins has been the best comic based movie ever, with x-men 3 coming in 2nd, but overall I prefer the Marvel movies (xmen, spiderman, fantastic four etc) to the DC movies
-
i thought Returns could've been better. i'm more a fan of the evil scientist/genius Lex Luthor rather than the Gene Hackman style with the Henchmen etc. I also thought Brandon Routh was trying to be too much like Christopher Reeve, but that's just me.
i think Batman Begins has been the best comic based movie ever, with x-men 3 coming in 2nd, but overall I prefer the Marvel movies (xmen, spiderman, fantastic four etc) to the DC movies
I think Superman Returns could have been a lot better. My calling it one of the best is more an insult to the rest of the movies. I just think it done better than the Marvel ones. I didn't like either Spiderman and hated X2 and X3. The B-Marvel movies were all atrocious so they don't even count (Hulk, Daredevil, F4). The Marvel movies just don't have the right feel. To me at least Superman got the feel right. The original was great but Hackman was ring for Luthor I agree. Why they didn't use Telly Savalas is beyond me. He was the perfect Luthor and was even used as inspiration for the animated series Luthor (the best one in Hollywood). The suave, smart, scientific and super rich tycoon type is what Luthor should be. Like an older, evil, Bruce Wayne.
-
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
-
Batman Begins was darker than than any of the Batman films Burton made.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
Continuity to the comic books aside, I truthfully fel the Burton movies were just campy, goofy, movies and if they were treated as such I wouldn't have a problem but people talk about them as serious dark movies that changed Batman forever. It was Beetlejuice in the form of Batman. The whole thing just looked so bad, particularly Batman Retuns. Begins gave us a reason or every stupid looking thing about Batman and it played it straight. You can prefer whatever you want but my distaste for the Burton films would still be there even with out my knowledge of the comics or Begins. I just think it's goofy.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
Continuity to the comic books aside, I truthfully fel the Burton movies were just campy, goofy, movies and if they were treated as such I wouldn't have a problem but people talk about them as serious dark movies that changed Batman forever. It was Beetlejuice in the form of Batman. The whole thing just looked so bad, particularly Batman Retuns. Begins gave us a reason or every stupid looking thing about Batman and it played it straight. You can prefer whatever you want but my distaste for the Burton films would still be there even with out my knowledge of the comics or Begins. I just think it's goofy.
You can never get the same sinister vibe from "Batman Begins" as you can get from a Tim Burton directed film...You wouldn't understand this, because you seem to be bigger on comics than you are on film. Tim Burton has an amazing unique style and I love both of the first two "Batman" movies. It's not supposed to be serious, but they make it what it is... a fantasy. "Batman Begins" was good, but it didn't give you that same cinematic feeling, it's closer to just reading the comics, and at times, it took itself too seriously, almost like they wanted you to feel like you were watching "The Pianast" or something...The modern-day "Superman" looks 10 times more camp than Tim Burton's classic "Batman's". It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I just prefer Batman... Batman is self-made...PeACe
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
Continuity to the comic books aside, I truthfully fel the Burton movies were just campy, goofy, movies and if they were treated as such I wouldn't have a problem but people talk about them as serious dark movies that changed Batman forever. It was Beetlejuice in the form of Batman. The whole thing just looked so bad, particularly Batman Retuns. Begins gave us a reason or every stupid looking thing about Batman and it played it straight. You can prefer whatever you want but my distaste for the Burton films would still be there even with out my knowledge of the comics or Begins. I just think it's goofy.
You can never get the same sinister vibe from "Batman Begins" as you can get from a Tim Burton directed film...You wouldn't understand this, because you seem to be bigger on comics than you are on film. Tim Burton has an amazing unique style and I love both of the first two "Batman" movies. It's not supposed to be serious, but they make it what it is... a fantasy. "Batman Begins" was good, but it didn't give you that same cinematic feeling, it's closer to just reading the comics, and at times, it took itself too seriously, almost like they wanted you to feel like you were watching "The Pianast" or something...The modern-day "Superman" looks 10 times more camp than Tim Burton's classic "Batman's". It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I just prefer Batman... Batman is self-made...PeACe
I'm certainly as big on cinema as I am on comics and probably more so. Like I said, Batman is Beetlejuice and Tim Burton isn't getting confused for Stanley Kubrick any time soon. The film just seemed too silly and stupid and it is rewarded for being dark when it's not even close even for science fiction. Blade Runner was dark. Terminater 1 was dark. Batman was a cartoon brought to live action and it wasn't the first or best version of it. Burton doesn't have any oscars for good reason. His movies are just plain and simple goofy and try and pretend to be deeper when they aren't, kind of like Tarantino. I really liked Edward S Hands for what it was and it was done perfectly for the kind of movie it was supposed to be. Batman wasn't supposed to be that kind of movie and it ended up being a lot like that. I know about fantasy, like Lord of the Rings or Space Oddysey. Batman just isn't one of those films. It was a great money maker and a perfect children's Batman movie but that's about it. I don't see anything amazing about the cinematography, acting style, or pacing. It's a straight forward film with straight forward shots if you take the script out of and look at it from a visual point of view. I admire the sets, they aren't Batman, but they are still good in both movies. Blade Runner set the tone for the 80s sci-fi fantasy movies and Batman is just one of the rip offs, from a visual stand point.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
Continuity to the comic books aside, I truthfully fel the Burton movies were just campy, goofy, movies and if they were treated as such I wouldn't have a problem but people talk about them as serious dark movies that changed Batman forever. It was Beetlejuice in the form of Batman. The whole thing just looked so bad, particularly Batman Retuns. Begins gave us a reason or every stupid looking thing about Batman and it played it straight. You can prefer whatever you want but my distaste for the Burton films would still be there even with out my knowledge of the comics or Begins. I just think it's goofy.
You can never get the same sinister vibe from "Batman Begins" as you can get from a Tim Burton directed film...You wouldn't understand this, because you seem to be bigger on comics than you are on film. Tim Burton has an amazing unique style and I love both of the first two "Batman" movies. It's not supposed to be serious, but they make it what it is... a fantasy. "Batman Begins" was good, but it didn't give you that same cinematic feeling, it's closer to just reading the comics, and at times, it took itself too seriously, almost like they wanted you to feel like you were watching "The Pianast" or something...The modern-day "Superman" looks 10 times more camp than Tim Burton's classic "Batman's". It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I just prefer Batman... Batman is self-made...PeACe
I'm certainly as big on cinema as I am on comics and probably more so. Like I said, Batman is Beetlejuice and Tim Burton isn't getting confused for Stanley Kubrick any time soon. The film just seemed too silly and stupid and it is rewarded for being dark when it's not even close even for science fiction. Blade Runner was dark. Terminater 1 was dark. Batman was a cartoon brought to live action and it wasn't the first or best version of it. Burton doesn't have any oscars for good reason. His movies are just plain and simple goofy and try and pretend to be deeper when they aren't, kind of like Tarantino. I really liked Edward S Hands for what it was and it was done perfectly for the kind of movie it was supposed to be. Batman wasn't supposed to be that kind of movie and it ended up being a lot like that. I know about fantasy, like Lord of the Rings or Space Oddysey. Batman just isn't one of those films. It was a great money maker and a perfect children's Batman movie but that's about it. I don't see anything amazing about the cinematography, acting style, or pacing. It's a straight forward film with straight forward shots if you take the script out of and look at it from a visual point of view. I admire the sets, they aren't Batman, but they are still good in both movies. Blade Runner set the tone for the 80s sci-fi fantasy movies and Batman is just one of the rip offs, from a visual stand point.
We simply have 2 different opinions...One thing though, is that a comic film is SUPPOSED to be like a cartoon made into live action. That's the vibe Tim Burton actually went for, after all, what are comics? But it's cartoonishly dark, a sinister live-action comic with dark imagery and a perfect score, I dunno how you don't see it? Tim Burton is a great director, Kubrick owns him, but I dunno where that came from. I also don't see how they were children movies, they were some pretty hard PG-13 flicks for those days and were actually a lot more violent than the next few installments. I guess to each his own though...PeACe
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
Continuity to the comic books aside, I truthfully fel the Burton movies were just campy, goofy, movies and if they were treated as such I wouldn't have a problem but people talk about them as serious dark movies that changed Batman forever. It was Beetlejuice in the form of Batman. The whole thing just looked so bad, particularly Batman Retuns. Begins gave us a reason or every stupid looking thing about Batman and it played it straight. You can prefer whatever you want but my distaste for the Burton films would still be there even with out my knowledge of the comics or Begins. I just think it's goofy.
You can never get the same sinister vibe from "Batman Begins" as you can get from a Tim Burton directed film...You wouldn't understand this, because you seem to be bigger on comics than you are on film. Tim Burton has an amazing unique style and I love both of the first two "Batman" movies. It's not supposed to be serious, but they make it what it is... a fantasy. "Batman Begins" was good, but it didn't give you that same cinematic feeling, it's closer to just reading the comics, and at times, it took itself too seriously, almost like they wanted you to feel like you were watching "The Pianast" or something...The modern-day "Superman" looks 10 times more camp than Tim Burton's classic "Batman's". It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I just prefer Batman... Batman is self-made...PeACe
I'm certainly as big on cinema as I am on comics and probably more so. Like I said, Batman is Beetlejuice and Tim Burton isn't getting confused for Stanley Kubrick any time soon. The film just seemed too silly and stupid and it is rewarded for being dark when it's not even close even for science fiction. Blade Runner was dark. Terminater 1 was dark. Batman was a cartoon brought to live action and it wasn't the first or best version of it. Burton doesn't have any oscars for good reason. His movies are just plain and simple goofy and try and pretend to be deeper when they aren't, kind of like Tarantino. I really liked Edward S Hands for what it was and it was done perfectly for the kind of movie it was supposed to be. Batman wasn't supposed to be that kind of movie and it ended up being a lot like that. I know about fantasy, like Lord of the Rings or Space Oddysey. Batman just isn't one of those films. It was a great money maker and a perfect children's Batman movie but that's about it. I don't see anything amazing about the cinematography, acting style, or pacing. It's a straight forward film with straight forward shots if you take the script out of and look at it from a visual point of view. I admire the sets, they aren't Batman, but they are still good in both movies. Blade Runner set the tone for the 80s sci-fi fantasy movies and Batman is just one of the rip offs, from a visual stand point.
We simply have 2 different opinions...One thing though, is that a comic film is SUPPOSED to be like a cartoon made into live action. That's the vibe Tim Burton actually went for, after all, what are comics? But it's cartoonishly dark, a sinister live-action comic with dark imagery and a perfect score, I dunno how you don't see it? Tim Burton is a great director, Kubrick owns him, but I dunno where that came from. I also don't see how they were children movies, they were some pretty hard PG-13 flicks for those days and were actually a lot more violent than the next few installments. I guess to each his own though...PeACe
I'll agree on the music. The first theme was way better than the new one. I brought up Kubrick to show what a weird looking sinister film is supposed to look like. Sin City was cartoonishly dark. Batman was a cartoon. It was childish and juvenile in so many ways and so much was wasted on "wouldn't this be cool" moments that made no sense. Why are comic book movies supposed to be cartoons. Just because they are drawn on paper doesn't mean they have to be like saturday morning shows with live actors. Let's say I never read the book, or there never was a Batman until Tim Burton created and directed the movie. I'd still think it was a goofy film for children. Not todlers or infants, but anyone between the ages of 7 and 14. The whole thing just fely like I was watching a circus on film. You may like that, I don't. No one's opinion is better than the other's here. I'll also never understand the 1920s fashion with 2000s technology but oh well. I can look past that, but I don't see anything sinister about the film. I didn't see suggestive evil. I saw goofy imagery and stupid plotlines. Begins wasn't perfect but for it was the best yet. Batman was just a another great Burton pushing the ennvelope kids movie, like Beetlejuice, Nightmare Before Christmas, and Edward Scissor Hands. It did not change Batman (like it gets praised for) and it was not award winning material (and it didn't win any).
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
That's all nostalgia man. You guys were kids when you first saw Batman and Batman Returns and that's how you invisioned Batman to be. I was a fan of the Frank Miller Batman and the Alan Moore Batman before I had ever seen the films so in my case I thought the films were terrible on first watch (even at a young age). They aren't Batman movies. They are Tim Burton movies and Batman just happens to be in them. Joker isn't Joker. It's Jack Nicholson with face paint, and Jack is amazing but he's not Joker. Not in that movie. Returns was just stupid goofy. I'll never quite understand how grown adults can rewatch the Burton Batman films and truthfully think they are better. Begins made it possible to think it could be even a bit real. It explained everything properly and took it so seriously and it's a movie about a man in a bat suit fighting crime. The first two just took that goofy concept and kept it goofy. I'm surprised Adam West didn't have a cameo.
Okay, Dr. Phil...I like the Batman movies because I'm a fan of film, I don't care if it lives up to the comics or has any continuity errors, Tim Burton did an amazing job directing those films and I believe the cast couldn't have been better...I also love the dark atmosphere and vibe the films give you. "Superman", to me, is a lot cheesier and more childish...Not saying it can't be an enjoyable pop-corn flick, I'm just saying I like the "Batman" film franchise much more than anything "Superman" related...PeACe
Continuity to the comic books aside, I truthfully fel the Burton movies were just campy, goofy, movies and if they were treated as such I wouldn't have a problem but people talk about them as serious dark movies that changed Batman forever. It was Beetlejuice in the form of Batman. The whole thing just looked so bad, particularly Batman Retuns. Begins gave us a reason or every stupid looking thing about Batman and it played it straight. You can prefer whatever you want but my distaste for the Burton films would still be there even with out my knowledge of the comics or Begins. I just think it's goofy.
You can never get the same sinister vibe from "Batman Begins" as you can get from a Tim Burton directed film...You wouldn't understand this, because you seem to be bigger on comics than you are on film. Tim Burton has an amazing unique style and I love both of the first two "Batman" movies. It's not supposed to be serious, but they make it what it is... a fantasy. "Batman Begins" was good, but it didn't give you that same cinematic feeling, it's closer to just reading the comics, and at times, it took itself too seriously, almost like they wanted you to feel like you were watching "The Pianast" or something...The modern-day "Superman" looks 10 times more camp than Tim Burton's classic "Batman's". It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I just prefer Batman... Batman is self-made...PeACe
I'm certainly as big on cinema as I am on comics and probably more so. Like I said, Batman is Beetlejuice and Tim Burton isn't getting confused for Stanley Kubrick any time soon. The film just seemed too silly and stupid and it is rewarded for being dark when it's not even close even for science fiction. Blade Runner was dark. Terminater 1 was dark. Batman was a cartoon brought to live action and it wasn't the first or best version of it. Burton doesn't have any oscars for good reason. His movies are just plain and simple goofy and try and pretend to be deeper when they aren't, kind of like Tarantino. I really liked Edward S Hands for what it was and it was done perfectly for the kind of movie it was supposed to be. Batman wasn't supposed to be that kind of movie and it ended up being a lot like that. I know about fantasy, like Lord of the Rings or Space Oddysey. Batman just isn't one of those films. It was a great money maker and a perfect children's Batman movie but that's about it. I don't see anything amazing about the cinematography, acting style, or pacing. It's a straight forward film with straight forward shots if you take the script out of and look at it from a visual point of view. I admire the sets, they aren't Batman, but they are still good in both movies. Blade Runner set the tone for the 80s sci-fi fantasy movies and Batman is just one of the rip offs, from a visual stand point.
We simply have 2 different opinions...One thing though, is that a comic film is SUPPOSED to be like a cartoon made into live action. That's the vibe Tim Burton actually went for, after all, what are comics? But it's cartoonishly dark, a sinister live-action comic with dark imagery and a perfect score, I dunno how you don't see it? Tim Burton is a great director, Kubrick owns him, but I dunno where that came from. I also don't see how they were children movies, they were some pretty hard PG-13 flicks for those days and were actually a lot more violent than the next few installments. I guess to each his own though...PeACe
I'll agree on the music. The first theme was way better than the new one. I brought up Kubrick to show what a weird looking sinister film is supposed to look like. Sin City was cartoonishly dark. Batman was a cartoon. It was childish and juvenile in so many ways and so much was wasted on "wouldn't this be cool" moments that made no sense. Why are comic book movies supposed to be cartoons. Just because they are drawn on paper doesn't mean they have to be like saturday morning shows with live actors. Let's say I never read the book, or there never was a Batman until Tim Burton created and directed the movie. I'd still think it was a goofy film for children. Not todlers or infants, but anyone between the ages of 7 and 14. The whole thing just fely like I was watching a circus on film. You may like that, I don't. No one's opinion is better than the other's here. I'll also never understand the 1920s fashion with 2000s technology but oh well. I can look past that, but I don't see anything sinister about the film. I didn't see suggestive evil. I saw goofy imagery and stupid plotlines. Begins wasn't perfect but for it was the best yet. Batman was just a another great Burton pushing the ennvelope kids movie, like Beetlejuice, Nightmare Before Christmas, and Edward Scissor Hands. It did not change Batman (like it gets praised for) and it was not award winning material (and it didn't win any).
You see it a lot different than most the world does...A lot more people see them for dark films rather than simply write them off as "a film for children"...I guess it all comes down to how you see it. I, personally, thought they were done great. Oh, and they were nominated AND won some awards...
BATMAN-
Won
ASCAP Award
Most Performed Songs from Motion Pictures
Prince
For the song "Partyman".
Oscar
Best Art Direction-Set Decoration
Anton Furst
Peter Young
BMI Film Award
Music Award
Danny Elfman
Brit Award
Best Soundtrack
Evening Standard British Film Award
Best Technical/Artistic Achievement
Anton Furst
People's Choice Award
Favorite All-Around Motion Picture
Favorite Dramatic Motion Picture
Nominated
Saturn Award
Best Actor
Jack Nicholson
Best Costumes
Bob Ringwood
Best Fantasy Film
Best Make-Up
Paul Engelen
Lynda Armstrong
Nick Dudman
Best Supporting Actress
Kim Basinger
President's Award
BAFTA Award
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Jack Nicholson
Best Costume Design
Bob Ringwood
Best Make Up Artist
Paul Engelen
Nick Dudman
Best Production Design
Anton Furst
Best Sound
Don Sharpe
Tony Dawe
Bill Rowe
Best Special Effects
Derek Meddings
John Evans
Golden Globe
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical
Jack Nicholson
Grammy Award
Best Album of Original Instrumental Background Score Written for a Motion Picture or Television
Danny Elfman
Best Song Written Specifically for a Motion Picture or for Television
Prince
For the song "Partyman".
Hugo Award
Best Dramatic Presentation
Young Artist Award
Best Family Motion Picture - Musical or Fantasy
BATMAN RETURNS-
Nominated:
Oscar
Best Effects, Visual Effects
Michael L. Fink
Craig Barron
John Bruno
Dennis Skotak
Best Makeup
Ve Neill
Ronnie Specter
Stan Winston
Saturn Award
Best Costumes
Bob Ringwood
Mary E. Vogt
Vin Burnham
Best Director
Tim Burton
Best Fantasy Film
Best Supporting Actor
Danny DeVito
BAFTA Award
Best Make Up Artist
Ve Neill
Stan Winston
Best Special Effects
Michael L. Fink
John Bruno
Craig Barron
Dennis Skotak
Hugo Awards
Best Dramatic Presentation
MTV Movie Awards
Best Kiss
Michael Keaton
Michelle Pfeiffer
Best Villain
Danny DeVito
Most Desirable Female
Michelle Pfeiffer
Won
BMI Film & TV Awards
Music Award
Danny Elfman
Saturn Award
Best Make-Up
Stan Winston
Ve Neill
-
I meant real awards like the Oscars, and awards for Burton, not for special effects. The effects were great.
As for dark, I just don't see it. Watch Blade Runner. That's dark. Watch Rutger Hauer play Roy Batty. That's sinister. Batman uses a lot of dark shots and little light and Jack Nicholson is so transparent as the Joker. Roy Batty is a complex figure with a real human side for such a soul-less role.
-
I meant real awards like the Oscars, and awards for Burton, not for special effects. The effects were great.
As for dark, I just don't see it. Watch Blade Runner. That's dark. Watch Rutger Hauer play Roy Batty. That's sinister. Batman uses a lot of dark shots and little light and Jack Nicholson is so transparent as the Joker. Roy Batty is a complex figure with a real human side for such a soul-less role.
It won an Oscar...and also, it won awards in areas like "favorite film" as well. But it won a great amount of music awards, which is one of the things that gives those films their dark vibe and it's main feel...It might appeal to you in a different way, but to me it is perfect how it is...PeACe
-
I meant real awards like the Oscars, and awards for Burton, not for special effects. The effects were great.
As for dark, I just don't see it. Watch Blade Runner. That's dark. Watch Rutger Hauer play Roy Batty. That's sinister. Batman uses a lot of dark shots and little light and Jack Nicholson is so transparent as the Joker. Roy Batty is a complex figure with a real human side for such a soul-less role.
It won an Oscar...and also, it won awards in areas like "favorite film" as well. But it won a great amount of music awards, which is one of the things that gives those films their dark vibe and it's main feel...It might appeal to you in a different way, but to me it is perfect how it is...PeACe
But the focus of what we are talking about it Burton and his choices with the film. The music was great but Burton had little to do with that, and that didn't make or break the movie with me nor should it anyone, and the Oscar it won was not for the movie or direction. It was for the sets, which I already said were great.
-
I meant real awards like the Oscars, and awards for Burton, not for special effects. The effects were great.
As for dark, I just don't see it. Watch Blade Runner. That's dark. Watch Rutger Hauer play Roy Batty. That's sinister. Batman uses a lot of dark shots and little light and Jack Nicholson is so transparent as the Joker. Roy Batty is a complex figure with a real human side for such a soul-less role.
It won an Oscar...and also, it won awards in areas like "favorite film" as well. But it won a great amount of music awards, which is one of the things that gives those films their dark vibe and it's main feel...It might appeal to you in a different way, but to me it is perfect how it is...PeACe
But the focus of what we are talking about it Burton and his choices with the film. The music was great but Burton had little to do with that, and that didn't make or break the movie with me nor should it anyone, and the Oscar it won was not for the movie or direction. It was for the sets, which I already said were great.
Is the set not part of what makes the film? Is the music not part of what makes the film? Tim Burton loves to have a lot of creative control over his movies, so I'm sure a good portion of what we see/hear in the film are there because of him, including the music chosen...To me, his choices with the film were great...Everything fit in perfectly like a puzzle, I like Tim Burton a lot...PeACe
-
Batman Begins is darker than Batman and Batman Returns. Tim Burton's Gotham was it's own little universe while Nolan's Gotham actually looked like a real metropolis. Go ahead and like Tim Burton's films more than Batman Begins, that's a matter of taste but accept the fact that Batman Begins is much darker.
-
I don't blame Burton for the poor storyline so I'm not gong to give hikm credit for Danny Elfman's magical theme or Prince's song writing. I will fault Burton for choosing some of the goofy background music during a lot of the scenes. The tubas or whatever they were added to the goofy atmospehere and Burton was in charge of that most likely. I'm certain he had no control over the main theme though. There were 6 producers on this thing to get involved every which way they liked. In the end I'm sticking to my original view point; it was a goofy pair of films that were weird rather than dark or sinister. The characters were weird, the costumes were weird, the sets were weird (I said they were good, not dark or good for Batman), and the music was weird, and all this weirdness made it a goofy movie. Batman fought like a jackass, the villains were charicatures (Bob, the martial arts black guy that seemed to appear in just about every action movie of the 80s), the loive story had no real intesity brought to (Burton did a much better job with Depp and Rider in Edward Scissorhands), the Joker had no real motive for his stupidity and the character was not explained well. The stupid "you killed my father" cliche didn't help. The whole thing was just bad for me.
Batman Begins explained everything in a proper way thaat made it not only believable but you cared for and wanted Wayne to do it. In Batman you were given no reason or explanation for Wayne's foray into crimefighting. If they were horror movies Batman would be Chucky while Begins transcends the genre and is Silence of the Lambs (I don't think it was as good as Lambs. I'm just highlighting how difference it was). Of course some prefer Chucky.
-
Batman Begins is darker than Batman and Batman Returns. Tim Burton's Gotham was it's own little universe while Nolan's Gotham actually looked like a real metropolis. Go ahead and like Tim Burton's films more than Batman Begins, that's a matter of taste but accept the fact that Batman Begins is much darker.
They're both dark in 2 different ways..."Batman" and "Batman Returns" are dark in a cartoonish and surreal sorta' way, while "Batman Begins" was dark in a more realistic and believable way...One thing for sure though, the settings in the first 2 are a lot crazier...My favortie is "Batman Returns"...PeACe
-
I don't blame Burton for the poor storyline so I'm not gong to give hikm credit for Danny Elfman's magical theme or Prince's song writing. I will fault Burton for choosing some of the goofy background music during a lot of the scenes. The tubas or whatever they were added to the goofy atmospehere and Burton was in charge of that most likely. I'm certain he had no control over the main theme though. There were 6 producers on this thing to get involved every which way they liked. In the end I'm sticking to my original view point; it was a goofy pair of films that were weird rather than dark or sinister. The characters were weird, the costumes were weird, the sets were weird (I said they were good, not dark or good for Batman), and the music was weird, and all this weirdness made it a goofy movie. Batman fought like a jackass, the villains were charicatures (Bob, the martial arts black guy that seemed to appear in just about every action movie of the 80s), the loive story had no real intesity brought to (Burton did a much better job with Depp and Rider in Edward Scissorhands), the Joker had no real motive for his stupidity and the character was not explained well. The stupid "you killed my father" cliche didn't help. The whole thing was just bad for me.
Batman Begins explained everything in a proper way thaat made it not only believable but you cared for and wanted Wayne to do it. In Batman you were given no reason or explanation for Wayne's foray into crimefighting. If they were horror movies Batman would be Chucky while Begins transcends the genre and is Silence of the Lambs (I don't think it was as good as Lambs. I'm just highlighting how difference it was). Of course some prefer Chucky.
Okay, I got it, you didn't like the first 2 "Batman" movies...More people did than didn't though...PeACe
-
I don't blame Burton for the poor storyline so I'm not gong to give hikm credit for Danny Elfman's magical theme or Prince's song writing. I will fault Burton for choosing some of the goofy background music during a lot of the scenes. The tubas or whatever they were added to the goofy atmospehere and Burton was in charge of that most likely. I'm certain he had no control over the main theme though. There were 6 producers on this thing to get involved every which way they liked. In the end I'm sticking to my original view point; it was a goofy pair of films that were weird rather than dark or sinister. The characters were weird, the costumes were weird, the sets were weird (I said they were good, not dark or good for Batman), and the music was weird, and all this weirdness made it a goofy movie. Batman fought like a jackass, the villains were charicatures (Bob, the martial arts black guy that seemed to appear in just about every action movie of the 80s), the loive story had no real intesity brought to (Burton did a much better job with Depp and Rider in Edward Scissorhands), the Joker had no real motive for his stupidity and the character was not explained well. The stupid "you killed my father" cliche didn't help. The whole thing was just bad for me.
Batman Begins explained everything in a proper way thaat made it not only believable but you cared for and wanted Wayne to do it. In Batman you were given no reason or explanation for Wayne's foray into crimefighting. If they were horror movies Batman would be Chucky while Begins transcends the genre and is Silence of the Lambs (I don't think it was as good as Lambs. I'm just highlighting how difference it was). Of course some prefer Chucky.
Okay, I got it, you didn't like the first 2 "Batman" movies...More people did than didn't though...PeACe
I never said the masses didn't like the movies, or even that the critics didn't. The majority of people and critics also liked Crash. I still didn't think all that much of it. (The point of mentioning Crash was to show that I base my opinion on what I think and my tastes and that even a universally acclaimed movie like Crash can be dismissed by me if that's how I feel.)
-
I don't blame Burton for the poor storyline so I'm not gong to give hikm credit for Danny Elfman's magical theme or Prince's song writing. I will fault Burton for choosing some of the goofy background music during a lot of the scenes. The tubas or whatever they were added to the goofy atmospehere and Burton was in charge of that most likely. I'm certain he had no control over the main theme though. There were 6 producers on this thing to get involved every which way they liked. In the end I'm sticking to my original view point; it was a goofy pair of films that were weird rather than dark or sinister. The characters were weird, the costumes were weird, the sets were weird (I said they were good, not dark or good for Batman), and the music was weird, and all this weirdness made it a goofy movie. Batman fought like a jackass, the villains were charicatures (Bob, the martial arts black guy that seemed to appear in just about every action movie of the 80s), the loive story had no real intesity brought to (Burton did a much better job with Depp and Rider in Edward Scissorhands), the Joker had no real motive for his stupidity and the character was not explained well. The stupid "you killed my father" cliche didn't help. The whole thing was just bad for me.
Batman Begins explained everything in a proper way thaat made it not only believable but you cared for and wanted Wayne to do it. In Batman you were given no reason or explanation for Wayne's foray into crimefighting. If they were horror movies Batman would be Chucky while Begins transcends the genre and is Silence of the Lambs (I don't think it was as good as Lambs. I'm just highlighting how difference it was). Of course some prefer Chucky.
Okay, I got it, you didn't like the first 2 "Batman" movies...More people did than didn't though...PeACe
I never said the masses didn't like the movies, or even that the critics didn't. The majority of people and critics also liked Crash. I still didn't think all that much of it. (The point of mentioning Crash was to show that I base my opinion on what I think and my tastes and that even a universally acclaimed movie like Crash can be dismissed by me if that's how I feel.)
Amazing...What does this conclude?...It's all a matter of taste, like I've said from the beginning...PeACe
-
I don't blame Burton for the poor storyline so I'm not gong to give hikm credit for Danny Elfman's magical theme or Prince's song writing. I will fault Burton for choosing some of the goofy background music during a lot of the scenes. The tubas or whatever they were added to the goofy atmospehere and Burton was in charge of that most likely. I'm certain he had no control over the main theme though. There were 6 producers on this thing to get involved every which way they liked. In the end I'm sticking to my original view point; it was a goofy pair of films that were weird rather than dark or sinister. The characters were weird, the costumes were weird, the sets were weird (I said they were good, not dark or good for Batman), and the music was weird, and all this weirdness made it a goofy movie. Batman fought like a jackass, the villains were charicatures (Bob, the martial arts black guy that seemed to appear in just about every action movie of the 80s), the loive story had no real intesity brought to (Burton did a much better job with Depp and Rider in Edward Scissorhands), the Joker had no real motive for his stupidity and the character was not explained well. The stupid "you killed my father" cliche didn't help. The whole thing was just bad for me.
Batman Begins explained everything in a proper way thaat made it not only believable but you cared for and wanted Wayne to do it. In Batman you were given no reason or explanation for Wayne's foray into crimefighting. If they were horror movies Batman would be Chucky while Begins transcends the genre and is Silence of the Lambs (I don't think it was as good as Lambs. I'm just highlighting how difference it was). Of course some prefer Chucky.
Okay, I got it, you didn't like the first 2 "Batman" movies...More people did than didn't though...PeACe
I never said the masses didn't like the movies, or even that the critics didn't. The majority of people and critics also liked Crash. I still didn't think all that much of it. (The point of mentioning Crash was to show that I base my opinion on what I think and my tastes and that even a universally acclaimed movie like Crash can be dismissed by me if that's how I feel.)
Amazing...What does this conclude?...It's all a matter of taste, like I've said from the beginning...PeACe
It's the same thing that I concluded from the beginning. I was simply giving you my reasons for disliking the films.