I think, rather than try to talk people out of using “comic booky” as a pejorative, we just start refering to comic-based movies that are good as “graphic novelish.”
I think the biggest problem with this movie is that Schumacher was so desperate to relive his fond boomer memories of the cheesy TV series, that he went completely overboard, which led to sensory overload, disrespect for the characters and their origins (what was the point of changing Batgirl’s identity? convenience?), and an overlong movie with a paltry story at the center. Talk about an egomanical director lording over a movie backed by, what must have been, a huge committee of people behind him telling him what they did and didn’t like every 5 minutes and demanding continual changes, and you end up with a piece of confused, distracted piece of moviemaking with no attention span aimed at the director’s desire to actuate his childhood fantasies while possibly attempting to get revenge on Tim Burton for his smart, dark visions in the first two Batman films. When I think about it, I can’t even determine who exactly the movie was aimed at other than Schumacher himself and maybe dumb 10-year-old boys who don’t like to read, let alone comic books.
Is he still a crazy motherfucker?
The following post is a hijacked rant. Please be advised.
How I wish that had happened with LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMAN, which I tried to watch just yesterday. Familair visuals would have allowed me to enjoy it more. Instead I had to watch aging Bond Lite Allan Quatermain, bloodsucking Mina Murray, goofy-ass American Tom Sawyer and Dorian freaking Gray as they managed to ignore 75% of the comic book’s look, plot, characterizations and themes and came up with their own boring, soulless, lifeless and meaningless series of visuals – compounding them with with being impossible, unoriginal and profoundly ham-fisted, too.
An armored tank – used to rob London banks? Sheeyeah, right.
Automobiles in 1899 – invented by a seaman and piloted by the narrator of Moby Dick? Yeesh.
The Phantom showing up at a shoot-out at Dorian Gray’s home, and gets away scot-free. WHY?? Jeez.
The Nautilus in skinny-ass Venice’s canals?? Sheesh.
At this point I turned off the movie and never watched it again.
ASIDE: Was Tim Burton THAT influential a director that damn near every comic book superhero movie since BATMAN (except, thankfully, the emerging SPIDER-MAN serials) bites his filmmaking visual style?
Okay. I’m done. thanks for letting me vent.
With the exception of Daredevil, I don’t think any of the recent Marvel Comics-based movies have aped the Burton style.
What Burton did that got people to sit up and take notice was to do a comic-book movie seriously – e.g., as a movie first, and a comic-book second. If you toned down the outfits for Bats and the Joker, the first Batman movie could’ve been retooled as a Die Hard-style “guy flick” with minimal changes. The best comic-book movies IMO are the ones that treated their subject with respect, not as a subject of ridicule; Batman & Robin forgot this, and treated everyone as caricatures in a big joke.
Well, the science fiction/fantasy category is similarly blamed for bad movies. Very few people expect a high-quality SF/fantasy movie…most expect very poor acting, scripting, etc. People DO expect great special effects in a SF/fantasy movie, and usually that’s what they get. I love science fiction and fantasy, but there are damned few movies or TV shows that do the genre justice, and that’s a shame.
Hail Ants said:
And in B&R, George Clooney decided that Bruce/Batman shouldn’t have been so deeply traumatized, that any rich kid/man would certainly be sane and happy with his life. Doesn’t matter that his parents were killed in front of him, and the murderer threatened him as well. Doesn’t matter that the murderer implied that he’d kill the kid later. No, Clooney decided that HIS Bruce/Batman was gonna be a sane, well-adjusted fellow. And to me, the fact that B/B is hanging on to the edge of sanity by his fingernails is part of the appeal. I want a dark, brooding Batman. He should be suffering. I don’t want a guy who’s happy with his life, and just goes crimefighting for a lark.
While the cheese factor was a big in determining my dislike for this movie, the biggest issue I had was the handling of the villains. You simply can not have a good action movie without a compelling antagonist. Even BF did a better job of making you take the villains seriously.
I am also seething mad at the use of Bane in this movie. As a fan of Knightfall, I think that it was a waste of a great villain- not only did their treatment of Bane ruin this movie, it pretty well ruins any chance of a Knightfall movie later on. And that just plain sucks.
For those of you who don’t know- Bane in the comics is not an animal- he’s a boy raised in a prison for the crimes of his father- watches his mother raped to death, has to make his own way from an early age, is experimented on, escapes his tormentors, and then proceeds to lay an intricate trap for Batman (forget why exactly). He’s super strong, and super clever. Let’s just say that he catches Batman unprepared.
This was also the run with the ‘replacement’ batman, Azrael, the mad Templar, and my favorite incarnation of the Batsuit. If you can grab the GN or novel, it’s worth it.
Tell me again why I can’t like the movie as a campy joke?
I was disappointed in ALL of the Batman films. Burton did some great things visually, and at least tried to present Batman as a serious character. However, his films were undone by horribly clunky dialogue. I mean REALLY bad dialogue.
The last two films were campy tributes to the 60s TV show which Batman purists hate because neither that show nor the last two movies took Batman seriously.
I’m still waiting for a truly great Batman film.
I think my problem with it stems from the director. I don’t have a cite, but Schumacher remarked about his parents: “Sure, he saw his parents die, but he got over it.” :eek:
No, he didn’t. That’s the point of Batman. He never gets over it.
I’m not a huge fan of any of the Batman films either, although I will cop to having the first one on DVD.
What turned me off of Burton’s films were:
(1) Batman being all about the gadgets. Keaton couldn’t move in the Batsuit, and it showed. He stands around and takes bullet shots to the chest, can’t swivel his neck, and was overreliant on the gizmos.
(2) Batman being a killer. He was shown actually killing a bunch of people when he blew up that factory, and the two thugs talking at the beginning mentioned another killing. Batman’s not a killer, something that Frank Miller understood completely in “The Dark Knight Returns.”
(3) Batman wasn’t scary in these films. Not at all. Nothing about him did or ought to have struck fear into the hearts of criminals, a cowardly, superstitious lot.
I actually liked certain aspects of Batman Forever better than either of Burton’s films. Kilmer was a more active and dynamic Batman than Keaton (though I think Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne). I wish that they had done a better job of setting Two-Face up as a villain - he’s actually a pretty compelling story and a difficult villain for Batman. But Batman Forever did a better job on filling in some of the backstory on Batman and his motivations than either of Burton’s films.
Batman & Robin emphasized everything I disliked about Batman Forever and retained nothing that I liked. It was a wretched waste of film.
The success of “Spider-Man” has shown that there is an interest in re-telling the origin story, which is something that was not really done in any of the Batman films, except in flashback. And the alterations that were made were completely illogical, and that’s coming from someone who firmly believes that the “no organic webshooters” crowd really needs to move out of their mom’s basement and get a life already. If the Joker was the one who killed the Waynes, and the Joker is dead, why is Batman still out there every night? Again, this was something that I thought “Batman Forever” explained a little better - he was out there so that no child would ever feel what he felt. But we shouldn’t have to get two movies into it to explain that, particularly if you’re trying to also hook non-comic fans. (“Spider-Man” almost went overboard the other way with the “great power” bit, but at least we understood why Peter feels compelled to fight the bad guys even though the specific one that killed his uncle was no longer an issue.)
So I’m hopeful about the Nolan/ Bale venture, if for no other reason than it seems to be going back to first principles.
Not only that, but the screenwriters missed out on the ultimate opportunity to throw in a McBain pun… “Ice to see you.”
Bale seems a good choice to me for the Bruce Wayne character. I have my fingers crossed on this one.
You most certainly can. The OP asked why other people couldn’t. And that’s what’s been answered.
At some point, you might like to take a moment to look up what ‘literally’ means. In all other respects, well said.
I would recommend the review of B&R posted at The Agony Booth. It’s quite funny.
I have nothing productive to add to this thread other than to say, “Ice to meet you” has been a long-time running gag amongst my friends and I 
:eek:
Joel Schumacher is easily one of the five worst directors getting regular work in Hollywood. Period.
To which Starman do you refer? I was a huge fan of the early-90s Starman - the one who started out with the purple & gold suit that his sister made for him. I thought the writing was excellent, and I loved the character. I was displeased when DC caved to the people who didn’t like the purple & gold and changed his costume to a hideous black, red & white atrocity. There was already plenty of black and red in other heroes suits - I thought the purple & gold made Starman stand out.
Some of the absolute best writing ever. Amazing.
I mean the most recent Starman, in the series that started in late 1994 and ran until 2001. James Robinson wrote all 82 issues and a handful of specials, annuals, and related tie-in issues, and the major artists were Tony Harris and Peter Snejbjerg.
This Starman was Jack Knight, a reluctant hero and son of the Golden Age Starman, Ted Knight, he of the red and green costume. Jack loved vintage collectibles and music and art and tattoos and wanted nothing to do with his father’s world of costumes and powers and life-destroying super-villains, but he was thrust into it anyway. Though he never wore a traditional costume, he rose to the occasion and became a great hero in his own right, grew as a person along the way, and finally got to know the man his father was. It’s a beautiful story with a distinct beginning and an end, and I give it my highest recommendation to anyone. Probably 3/4 of the run has been collected in trade paperbacks, but “Sins of the Father” is the first.
It also features the Starman you like, Will Payton, and tells you what finally happens to him. In fact, his sister shows up too, much later into the series.