How are the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton movies generally regarded? I’ve always thought they were much better than anything else in that iteration of the franchise. (I haven’t seen BB or DK.) But I got the idea that some fans of the later movies looked down upon the first two.
As for Batman Forever, I thought it notable that it took Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones combined to play essentially the same role that Jack Nicholson owned all by himself.
Presumably by people who have never seen a woman in real life.
I’m not exactly a fan of the later movies, but I’m not too fond of the first two either. There are parts of the second one that are great (let Tim Burton play and something good will pop out), but in general I find them too light to be dark and too dark to be light. Batman Forever is my favourite of the four, simply because it’s a comedy that knows it’s a comedy and whose actors know they’re in a comedy, acting accordingly. Batman&Robin is pretty much crap, but as said above its actors did what they could with what they were given.
I think the only real hatred came from within the industry. Without looking it up, I’m sure Ah-nold must have gotten at least $25 mil for that role, and probably some points, and top billing (above both the title and Clooney’s). So they probably feel that, if he had wanted to, he surely could have made reigning in the, ahem, flamboyance of the project a condition of his being in it. So since he didn’t, and mostly, since he got the biggest paycheck, he got most of (or a great deal of) the blame. And the thought isn’t entirely without merit.
I think Clooney got the part for most of the same reason Kilmer got it. Because in the Batcowl he looked just like Michael Keaton!
The Schumacher films are sequels in name only to the Burton ones. Schumacher is a competent director, but he is most definitely not an artist. Love him or hate him, Burton absolutely is. The fourth film’s abysmal-ness rests squarely on Schumacher’s shoulders (and he unflinchingly acknowledges this). It may have been the product of movie executive meddling, but he let it happen.
Michael Keaton was, in my opinion, inspired casting for the first Burton Batman. Kilmer and Clooney were an attempt to cast in the same vein: wry, comic-capable actor.
Unfortunately, what the casting of Kilmer and Clooney missed is that Keaton wasn’t an action star. He was cast to be Bruce Wayne, the most unlikely person in the world to be a vigilante. Kilmer had already done the action-hero thing (Willow) as had Clooney (From Dusk Till Dawn). Keaton hadn’t; that’s why he worked so well as Wayne/Batman, I feel.
I can see why Arnie took the heat (har har) for Batman 4. Schwarzenegger was Ground Zero for the mascara and makeup torpedoes. His ridiculously goofy-looking neon-lit character with the glowing blue teeth represented all the movie’s worst and most comic excesses that departed from the darkness of the first Burton Batman. (“Now,” Vader would say, “Joel’s failure is complete.”)
Dat kind of “humor” leaves me cold.
Out of Tim Burton’s work I don’t think this observation would be confined to Batman–I kind of like that about him. But maybe it is the wrong approach (or atmosphere, or whatever) for Batman.
Well, anyway, it coulda’ been Johnny Depp under the cowl and just as well it wasn’t.
I’m not sure - Arnie seemed to be having way to much fun in the role for that. I think he took the job as a lark.
I loved the first Keaton Batman, really liked BR, was disappointed by Kilmer but otherwise liked BF, & was not-disappointed/didn’t-expect-much by B&R, EXCEPT…
the identity of Batgirl as the daughter of some old friend of Alfred.
WTF?!?! BATGIRL IS BARBARA GORDON, DAMMIT!
And for my money, callypygian Alicia in the BG suit was A-OK!
Good point. What I said could be applied to Nightmare Before Christmas, Corpse Bride, Edward Scissorhands, even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But yeah, I do feel it’s completely wrong for Batman. You have to pick whether to make it 60s campy or dark-tortured-hero-barely-on-the-side-of-good.
So I take it that the most recent two movies succeed in taking the latter approach? Genuine question–I haven’t seen them.
This whole discussion giffs me chills.
Damn yes they do. After watching Batman Begins, I said to myself “this is the Batman movie I’ve been waiting for”. After watching Dark Knight, I said “no, this is the Batman movie I’ve been waiting for” but it might be more accurate to say it’s the Joker movie I’ve been waiting for.
Seriously, watch them. Batman Begins is really good and Dark Knight is… fuck it, I’ll go see it again.
This looks like a good opportunity to find out if that’s really true or just a technicality.
This is what is bugging me about this new Batman series. I haven’t seen the new one yet (Damned parenthood, why can’t I just leave the baby in the car?), so I can’t judge it. The first one was OK, because the villains had different purposes. I’ve never heard of the scarecrow anyway (Adam West didn’t do it.) Two-face is interesting. His nature might just make him suitable for multiple villains as long as he doesn’t take the show away from the main villain. Now they are talking about Catwoman and Riddler for this one. It just seems like they are trying to hard to do every villain before the franchise runs out. The villains never get a chance to develop.
As for Superman 2, Lex Luthor wasn’t a problem. He was hardly a relevent villain and wasn’t the main threat anyway. You always knew that if General Zod had succeeded, Luthor was just as screwed as the rest of us puny humans.
It’s not a humor. At all.
Oh, I’ve defended it plenty, although not, that I can recall, on this board.
But yeah, I don’t think it’s the best Batman movie (that’s always a toss-up between Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and the 60’s Batman movie), but I think it’s quite good, and has a great deal more to do with Batman than any of Burton or Nolan’s movies.
I think the movie is a ton of fun, the dialog is a riot, and all of the actors are clearly having a great time with it. I’d probably put it after Mask of the Phantasm, 60’s Batman, and Batman Returns in my list of favorite Batman movies (which doesn’t yet include Dark Knight, since I’ve only seen it once; waiting for some time to pass on that one).
I think that most criticisms of it are unfair and miss the point of the movie.
“They” certainly aren’t talking about Catwoman, and as for the Riddler I find it very unlikely.
The problem with the last couple of movies (Riddler/Two-Face and Poison Ivy/Bane/Freeze) is that they didn’t spend any time developing the villains. They just glossed over their origins, and didn’t let us get into their heads. The first two movies (with the Joker and the Penguin/Catwoman) took the time to flesh out the bad guys, and were far better for it.
Also, Arnie was miscast. The ideal Mr. Freeze, IMHO, would have been Richard Moll (Bull from Night Court). He’s tall and imposing like Arnie, but he could play the part sympathetically enough that the audience would feel sorry for Freeze.
By Hollywood types who believe that a woman should look like Skeletor.
Regardless of the ideals of beauty argument, Alicia Silverstone had gained noticable gained weight, and was crammed into the wrong suit.
The problem with the B&R suits was that hers DIDN’T have nipples, but Robin and Batman’s DID. shudder
Amusing video review of the movie. B&R haters will identify with the reviewer.