Am I bad for not liking this?
-
war-path — 9 years ago(December 16, 2016 11:05 PM)
Batman, in most forms in the comics, from the mid 70's through the mid 80's was campy or at least "silly."
No he wasn't. By that point, he was already the Dark Knight Detective that was brought back to forefront thanks especially to Denny O'Neil, among others around this time.
He figured sh!t out which had no explanation and ALWAYS had EVERYTHING he specifically needed on his utility belt - no matter how outrageous it was or if it would have made his belt weigh 300#.
So you're saying that Batman is always a campy or silly character anyway? Cuz this is part of the gist to this character who continues to figure stuff out with his intellect. So the badass Batman that many people love in this day and age is just nothing but a campy/silly character to you? That's the message you're sending here.
It wasn't until Batman Year #1 came out that they started making him dark/serious without being absurd.
Frank Miller added another layer of darkness and more of the political and social elements of villainy rather than focusing too much on the costumed theatrical villains of Batman when he did Batman Year One in the mid to late 80's. But that doesn't mean that before he got involved that there was a major level of absurdity or sillyness and even campiness in the post Adam West/pre-Keaton era. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 10:58 AM)
No he wasn't.
You are entitled to your own opinions (no matter how wrong they are) but not your own facts. That is when I was reading comic books and they were exactly like that. In once scene his cape goes to his ankles. In another, it flows out behind him for 20' or so which allows him to capture the bad guy. He and Superman are buddy-buddy and making jokes with each other. He gets trapped and always gets out because he's got the right gear.
So you're saying that Batman is always a campy or silly character anyway?
So, is it your reading comprehension which sucks, or are you just not able to remember what was being discussed 5 minutes prior? Because you had just quoted me on
Batman, in most forms in the comics,
from the mid 70's through the mid 80's was campy or at least "silly." -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 07:51 AM)
He and Superman are buddy buddy and cracking jokes.
That sounds more like the late 50s comics I have read though I am sure they were still like that later on. I would say the whole Superman and Batman rivalry/conflict seen in Superman the 90s cartoon and recently BVS didn't exist til the 80s. It's why older relatives of mine refused to watch BVS. They grew up with comics where Superman and Batman were the best of friends.
"1-800 Spank me? I know that number." Scott Calvin, The Santa Clause. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 08:55 AM)
They were like that until about the time of Batman, Year One. After that they got a little more serious.
Unfortunately, DC thinks their movies have to be incredibly dark - to the point of morose - to be good. -
war-path — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 12:28 PM)
You are entitled to your own opinions (no matter how wrong they are) but not your own facts.
Sorry but this is not so much my opinion as it is a broadly stated and touched upon fact that during the 1970's, Batman was returning back to his dark roots in the comic books. This was the Bronze Age, so some of the serious tone and darkness of the Golden Age version of the character was being put to the forefront in the comic books.
That is when I was reading comic books and they were exactly like that.
You aren't the only person who read the comic books in the 70's so I'm sure many around that time would agree that Batman wasn't really "campy as hell" as you've blatantly and inaccurately pointed out.
In once scene his cape goes to his ankles. In another, it flows out behind him for 20' or so which allows him to capture the bad guy.
Hasn't this visual liberty been done in the comic books even after the 70's has passed? When Batman is standing still and even when his cape is covering him front-side, it would be make sense if the cropped points of his cape go down to his ankles. When he runs, his cape would be folded and pushed behind his back already, so as he runs and motions to capture a bad guy, it should be expected that his cape flow out behind him. I don't see what there is to complain or cry about here with such a trivial detail you're pointing out.
He and Superman are buddy-buddy and making jokes with each other.
In the 70's, Batman and Superman did not have a rivalry or disputes in handling crime fighting to the point that it reached to in the mid 80's once Frank Miller got his hands on Batman and pushed this concept of them fighting each other over ideologies in The Dark Knight Returns 30 years ago. Okaybut they're just in an alliance and were part of the whole Justice League or Justice Society of America. So of course they'd get along and are like friends, but even in the 70's I don't think it's as care-free, silly and joyful as you're making it out to be.
The 70's wasn't as dark as the 80's and onward when it comes to Batman in the comic books, but it was becoming dark and therefore, really, you shouldn't just loosely say something dumb like Batman's comic books in the 70's were campy or even at least silly.
He gets trapped and always gets out because he's got the right gear.
So, is it your reading comprehension which sucks, or are you just not able to remember what was being discussed 5 minutes prior? Because you had just quoted me on
Like I said before, it's part of the gist of the character. Your comprehension is the one that sucks here, because when I wrote that line about the whole gist of the character there were some things you should've understood about that discourse.
There's a formula to the Batman character, with him using his strong will and massive intellect, and also using the gadgets to his advantage in a situation that calls for it, you should've really picked up on it immediately, it's not even reading between the lines.
As I stated before during that other time, you seem to be mocking the formula/gist of the Batman character not just in the 70's, but even overall in his quintessential bad-ass renegade glory that we have come to see him established to this very day. Because after the 70's, all the decades that followed it, he still uses his gear to get out of traps. He figured sh!t out, cuz of his incredible intelligence and genius detective skills, as it is the gist of the character, this formula has always been used since then, so by making fun of the 70's Batman's formula, you're making fun of him overall as well, when it comes to the evolution of the character in the decades after the 70's. -
Gobiastia — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 04:10 PM)
I dislike it, too. I think the movie's biggest sin is that it is plain boring. A bad movie at least evokes some emotion, whether it's annoyance or even laughter at how bad it is. This movie doesn't stir anything in me except boredom.
-
Gobiastia — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 01:07 PM)
I think that's an ignorant assumption to make. One can dislike something and understand what the movie was trying to do. Emphasis on the word trying. I don't think Batman 1989 achieved anything except some handsome visuals.
-
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(April 03, 2019 08:19 AM)
you'd be "bad" for not liking the million-plots-jammed-into-three-hour Dark Knight. like I don't. and I am bad for that. you're normal for not liking this.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/