Everyone are salivating over Nolan while Burton's masterpieces seem overlooked.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 05:41 AM)
Burton made his movies during a time where you HAD to make them that way if they were big-budget, main-stream comic book movies. He was able to get some darkness into the film, but the studio wouldn't accept the same stuff they do now.
It's like the difference between the two "True Grit" movies. I like both of them, but John Wayne's Rooster is "John Wayne" and Bridges' Rooster is a SOB.
When Wayne made TG, it had to have a happy ending. Not so much in Bridges'. -
cinephyler — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 06:08 AM)
I think it is very popular. I watched it again last night, and to me it only has two "flaws" that wouldn't work today, which are hardly flaws.
- Casting Michael Keaton, who I pictured as a family/comedy guy then, like Tom Hanks. He did fine as Bruce Wayne, but there is no way for me to imagine him in the actual Batman action scenes (jumping, flying, fighting).
- The cheesy 60's style fight scenes, but I think those were an homage to the original, and predated Tarantino's darkening of American cinema.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 01:08 PM)
I wasn't too keen on Keaton to start, but I think he did a great job. He got the brooding part down without coming across as being whiny.
Other than the close-up shots of any of the Batman actors, I don't imagine any of them doing any of their stunts.
As far as your second point goes, I don't think they were cheesy, but I do agree that they weren't as dark as the fights now are. As I said previously, they could only do so much when they made this movie. -
cinephyler — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 02:11 PM)
Yeah, regarding the fights (some of them anyway, especially toward the beginning) I could almost hear the 60's style music blended in, with a POW! or BAM! graphic. That's all I meant. I didn't mean to paint all of the fights as cheesy.
-
HellboundHero — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 03:06 PM)
- Casting Michael Keaton, who I pictured as a family/comedy guy then, like Tom Hanks. He did fine as Bruce Wayne, but there is no way for me to imagine him in the actual Batman action scenes (jumping, flying, fighting).
That's funny because the consensus seems to be that Keaton made a better Batman than Bruce, and not because he was physically right for the part but because he had the attitude for it.
- Casting Michael Keaton, who I pictured as a family/comedy guy then, like Tom Hanks. He did fine as Bruce Wayne, but there is no way for me to imagine him in the actual Batman action scenes (jumping, flying, fighting).
-
Wombstar — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 12:08 PM)
It's very popular and is considered the best Batman, most people have forgotten about The Dark Night trilogy.. it's dated, it's irrelevant now and it's just not very memorable (people only remember The Joker because nobody forgets a good villain)
-
AndrewGS — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 09:50 AM)
It's still popular but reflects a pretty different era (heavy stylization and noir rather than attempted realism, different kinds of action and special effects, big celebrities with Nicholson doing a lot of mugging).
-
Milk_Tray_Guy — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 03:12 PM)
It still has a huge fanbase - although I think Batman Returns is better.
My top 5 Batman films- The Dark Knight
- Batman Returns
- Batman '89
- The Dark Knight Rises
- Batman Begins
"A big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff"
The Tenth Doctor explains all.
-
Gobiastia — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 04:25 PM)
Several reasons. The Batman movies since, specifically the Nolan movies did Batman better. The Burton movies don't hold up well unfortunately. Their stories are dull, the characters poorly done, and in Batman 1989's case it feels very dated.