This movie is campy as hell
-
hiitsmewutsup-953-300236 — 9 years ago(August 08, 2016 06:44 PM)
Here's a hint: he dresses up as a giant bat and beats up criminals. He just happens to be a crazy person who fights against bad guys. Batman is a big brand, and there's a lot of cartoon versions, so this aspect doesn't always get emphasized, but its part of why he's a compelling, tragic character.
-
OLD_ACCOUNT_skribb_Mk2 — 9 years ago(August 09, 2016 01:08 AM)
I dunno man.
I'm starting to really hate the aspect of making comic book or fantasy characters as grounded as possible. I have a really strong feeling that Batman wasn't created in the 40s to be a character study of a "psychotic, tragic man". He was just a mysterious masked vigilante trying to rid his city of scum. A pulp fiction character.
Now since like the 80s or whatever, he's been getting gradually more and more "realistic" and starting to incorporate real-life motivations and character traits and it's bugging the hell out of me. Why can't he just be a hero character, end of story?
This could be just me not actually wanting to be reminded of real life when engaging in escapism tho. My life has seen enough tragedy.
DISCLAIMER: If the post above is stupid, explain my stupidity instead of name-calling. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(August 09, 2016 10:45 AM)
He was started as "The World's Greatest Detective" who wore a bat suit to strike fear in the hearts of criminals.
The reason he can't just be a hero is because that becomes boring quickly. There has to be motivation, otherwise he is just a soldier without a soul. And motivation means character development.
Think of it this way. At what point would a guy who is a billionaire stop risking his life if he wasn't borderline psychotic and obsessed? Professional athletes get considerably slower in their late 30's, so why would Bruce continue on past that? Why not grab some supermodel, fly to a secluded island, boink her brains out for a few weeks, and then head back to Gotham to find some supermodel, wash, rinse, repeat? -
hiitsmewutsup-953-300236 — 9 years ago(August 09, 2016 06:37 PM)
Why can't he just be a hero character, end of story?
It's a matter of taste, for me. I don't think one version is necessarily truer than the other. The evidence leans toward Bruce being a crazy person, but I can enjoy the Adam West show, and the cartoons. They downplay it in the Nolan movies, but it does get a passing reference (like when Harvey asks Alfred if Rachel has any "psychotic ex-boyfriends" he should know about). -
-
thebigmouth — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:12 AM)
To be honest, all of those things you cited are what make Keaton a really interesting Bruce Wayne/Batman. I was bored and annoyed by Christian Bale's take on Bruce Wayne because he comes off an arrogant douchebag. Ben Affleck did a better job in the otherwise terrible Bvs.
Strongly disagree. The central failing of Keaton and Affleck's takes is that there's no difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne. They are the two most humorless playboys ever. Bale's performance works precisely because the arrogant douchebaggery makes Wayne a distinct character.
This is also why Christopher Reeve's take on Superman is superior to Henry Cavill's imo. You actually believe other people would believe Reeve's a bumbling Clark Kent.
TV:
http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:
http://eyemsick.blogspot.com -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 12:03 PM)
They are the two most humorless playboys ever.
Ok, so we saw the one time in Begins where he has the two models with him and the time in TDK when he takes the opera troupe with him on the boat.
When were the other times he was a humorous playboy? -
thebigmouth — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 10:10 AM)
Huh? HumorLESS.
TV:
http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:
http://eyemsick.blogspot.com -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 10:36 AM)
You said,
no difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne. They are the two most humorless playboys ever.
Bale's performance works precisely because the arrogant douchebaggery makes Wayne a distinct character.
So I asked,
Ok, so we saw the one time in Begins where he has the two models with him and the time in TDK when he takes the opera troupe with him on the boat.
When were the other times he (Bale) was a
humorous
playboy? -
thebigmouth — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 09:17 AM)
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
I think "humorless" was poor word choice on my part. My point is there's clear delineation between his roles as playboy vs. vigilante in the Dark Knight trilogy. In some sense, Bruce Wayne is just a mask Batman wears to hide his true self.
I dont recall the same separation in Batman 1989. Wayne doesnt necessarily have to be an arrogant douchebag" but very little about his portrayal in that film said playboy to me. Not sure if it was writing, casting, directing, or what.
TV:
http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:
http://eyemsick.blogspot.com -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 07:47 AM)
In some sense, Bruce Wayne is just a mask Batman wears to hide his true self.
That very much is the case.
I dont recall the same separation in Batman 1989. Wayne doesnt necessarily have to be an arrogant douchebag" but very little about his portrayal in that film said playboy to me. Not sure if it was writing, casting, directing, or what.
The scene at Wayne Manor when we first meet Bruce - he tells Vicki he doesn't know where Bruce is, sticks the pen in a decoration, sets his champagne glass down without a care of it falling, then is very flip about opening six - six? - six more cases of champagne and giving Knox a grant.
Those were the only times we see the playboy Bruce Wayne, but we didn't see much of him in TDK trilogy either.
IMO, Bruce's statement of, "He's out there, and I've got to go to work." was a better line than anything in TDK trilogy of showing what Bruce's mind-set was. -
Star_blazer_9000 — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 08:24 PM)
Keaton is a bad choice for Batman. Doesn't have the look at all.
I thought Michael Keaton was an odd choice but paid off big time in the end. I liked that he wasn't the traditional dashing playboy that we would all expect. He's just a guy in the public eye but behind closed doors you see another side to Bruce Wayne. His tender moments with Vicki displayed unexpected sex appeal projecting from Keaton and he's not known as a handsome leading man by any stretch. The moments where he is alone is exactly what you want from Bruce Wayne. There is so much going on when you see him just staring into the abyss like a zombie whether he is looking into the past or analyzing a situation. Wonderful acting. I course it really comes down to what kind of Batman you prefer. In my eyes there is no bad Batman, just different versions. I'll always love Keaton's Batman.
The Bat suit is laughable. It makes his head twice as big and the way Keaton is unable to turn his head is quite distracting. It looks like a bad cosplay suit from a store.
The Batsuit is dated but makes this better than the 90's suits is that the lighting creates this dark menacing figure that adds so much to the character. The way the darkness projects onto his mask looks so epic. In Batman Returns the effect diminished and became less of a creature of the night. It wasn't until Batman Begins when they brought that style back only with quicker cuts to add to his abnormal speed and efficiency. Everything in between he was just a guy in a suit.
The Wire Fu is awful. Like b-movie awful. When Batman "swoops down" it's so slow and looks so stupid.
Try and remember this was set during the golden age of Hong Kong cinema and Hollywood directors were heavily influenced by the way they staged their fight scenes. It can be silly at times and they eventually perfected wire fu set in a more grounded universe. Previously it was used for wuxia/swordsman action movies like Chinese Ghost Story.
Jack Nicholson is good as the Joker, but it's so hard to not think "that's Jack nicholson with Joker makeup" over and over as you watch the movie. Heath and Leto were almost unrecognizable and I really liked that. Another part that was awful was how Joker used makeup to appear normal for so much of the movie's runtime. I don't see what the point was, in the TV broadcast he's using flesh color makeup but still says "Hi, I'm the joker" so what is the point of hiding his face.
Everyone knew what to expect from Nicholson at the time. This film was in fact my first exposure to Jack Nicholson and he terrified me as a kid. He made a huge impact on me as a kid. I love is performance as the Joker but Heath Ledger brought it to a whole other level. Ledger's Joker is just better. I don't know the story about the usage of makeup. Not sure if it was his decision to do scenes without it because there are scenes where he is wearing the flesh makeup and there's just no reason for it.
The movie feels very small. Like Gotham is a tiny city. The city matte paintings are awesome but still look like paintings (maybe this was difficult to avoid at the time?) which enhances the claustrophobia.
Personally I like it that way. It's like Gotham is set in an alternate universewell it is but it doesn't feel like the real world. The beautiful miniatures of the city are amazing. I can't help but get inspired when I draw landscapes for my portfolio.
The first appearance of Batman from the bird's eye POV is awful. Worst 80's CGI ever.
It wasn't CGI it was frame by frame cells. Also this animated silhouette isn't even noticeable when you watch the film on VHS or DVD. 80's film were never meant to be viewed in 1080p. Yes it sticks out like a sore thumb but I'd blame the bluray release for that not the filmmakers themselves.
The sappy love story with Vicki is totally unneeded, and it's compeltely out of character for Bruce to want to invite a woman TO THE BATCAVE after seeing her for a few days.
From what I understand it was Alfred who escorted her down to the batcave. Bruce was shocked to see her down there. But even so it kind of is in character because deep down Batman wants to be loved and show them who he truly is. Read Batman Hush comic book for more on that. Anyway about that scene I was thought it was odd that Alfred look Vicki down to the batcave.
Overall Batman 89 has a very "dorky" feel to it, and I suspect I may be the only one who thinks this way, but at the same time I can't believe that
Batman 89 is campy I'm not going to lie but is that really a bad thing. Today we are exposed to the dark and broody superhero movies and personally I can't stand them. They lack any sense of fun and rewatchablity. You are not the only one and you are not an insane person for not liking it. At least you gave reasons. To me this will always be my favorite Batman film. From a technical stand point it doesn't reach the heights of TDK but as pure popcorn fun it earns an A+
You're move, creep -
OLD_ACCOUNT_skribb_Mk2 — 9 years ago(August 12, 2016 03:21 AM)
thank you for contributin to my thread
I don't hate the movie, it has its moments, but I don't love it.
I'm also a bit tired of ultra serious superheroes. if I want ultra serious I'll watch a drama movie or, you know, engage in my real life commitments lol
DISCLAIMER: If the post above is stupid, explain my stupidity instead of name-calling. -
Picnic10 — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 04:05 AM)
Nicholson's Joker is part 1940s gangster, part Caesar Romero acid bright clothes, hair and makeup. So dark camp describes 1989 Batman well. It is dark - the handbuzzer scene where you see the flames consume from the inside and, in gruesome acting detail, take hold of their throat, the charred corpse, the melodramatic music as Joker, dressed like a clown at a funeral, plunges a pen in to someone's neck, the 'but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs' part. Nicholson said it's pop art and he's right. His performance is actually Oscar worthy, it's so believably tragic - young kid brought up on the wrong side of the tracks becomes a gangster , has to keep on upping his game to be popular with Grissom, is betrayed by Grissom over 'a woman!., is made in to a 'mad artist' by Batman 's inability to save him from the chemicals (although you can also suspect that Batman could have used his utility belt).
-
OLD_ACCOUNT_skribb_Mk2 — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 07:05 AM)
I've never thought about the juxtaposition of darkness and camp leading to a new genre. If something's campy I'll just call it camp.
DISCLAIMER: If the post above is stupid, explain my stupidity instead of name-calling. -
Picnic10 — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 12:10 PM)
it has dorky moments, sure. Wayne sleeping upside down like a bat was too weirdly 'urban' to seem true of laid back billionaire Wayne. The Joker downing a plane with his huge pistol. The Bat shape against the moon. Definite out and out camp in there that wasn't present in Returns unless you count the brilliant yellow motorised duck. It is very unusual in a film to have such well judged darkness (the cosmetic surgeon being forced to stand in eerie darkness as 'Mr Napier' leaves) alongside lighter elements. It greatly helped to have 2 comedic and dramatic titans in Nicholson and Keaton to shift to the required tone. It has always struck me, from when I first saw it in the cinema, how breathlessly, tightly made, claustrophobic it was (and it feels more like Gotham than any other Batman film). Every little scene seems to propel us to a new height of maniacal glee from the Joker and further in to Batman 's torture of the tragedy of Wayne's parents' murder. Yet there is a camp sheen to it in Knox's eagerness. It hits a lot of buttons that feel true to a comic book style sense of theatre but it doesn't hang around any of them long enough to become what I think this should have been - an epic 2 and a half hour film with more of gangster Napier.