i also like the 1997 film batman and robin lol
arnold with his catchphases lol and the debut of batgirl
i also like the 1997 film batman and robin lol
arnold with his catchphases lol and the debut of batgirl
What kills me is Clooney.
Everybody and his uncle would love to play at being Batman…well wouldn’t you?
But this jerk has done nothing but diss the role ever since like it’s a big joke…so ok if you feel that way and that it’s beneath you then off you fuck and leave it to somebody who might actually be able to do something with it.
(Did I mention that he’s a major league jerk?)
Everybody and his uncle would love to play at being Batman…well wouldn’t you?
But this jerk has done nothing but diss the role ever since like it’s a big joke…so ok if you feel that way and that it’s beneath you then off you fuck and leave it to somebody who might actually be able to do something with it.
(Did I mention that he’s a major league jerk?)
You know he came back?
Clooney is the "final" Batman of the DCEU before that universe crisised itself.
How unusual?
The low IQ spellcheck keeping the yahoos in line here abouts, does not think that "Crisised" is a word.
Small minds keep trying to lock me into tiny rooms.
'Kay...
That was the same way I approached it after seeing it described that way by someone online, and I thought it was a lot of fun. I absolutely love that kind of campy silliness, so Batman & Robin really worked for me.
I also loved the Nolan movies and The Batman, so I appreciate that we've been able to get such a variety of Batman movies.
Yeah, I've never really understood why they made that change.
And the most recent cinematic Bruce Wayne we've had on the big screen. How crazy is that?
i dont like it but i can understand those who do. its an abomination to the source material but its at least funny and fun to watch. i felt like "the batman" is just boring. i couldent watch more then once
So is Rabbit Test. So is Bakshi's version of LOTR. And I'm saying that without having seen Section 31, simply because I find the very concept of Section 31 to be inherently repugnant. I have seen Rabbit Test, and Joan Rivers deserved the damage it did to her career from it. I also saw Bakshi's LOTR, and if I'd before reading the books, I never would have read any of Tolkien's books.
That said, I think the only Batman movies I've ever seen were the one that was an offshoot of the TV series that William Dozier produced, and the first Tim Burton one, with Michael Keaton.
Bakshi's LOTR is awesomeness but unfinished. It's too bad we never got a part 2 because Bakshi had to go and call Saul Zaentz a fucking asshole.
lol oh ya in the dceu verison of the 2023 film the flash at the end when bartholomew allen aka barry allen meets up with bruce wayne and barry notices bruce as a different person
But what isn't?
Is it? The source material spent most of the 1950s-60s being even goofier than any of the movies or TV series based on Batman. Heck, Batman '66 was a pretty faithful recreation of what the comics were like from the mid-1940s to the mid-'50s, aside from Batman and Robin being more serious in the show than the cheerful wisecrackers they were in the comics.
Batman in the comics has never been just one thing. He's run the gamut from ultra-dark and gritty to ultra-goofy and wholesome, and there's room for the entire spectrum of approaches.
I mean, Mr. Freeze was an invention of the '66 series, adapted from a one-shot comics villain named Mr. Zero, and he was always a rather goofy character until Paul Dini radically reinvented him in the 1990s. Batman and Robin used Dini's highly revisionist, tragic version of the character, but interpreted him more in line with the character's campier beginnings. And Poison Ivy started out in the '60s comics, whose tone wasn't that different from B&R. I'd agree that Schumacher's campy approach did an injustice to Two-Face, a character who's mostly been used in relatively serious eras and was absent during the comics' goofier phase, but it's not a bad fit for Freeze and Ivy.
bubonic plague?
Section 31 is not about Star Trek's Section 31.
Section 31 the movie is Mission Impossible with Star Trek Characters, or considering it's all baddies with (young) Rachel Garret as a minder, it's Suicide Squad with Star Trek Characters.
It's not good.
Ecks vs Severs.
Truly.
Oh, and The Blair Witch Project. I still want those 81 minutes of my life back.
I could go on but these two were traumatic enough to make my point.
You know the Reginald Pikedevant song and video, Just Glue Some Gears On It, and Call It Steampunk? The one that pokes fun at people capitalizing on the trendiness of steampunk, without actually understanding the aesthetic?
Bakshi's LOTR was basically "Just Solarize Your Reference Films, And Call It Rotoscoping." The battlefield scenes, and really any scenes that had extras doing any kind of business, didn't just flirt with Uncanny Valley; they didn't just fall into Uncanny Canyon; they lived in Uncanny Gorge.
Then, too, the books were far more than just battlefield scenes. In fact, while it's been at least a decade since I read any Tolkien, I don't recall there being that much detail in the combat scenes. Mostly summary, unless I'm suppressing memories. Bakshi didn't go into very much detail on much of anything other than the battles.
Bakshi's LOTR was basically "Just Solarize Your Reference Films, And Call It Rotoscoping." The battlefield scenes, and really any scenes that had extras doing any kind of business, didn't just flirt with Uncanny Valley; they didn't just fall into Uncanny Canyon; they lived in Uncanny Gorge.
Then, too, the books were far more than just battlefield scenes. In fact, while it's been at least a decade since I read any Tolkien, I don't recall there being that much detail in the combat scenes. Mostly summary, unless I'm suppressing memories. Bakshi didn't go into very much detail on much of anything other than the battles.
I'm gonna have to take your word on those.
right, i know that, but for all honesty most people prefer the darker more serious tone of batman. the very first issues were dark in tone as well. it is the original source. the campy stuff came later. now if we look at the batman movies as a whole. the 1989 film was pretty dark with some very light goofy stuff but still quite dark. then gradually it became more and more campy until batman and robin that went all batman 66. batman returns was dark but cartoonishly kind of dark. and then batman forever was half a comedy with its terrible portrayel of 2face and the riddler just being another jim carry stereotype. and many people did not liked it. i think even if you check statistics and try to look up what was the best movie then most of them will say batman 89. the idea was that back then selling toys was the goal so thats why they made it like that.
I don't think that's as much the case as it used to be. Batman '66 has had a renaissance over the past decade or two, and there have been shows like Batman: The Brave and the Bold that celebrate the more upbeat, goofy Batman of Silver Age comics.
Besides, it's not a contest. People are free to have different preferences, and nobody has the right to say their preference is superior based on numbers. It's good that there's a version of Batman for every taste.
That's a common misconception. As I said, the '66 show was actually a very faithful recreation of what the comics' tone had been through most of the 1940s and early '50s. Yes, the first one year of Batman comics was pulpy and violent, but that got toned down pretty promptly due to parental complaints, and once Robin the Boy Wonder, The Sensational Character Find of 1940, was introduced, Batman evolved into a more wholesome, cheerful parental figure, constantly trading wisecracks with his boy sidekick. If anything, the '66 TV versions of the characters were more serious than their comics counterparts, rarely exchanging the puns and banter that were nonstop for the comics' Dynamic Duo, while the TV show's Alfred was played far more straight than the original, Oliver Hardy-ish Alfred who debuted as a comic-relief sidekick and bumbling amateur detective in 1943.
The problem with talking about that first year of the comics as the "original source" is that most of the things we associate with Batman came later -- the Joker, Robin, the Batmobile, the Batcave, Alfred, the Bat-Signal, etc. It's getting it backward to claim the early-installment weirdness of a series is its purest, truest form, because that's not how creativity works. The earliest part is just the rough draft, the not-quite-there version that gets refined over time. I mean, heck, the first few issues were even set in New York City instead of Gotham. Arguing that Batman "should be" gritty and violent because of that first rough-draft year is like arguing that Superman should only jump really high instead of flying, or that the Incredible Hulk should be a gray-skinned Mr. Hyde figure who only emerges at night.
It was superficially darker in tone, but really no less campy than the '66 series, and Batman Returns was incredibly campy. I mean, there's nothing serious or gritty about an army of remote-controlled suicide bomber penguins.
