TF Views

Tigermegatron wrote:Batman techinaclluy isn't a super hero since he has no super powers,so he doesn't need to be muscular,beefy,tall & super strong looking.

Super hero is used to describe costumed crime fighters and vigilantes in general, not just those that have superpowers. And Batman spent years training his body which he maintains in order to be at his peak physical condition in order to do what he does. You'd expect someone like that to be muscular.

Micheal Keaton was the best choice due to him being a top A-List actor in that time period. the man had major talent & actually knows how to act. he won multiple awards in his field.

Just being an A-list actor doesn't make someone the right choice for a role. Most of the actors that have played Batman I generally think of as only getting half the role right. Like with Val Kilmer, he was a decent Batman, but a terrible Bruce Wayne because he was so serious all the time, like he forgot to change character when he took off the mask. Michael Keaton I tend to think of the same way with his portrayal. He's a much more serious type of Bruce Wayne, although not quite as bad as Val Kilmer was.

Tigermegatron wrote:

Mako Crab wrote: 1988, that thousands of Bat-fans were protesting the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman.

Never heard of this before until now. WHY? because he was short? too skinny? not bulky/muscular enough. Just goes to show how the fans often get things wrong more than right.

I forget the exact reasons right now. It was the same thing as when Tom Cruise was cast as Lestat and Anne Rice publicly aired her misgivings about the casting. But then she retracted her statements after seeing the movie. Personally, of all the guys that have played Batman in the live action movies, I think Michael Keaton is the best. It might also help that he was the first one I saw (aside from Adam West).

Val Kilmer, as you pointed out, seemed too stiff.
George Clooney was decent, but he didn't look like Bruce Wayne to me.
Christian Bale's Batman voice is laughable. His Bruce Wayne is alright, but he definitely comes off as a much younger Bruce than Keaton's. Nothing wrong with that. I guess I just prefer a Bruce that's a little older and wiser seeming.

Tigermegatron wrote:Never heard of this before until now. WHY? because he was short? too skinny? not bulky/muscular enough.

Micheal Keaton was generally considered a comedian at the time, not a dramatic actor, and fans were worried that he wouldn't do justice to the part. There was some fear that we'd end up with something campy again, since the fans were aware that Batman had moved on from the Adam West version, but the non-comic reading general public weren't necessarily aware of that.

Batman techinaclluy isn't a super hero since he has no super powers,so he doesn't need to be muscular,beefy,tall & super strong looking.

The DC archive I'm reading at the moment is "Seven Soldiers of Victory", and despite it being a super-hero comic, NONE of the characters have super powers.

Sparky is exactly right. A "costumed crime fighter" who trains and fights crime with little more than skills and a gimmick is considered part of the superhero category, whether they have supernatural powers or not. An actor playing one needs to look muscular and athletic, at least to some degree, if we're going to believe they're strong and fast enough to win most fights and take on the villains.

Mako Crab wrote:

Shockwave wrote: Pointing out that you're a grad student who understood that really just kinda proves my point.

Your point that only a professor could understand it?

And really, all you said was that you read a fraction of the essay. Didn't understand it. Decided the whole thing was bullshit.

I think the reason most analyses of this type are dismissed is because most of the time Hollywood producers and directors are not pitching on this level. Sometimes they are and it's pretty evident, but I HIGHLY doubt that it's really there in a big budget summer action blockbuster.

Sure. There will always be the Michael Bay's of the world, where their flicks mean jack shit nothing. That doesn't mean that all summer action flicks are devoid of substance.

My dismissal doesn't come from an unfamiliarity with the works of Jung and Frued, but a direct disagreement with those models. Having taken plenty of psychology courses, I am more than familiar with their work.

Totally not what I was even talking about. All I said, was that a lot of people today still fall back on Jung and Freud's work, because it's more commonly known. So even though it's outdated, the same patterns and symbols keep cropping up in movies and lit. You can dismiss their work and their models, but you can't dismiss that people still use them.


So anyway. . .

Shitty sequels?

First I wanna apologize if I've offended you, such was not my intent (the comment about professors was actually fesecious).

I did read a fraction of it but that fraction was 10+ pages which is long enough to realize that I'm reading bullshit. Especially when I got to terms like "Dialectical disorientation". I think the basic point the essay was making is that the 89 Batman film is an analysis of the human psyche and I don't believe that for an instant. Most big budget action flicks don't have that much thought put into them, especially the movies of the 80's.

Come to think of it, who wrote Batman? Is there any commentary saying that's what this was about?

Shockwave wrote: First I wanna apologize if I've offended you, such was not my intent (the comment about professors was actually fesecious).

It's all good. I tend to get a little pissy about stuff like this, cuz it's what I studied. To me, it makes perfect sense. But I understand that I tend to have a knee jerk reaction sometimes or too thin of skin. And I do agree, that not every movie has this much thought put into them. Kinda' surprised Dom hasn't jumped into this discussion yet. It's the whole "writer intent" vs. "audience perception" argument again.

I did read a fraction of it but that fraction was 10+ pages which is long enough to realize that I'm reading bullshit.

When you say fraction, I think a paragraph here and there. You should've said 10 pages!

Come to think of it, who wrote Batman? Is there any commentary saying that's what this was about?

Sam Hamm wrote it. I did some digging to see if I could find an interview where he talks more about the story, but all he wants to talk about is how he landed the job.

Oh good, we may disagree sometimes but I certainly didn't want you to feel like I was disrespecting you or attacking you personally. I shoulda seen it coming really. I remember once on the old bwtf boards I posted a comment like "You all sound like a bunch of grad students" only to have like 4 or 5 people respond with what they were studying and I was like "Oh. Ok. You all ARE a bunch of grad students " You're right, I should have specified that it was multiple pages, but even around ten pages was barely a third of the way through it so it seemed like such a small amount to the rest of it. What was that anyway? It looks like a scan from a book the way the text warps at the edges?

And back to bad movies:

The collected works of Kevin Costner. Waterworld was damn near unwatchable and the Postman bored the shit out of me. Honestly, playing the dead guy in the Big Chill was the best acting he's ever done.

I'm not a Costner guy either, but I've got a soft spot for the Untouchables. Loved that movie when I was younger. No idea if it holds up now, though.

andersonh1 wrote: Micheal Keaton was generally considered a comedian at the time, not a dramatic actor, and fans were worried that he wouldn't do justice to the part.

Micheal Keaton was perfect for the part because the 1989 & 1992 Batman movies had a even mixture 50/50 of comedy & seriousness thrown in the mixture. The bulk of Tim burton's movies consist of that clown/goth/nightmarish type comedy/humor.

I blame the fans,it's their fault for not doing ther proper back research on the style of movies Tim burton does. which consist of urban goth like ghettos with tons of nightmarish clown/circus humor thrown in. often times Tim burton will put his weird characters in normal places & have the community react towards them,these movies often feature tons of extreme juvenile/clown/circus humor.

andersonh1 wrote: There was some fear that we'd end up with something campy again, since the fans were aware that Batman had moved on from the Adam West version, but the non-comic reading general public weren't necessarily aware of that.

Then those fans needed to seriously brush up on their DC Batman comics reading. Because during the late 1960's through early 1970's the DC Batman comics became less serious,more campy to be modeled after the Batman 1966-1968 Show that had become so popular.

Even the 1970's & early 1980's super heroes cartoons were more comedy/less serious,more clown humor,campy,that all seemed to be modeled after the 1966-1968 Batman show. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069641/ ----> So these fans that demanded a more serious actor with muscles play Batman in the 1989 movie,Were either clueless,did no back reading/watching on the comics/cartoons from the late 1960's through early 1980's.

andersonh1 wrote: A "costumed crime fighter" who trains and fights crime with little more than skills and a gimmick is considered part of the superhero category, whether they have supernatural powers or not. An actor playing one needs to look muscular and athletic, at least to some degree, if we're going to believe they're strong and fast enough to win most fights and take on the villains.

1- The Batman comics/shows/movies/cartoons have been around since 1939 through 2013. Batman in his earlier years & thru the decades was not a extremely skilled fighter nor did he have the muscles he has today.
1a- It's possible Tim burton for the 1989 Batman movie was modeling his batman after the 1939/earlier Batman years,where batman was portrayed as a ordinary guy with almost no muscles & his fighting only consisted of the "basics-street fighting skills",with gadgets thrown in to assist him. Batman in his earlier years was more about his detective brain,his gadgets & less about his muscles.
2- Batman is still a regular guy with no super powers,as much as he tries he'll never have the muscles nor speed like the super heroes who posses super powers like superman,the flash,hulk,spiderman,X-Men,etc...

I'm not a fan of the Batman versions that are pumped out to the max with muscles & had ninja fighting skills that can take down a super hero like superman----> These versions I view as extreme exaggerations. I much rather prefer the Tim burton Batman where his Batman has no extreme muscles,isn't ninja trained & barely knows the "basics street fighting skills,with gadgets thrown into the fight to assist him.

It's worth a SERIOUS NOTE,I work out in the GYM 4 days a week for over a decade. The only way to get those extreme muscles is to take steriods. more than 80% of the people who work out in the gym do not have those extreme muscles because they don't take steriods. 80%/most guys are afraid to take steriods because one of the major side effects is Erectile dysfunction & decreased sperm count. for a woman taking steriods has even worse side effects.

138 Scourge wrote:I'm not a Costner guy either, but I've got a soft spot for the Untouchables. Loved that movie when I was younger. No idea if it holds up now, though.

I also dis-like Kevin Costner,he's too quiet,too shy, too laid back,non-exciting,non-emotional,booring,stale for my taste.
The way kevin Costner acts in his movies often comes off as very creepy. Because all these traits I mentioned in this paragraph is what stalkers,Pedopile,outcast,hermits,rapist,escape cons,murders,etc have

About the Only Kevin Costner movie,i'd rate as decent was the "Dances with wolves" movie. Even then he played the character too shy,almost void of emotion,non-exciting & plain out booring/stale.