O_O;
Batman Begins
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: November 18th, 2004
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
Hmmmmm....
I dunno, but the more I hear and see of thise new Batman film the more convinced I am that it's being hyped to cover up some considerable script problems. This is completely different than the reaction I had to the trailer to the first Keaton movie (which in retrospect hasn't aged well). I felt excited for the 1989 film but am very wary about the new film based on the reputations of the filmmakers and screenwriter. WB in general doesn't inspire confidence in its theatrical product... especially with the product that it owns in its huge conglomerate web. DC Comics fans and Looney Tunes fans know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
The reviews on the leaked Batman Begins script are not very encouraging. From what's been gleaned, it just doesn't sound like Batman at all but a James Bond-take which just isn't the character. I never cared for the black costume business and it seems like they're totally missing the point of the character and screwing with the origin to the extent that this might as well be a Death Wish movie. It sounds like another case of a superhero product watered down because the filmmakers think the public is too stupid to accept the character for what it is OR that they have no confidence in 65-year-old product that's proven its basic soundness again and again when filmmakers (the 1990s WB TV animation crew) HAVEN'T changed the basics of the concept.
There's a reason why most Batman fans prefer the 1990s animated version to the other live-action and animated Bats, guys. Maybe the guys in Hollywood ought to really examine the reasons or hire people who HAVE done the character right in the first place?
(It still boggles the mind that members of the 1990s animated crew weren't asked to consult for or write the new live-action project. It would have been a HUGE PR coup for WB and probably would have meant a surer, better product than what will likely come out next year.)
Spider-Man fans can count themselves lucky that Sam Raimi had a clue about their character and seemed to be honestly interested in doing the best films he could. I'm not so sure this is happening with WB and this new Batman film.
It also doesn't help that the main villain of the new Batman movie has been recast as Asian to avoid offending Arabs. The Japanese actor hired to play R'as Al Gul just isn't R'as no matter how much WB wants fans to buy him as the character. (Why they wanted to use R'as in the first place is beyond me... R'as has never been the most publicly known Bat-villain and only a few older fans would count him as a first-tier Bat-villain at any rate. There's really no tie-in between R'as and the Batman origin...)
The only other 2005 superhero genre film that seems even more messed-up is the Fantastic Four movie. It has going against it poor casting choices, cheesy looking make-up and costumes (the Thing and Dr. Doom look HORRIBLE), and a general sense that the film is being rushed into production to capitalize on the license. The guys running Marvel don't seem to care that a poorly-scripted and poorly-made film is going to ruin the company's reputation further in the long run. The buzz on this movie is just not good at all and every time Avi Arad opens his mouth to talk about it, he convinces at least half the fans that he doesn't give a darn if the movie is good at all.
The other problem FF faces is that there already was a good Fantastic Four film just released -- it was made by Pixar!
P.S. -- I love most of the main Marvel and DC characters, but hate what's being done with most of them now by the powers-that-be at the companies. There's a general lack of love for these characters at most levels of these companies and it speaks volumes for the attitudes of the executives when they refer to the characters as licensing assets and speak of the comic book companies as "R & D for movies."
I dunno, but the more I hear and see of thise new Batman film the more convinced I am that it's being hyped to cover up some considerable script problems. This is completely different than the reaction I had to the trailer to the first Keaton movie (which in retrospect hasn't aged well). I felt excited for the 1989 film but am very wary about the new film based on the reputations of the filmmakers and screenwriter. WB in general doesn't inspire confidence in its theatrical product... especially with the product that it owns in its huge conglomerate web. DC Comics fans and Looney Tunes fans know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
The reviews on the leaked Batman Begins script are not very encouraging. From what's been gleaned, it just doesn't sound like Batman at all but a James Bond-take which just isn't the character. I never cared for the black costume business and it seems like they're totally missing the point of the character and screwing with the origin to the extent that this might as well be a Death Wish movie. It sounds like another case of a superhero product watered down because the filmmakers think the public is too stupid to accept the character for what it is OR that they have no confidence in 65-year-old product that's proven its basic soundness again and again when filmmakers (the 1990s WB TV animation crew) HAVEN'T changed the basics of the concept.
There's a reason why most Batman fans prefer the 1990s animated version to the other live-action and animated Bats, guys. Maybe the guys in Hollywood ought to really examine the reasons or hire people who HAVE done the character right in the first place?
(It still boggles the mind that members of the 1990s animated crew weren't asked to consult for or write the new live-action project. It would have been a HUGE PR coup for WB and probably would have meant a surer, better product than what will likely come out next year.)
Spider-Man fans can count themselves lucky that Sam Raimi had a clue about their character and seemed to be honestly interested in doing the best films he could. I'm not so sure this is happening with WB and this new Batman film.
It also doesn't help that the main villain of the new Batman movie has been recast as Asian to avoid offending Arabs. The Japanese actor hired to play R'as Al Gul just isn't R'as no matter how much WB wants fans to buy him as the character. (Why they wanted to use R'as in the first place is beyond me... R'as has never been the most publicly known Bat-villain and only a few older fans would count him as a first-tier Bat-villain at any rate. There's really no tie-in between R'as and the Batman origin...)
The only other 2005 superhero genre film that seems even more messed-up is the Fantastic Four movie. It has going against it poor casting choices, cheesy looking make-up and costumes (the Thing and Dr. Doom look HORRIBLE), and a general sense that the film is being rushed into production to capitalize on the license. The guys running Marvel don't seem to care that a poorly-scripted and poorly-made film is going to ruin the company's reputation further in the long run. The buzz on this movie is just not good at all and every time Avi Arad opens his mouth to talk about it, he convinces at least half the fans that he doesn't give a darn if the movie is good at all.
The other problem FF faces is that there already was a good Fantastic Four film just released -- it was made by Pixar!
P.S. -- I love most of the main Marvel and DC characters, but hate what's being done with most of them now by the powers-that-be at the companies. There's a general lack of love for these characters at most levels of these companies and it speaks volumes for the attitudes of the executives when they refer to the characters as licensing assets and speak of the comic book companies as "R & D for movies."
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25869
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
I found your comments to be quite accurate and interesting.GeorgeC wrote:Hmmmmm....
I dunno, but the more I hear and see of thise new Batman film the more convinced I am that it's being hyped to cover up some considerable script problems. This is completely different than the reaction I had to the trailer to the first Keaton movie (which in retrospect hasn't aged well). I felt excited for the 1989 film but am very wary about the new film based on the reputations of the filmmakers and screenwriter. WB in general doesn't inspire confidence in its theatrical product... especially with the product that it owns in its huge conglomerate web. DC Comics fans and Looney Tunes fans know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
The reviews on the leaked Batman Begins script are not very encouraging. From what's been gleaned, it just doesn't sound like Batman at all but a James Bond-take which just isn't the character. I never cared for the black costume business and it seems like they're totally missing the point of the character and screwing with the origin to the extent that this might as well be a Death Wish movie. It sounds like another case of a superhero product watered down because the filmmakers think the public is too stupid to accept the character for what it is OR that they have no confidence in 65-year-old product that's proven its basic soundness again and again when filmmakers (the 1990s WB TV animation crew) HAVEN'T changed the basics of the concept.
There's a reason why most Batman fans prefer the 1990s animated version to the other live-action and animated Bats, guys. Maybe the guys in Hollywood ought to really examine the reasons or hire people who HAVE done the character right in the first place?
(It still boggles the mind that members of the 1990s animated crew weren't asked to consult for or write the new live-action project. It would have been a HUGE PR coup for WB and probably would have meant a surer, better product than what will likely come out next year.)
Spider-Man fans can count themselves lucky that Sam Raimi had a clue about their character and seemed to be honestly interested in doing the best films he could. I'm not so sure this is happening with WB and this new Batman film.
It also doesn't help that the main villain of the new Batman movie has been recast as Asian to avoid offending Arabs. The Japanese actor hired to play R'as Al Gul just isn't R'as no matter how much WB wants fans to buy him as the character. (Why they wanted to use R'as in the first place is beyond me... R'as has never been the most publicly known Bat-villain and only a few older fans would count him as a first-tier Bat-villain at any rate. There's really no tie-in between R'as and the Batman origin...)
The only other 2005 superhero genre film that seems even more messed-up is the Fantastic Four movie. It has going against it poor casting choices, cheesy looking make-up and costumes (the Thing and Dr. Doom look HORRIBLE), and a general sense that the film is being rushed into production to capitalize on the license. The guys running Marvel don't seem to care that a poorly-scripted and poorly-made film is going to ruin the company's reputation further in the long run. The buzz on this movie is just not good at all and every time Avi Arad opens his mouth to talk about it, he convinces at least half the fans that he doesn't give a darn if the movie is good at all.
The other problem FF faces is that there already was a good Fantastic Four film just released -- it was made by Pixar!
P.S. -- I love most of the main Marvel and DC characters, but hate what's being done with most of them now by the powers-that-be at the companies. There's a general lack of love for these characters at most levels of these companies and it speaks volumes for the attitudes of the executives when they refer to the characters as licensing assets and speak of the comic book companies as "R & D for movies."
I agree that the first Batman hasn't aged very well. A lot of the things that seemed "cool" (like Batman's gadgets or the Joker's "toys") kind of fall flat today. The whole romance between Vickie and Bruce seems sort of cold and contrived. (Not much was done with it anyway.) Keaton does a good job and Nicholson does a great one, but the "spectacle" of the film has been done many times since, and with more flair.
Well, that's just what I think.
BTW--Kevin Spacey as Lex? Now that is SO cool. He has to be better than the guy from that Lois and Clark show.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: November 18th, 2004
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
...which leads me to say yet again (not that i said it once on this forum, just in life in general) that Batman Returns remains my favorite live-action Batflick. Regardless of what problems the WB had with it, the characters were true to form and it was deliciously dark...the way the stories are meant to be told.ShyViolet wrote: I agree that the first Batman hasn't aged very well. A lot of the things that seemed "cool" (like Batman's gadgets or the Joker's "toys") kind of fall flat today. The whole romance between Vickie and Bruce seems sort of cold and contrived. (Not much was done with it anyway.) Keaton does a good job and Nicholson does a great one, but the "spectacle" of the film has been done many times since, and with more flair.
George, you hit the nail on the head. My friends and i kick ourselves whenever this conversation arises because such an excellent collection of stories, with amazing potential for films is continually insulted and slaughtered by people who know NOTHING about the characters! I don't know how these people get the jobs, but my goodness, let the FANS make the movie even if they have no film experience, because at least you'd get a movie that followed the COMICS everyone's come to know and love!
*sigh* Sorry...
Anyway, i totally agree with George...specifically about the 90s crew working on the live-action films. Paul Dini could write circles around those Hollywood bafoons! And if you haven't yet had the privilage to watch those mini-movies, please do, because you'll be hardpressed to find a more talented crew of voice actors (i loved Jack, but Mark Hamill has my vote for best Joker...same goes for Kevin Conroy vs. Keaton and i'm sure many fans will agree). I think at this point (especially by next year) the masses of people who have never gotten to know these characters and how great their psychological and emotional stories can be, will finally give up and not want to hear the name 'Batman' uttered again.
I mean, come on! Being PC about Ra's is about as dumb as putting nipples on the costumes! Or even having the nerve to tell the press you want to make Batman "get over the death of his parents" and become more of a family man.
With all their 'wisdom' up there in Tinsel Town, one would think that by now, someone would have realized that good product = good profits (unless poor marketing kicks in, of course).
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: November 18th, 2004
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
Well, if the acting is good, then it's good. I'm always open to good acting. I'm just saying that i think making casting choices based on race (for Ra's...hehehe) is ignorant. If it's that big a deal to them, then just pick a different villain.mr. squarepants wrote:Stego, I really don't want to spoil a twist in Batman Begins for you, but you really should read the script before you make any judgments about Ken Watanabe being Ra's Al Ghul. Trust me on this one. Things are not always what they seem.
On a side note: Yeah, the WB is incredibly lame when it comes to DVDs. I've never seen a company care so little for it's fans than with their animated series...specifically Batman. 3 episodes here...4 episodes there...just kidding guys! here's a boxed set!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Batman
I saw Batman: Mask of the Phantasm a LONG time ago, but I remember really liking it. And I thought the animated series had great stories, especially Heart of Ice (the first Mr. Freeze one). And with Danny Elfman doing the music, how can you go wrong? Plus anyone remember the one with Clayface? How COOL was that? When he changed into all those guys just before he "died" the first time, that was very poignant.
Mark Hamill was definetely cool. He could go from funny to deadly-frightening just like that.
I totally agree that Batman Returns had a more timeless feel than Keaton's. The characters had this great, larger-than-life feel that you see in a lot of Burton films. It's not surprising, considering that Burton had MUCH more say on it than the first Batman. The first Batman was part Warner Bros and part Peter Guber and Jon Peters from Guber-Peters production company. They were these really hot-shot Hollywood executive guys that just ran roughshod over everyone back then. A lot of the very contemporary (now dated) stuff with Vickie and that reporter guy and the Prince songs was most likely from their corner....Burton was more interested in the production design. He wanted to make Batman more "tortured" in that first movie but supposadly Jon Peters said something like "He's supposed to be Batman, not Wussman."
I agree that it's hard to make judgements on Batman Begins before it comes out, but I'm a little skeptical of his supposed status as Hot Millionaire Playboy rather than Tortured Scarred Vigilante. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer the latter.
(Still...I AM looking foward to seeing Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow....even if only briefly.)
Mark Hamill was definetely cool. He could go from funny to deadly-frightening just like that.
I totally agree that Batman Returns had a more timeless feel than Keaton's. The characters had this great, larger-than-life feel that you see in a lot of Burton films. It's not surprising, considering that Burton had MUCH more say on it than the first Batman. The first Batman was part Warner Bros and part Peter Guber and Jon Peters from Guber-Peters production company. They were these really hot-shot Hollywood executive guys that just ran roughshod over everyone back then. A lot of the very contemporary (now dated) stuff with Vickie and that reporter guy and the Prince songs was most likely from their corner....Burton was more interested in the production design. He wanted to make Batman more "tortured" in that first movie but supposadly Jon Peters said something like "He's supposed to be Batman, not Wussman."
I agree that it's hard to make judgements on Batman Begins before it comes out, but I'm a little skeptical of his supposed status as Hot Millionaire Playboy rather than Tortured Scarred Vigilante. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer the latter.
(Still...I AM looking foward to seeing Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow....even if only briefly.)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!