Batman Returns

[dashrendar44]

Because, for example, the Catwoman origin is straight unadulterated camp fantasy and plays as completely illogical with the dark, brooding, but otherwise "realistic" world. Varying tone is fine, but you need some core cohesion.

 

Nope. It's a variation on the Nine lives of the cat. The whole movie is bathing in a spooky Christmas fairytale atmosphere.

[dashrendar44]

I'll take layered, dimensional TDKR with fleshed out characters (including Gotham itself, something Burton, and every other CBM director for that matter, were never able to accomplish), prodigious acting, and iconic, heart pounding, adrenaline pumping action scenes over BR's fake looking Gotham with ridiculous, flaccid villains and asinine plot developments and twists.

 

"Prodigious acting" like this:

 

 

 

And by the way, Danny Elfman's themes >>>>>>>>>>>Zimmer's droning fart.

Edited October 14, 2013 by dashrendar44

[RobinHood26]

-

Edited January 3, 2019 by Jay Hollywood

[Goffe]

Nvm

Edited October 14, 2013 by Goffe

[baumer]

Just keep the arguments civil, please.  I don't want this out of control.  Opinions are just opinions.  This isn't religion, no one is criticizing you, it's only movies.

 

TDKR is a good bad movie.  

Batman Returns is an abomination.  

[Dementeleus]

Nope. It's a variation on the Nine lives of the cat. The whole movie is bathing in a spooky Christmas fairytale atmosphere.

 

That's the problem. Part of the movie (Catwoman) takes place in basically a magical place. She comes back to life possessed with new powers and attitude because a bunch of cats sniffed her dead body.

 

If you're going that far, why not have Batman turn into a bat? It makes about as much sense.

 

Again, I liked the movie, but it coasts on atmosphere and production design to the exclusion of almost everything else.

[The Stingray]

When I think about what Batman should feel and look like, I think of the Burton Batmans. But I would like to see that coupled with the serious approach from Nolan's movies. And when I say serious I don't necessarily mean realistic. They can and should have comic book moments, but be executed in a serious, non-campy fashion. That being said, I think Nolan did the right thing when he made his movies super-realistic. I think the audience needed to know that this was the polar opposite of the super-campy, comedic tone of Batman & Robin.

Edited October 15, 2013 by The Stingray

[The Stingray]

I watched The Dark Knight on TV last night, and noticed some stupid shit I hadn't paid attention to before. There's the scene where Batman throws Eric Robert's character off the roof of a building, saying it wont kill him (as if a fall from that height couldn't possibly kill a man), and you hear him screaming, bones breaking etc. But then 10 minutes later Eric Roberts is seen in the hospital talking to Gordon, and there's no crutches, no limp, no nothing...

[dashrendar44]

That's the problem. Part of the movie (Catwoman) takes place in basically a magical place. She comes back to life possessed with new powers and attitude because a bunch of cats sniffed her dead body.

 

If you're going that far, why not have Batman turn into a bat? It makes about as much sense.

 

Again, I liked the movie, but it coasts on atmosphere and production design to the exclusion of almost everything else.

 

That's the symbolic interpretation of the scene. She's just left for dead but did come back to life after a severe fall. What's so outlandish about this? People survive severe accidents, even the heart pounding stops for a few minutes then comes back to life. Some call that a miracle. It is illustrated through the prism of a christmas fairytale. A dark humored christmas miracle. Remember who we are talking about, Nightmare before Christmas author at his most gothic self.

 

And fairytales are very much a mix of gritty violence (did you read BlueBeard?Little Thumbling?)  with more whimsical elements so once again that's totally part of the genre.

 

"Why not turning Batman into a giant bat?"

 

Because he is not in B89 so there's no reason to do that in the sequel? What does that even mean?

 

Catwoman was not a "giant cat". Selina Kyle was a shy troubled woman psychologically disturbed after suffering a trauma that seeks revenge after those who abused her and left her scarred, expressing that vendetta through a disguise that embodies and channels her true animalistic self, a cat acting like a catharsis. Oh, just like Bruce Wayne and the bat!

 

Batman universe is not all about being deadspan serious realistic (sigh).

Edited October 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Squaremaster316]

"Prodigious acting" like this:

 

 

 

A crapload better than Devito's Penguin.

 

 

He more than earned that Razzie nom.

[vc2002]

I have a feeling that this thread will reach 100 pages.

[dashrendar44]

A crapload better than Devito's Penguin.

 

 

He more than earned that Razzie nom.

 

Razzies suck and have not been funny since 1989.

 

Cotillard was so bad, Razzies thought she didn't even deserve to compete because it would be too much obvious and not fair to other contenders, she'd win just because of this shot.

 

 

That's how bad she is, amateurish 8th grade theater bad. Ruining a movie with one ridiculous involuntary expression. Quite a feast.

 

(At least, Penguin over the topness was a conscious choice. He's supposed to be a gross difformed man that grew up in the sewers after being dumped by his parents as a baby, no matter how "civilized" he tries to be, the world around keeps on reminding him he's not one of "them", he's a freak so what did you expect? Talking like a drunk Sean Connery doing a pseudo-aristocratic posh accent that is more laughable than anything knowing the thin background of the character?)

Edited October 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[The Stingray]

That's the problem. Part of the movie (Catwoman) takes place in basically a magical place. She comes back to life possessed with new powers and attitude because a bunch of cats sniffed her dead body.

 

If you're going that far, why not have Batman turn into a bat? It makes about as much sense.

 

Again, I liked the movie, but it coasts on atmosphere and production design to the exclusion of almost everything else.

 

1. Why try to fit round logic into a square fantasy box? Its a comic book movie.

 

2. It ain't Castlevania.

[Squaremaster316]

Razzies suck and have not been funny since 1989.

 

Cotillard was so bad, Razzies thought she didn't even deserve to compete because it would be too much obvious and not fair to other contenders, she'd win just because of this shot.

 

 

That's how bad she is, amateurish 8th grade theater bad. Ruining a movie with one ridiculous involuntary expression. Quite a feast.

 

(At least, Penguin over the topness was a conscious choice. He's supposed to be a gross difformed man that grew up in the sewers after being dumped by his parents as a baby, no matter how "civilized" he tries to be, the world around keep reminding him he's not of "them", he's a freak so what did you expect? Talking like a drunk Sean Connery doing a pseudo-aristocratic posh accent that is more laughable than anything knowing the thin background of the character?)

It still didn't stop his performance from being hammy, forced, and lacking any sort of nuance.  He isn't even remotely complex, he's a one-note Snidely Whiplash who Burton just shoehorned in a backstory, because to Burton, tragic backstory = tragic character were supposed to give a damn about with no regard to acting or directorial approach.  It's pure laziness, just like Burton's entire hack filmography!

 

[dashrendar44]

There is more acting, directorial approach, graphic composition, iconic symbolism, true to the  comic-bookness of the subject, sheer talent and craft in art direction, set construction and framing cinematography in this shot than in the entire Nolan's Batman trilogy. This shot shows how less is more. It embodies the character without 150 pages of pompous dialogue that bang you on the head with a 2x4. That's the art of cinematography. Burton gets it, Nolan doesn't because he thinks people like you are idiots that need to get spoonfed at every corner.

 

How embarassing for a movie director to like jerking himself off more on writing endless exposition dialogue where characters explain orally the plot and who they are to the audience than crafting masterful composition and graphical framing/color schemes showing and not telling the same message instead...

 

 

 

 

Nolan is unable to craft a shot like those even if he tried. And God knows, he's a try-hard.

Edited October 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[ddddeeee]

This thread is great.

[Squaremaster316]

Every single one of those scenes are so fake and contrived that I can't believe they ever made it into a final cut if ANY film.  The staging and set design are absolutely atrocious.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ModC-XNMVk

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN4uFZKZkUA

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-e01rRuOM

 

Sooo much better executed and organic than anything Burton has EVER filmed.  The Joker falling and laughing scene gives me chills every time.

[dashrendar44]

 

 

 

This mess of a scene makes me want to gauge my eyes because of its absolute crappiness of editing and staging fight. Nolan doesn't know how to shoot action and makes it exciting. He's not an action movie director and sucks at it, that's why he's fanboying over Michael Bay and James Cameron. It's a fact.

 

You've just proved my point, you don't have any idea what is a well constructed, well framed/composited and edited scene.

Edited October 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[mattmav45]

Is there a more disposable poster on this site than Squaremaster?

 

Hell fucking no, IMO.

[Squaremaster316]

This mess of a scene makes me want to gauge my eyes because of its absolute crappiness of editing and staging fight. Nolan doesn't know how to shoot action and makes it exciting. He's not an action movie director and sucks at it, that's why he's fanboying over Michael Bay and James Cameron. It's a fact.

 

You've just proved my point, you don't have any idea what is a well constructed, well framed/composited and edited scene.

 

This mess of a scene makes me want to gauge my eyes because of its absolute crappiness of editing and staging fight. Nolan doesn't know how to shoot action and makes it exciting. He's not an action movie director and sucks at it, that's why he's fanboying over Michael Bay and James Cameron. It's a fact.

 

You've just proved my point, you don't have any idea what is a well constructed, well framed/composited and edited scene.

A hell of a lot better and more competently put together than this poorly choreographed nonsense:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMCyB_PDjQ4