The Dark Knight Rises

Off Topic
962

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Not sure I’d place blame on Burton for that. Literally every Batman movie or TV show before Nolan was anywnere from campy to outright ridiculous, and that’s including Burtons Batman (batdance anyone?). Nolan upped the ante on the entire genre. [/quote]
Listen to Kevin Smith on the issue, Burton didn’t even read any comics. It’s so obvious Nolan and Goyer have and it improved the stories that much more.

963

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There’s a all theater chain here in Texas that’s showing a triple feature of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Returns on opening night for like 30 bucks. Tbey sell legitimate food and alcohol as well. Some buddies and I are seriously considering it.[/quote]

Which chain would that be?[/quote]

Alamo Draft House. Where you at? Know they’re in Houston, Austin and San Antone but not sure if all of 'em are doing it. They’re doing it in Houston, but all the locations are in the boonies.[/quote]

Austin locations are doing the marathon as well…but my money is going to IMAX. [/quote]
It’s you best bet, I think a decent chuck of the movie was filmed in IMAX.

964

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There’s a all theater chain here in Texas that’s showing a triple feature of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Returns on opening night for like 30 bucks. Tbey sell legitimate food and alcohol as well. Some buddies and I are seriously considering it.[/quote]

Which chain would that be?[/quote]

Alamo Draft House. Where you at? Know they’re in Houston, Austin and San Antone but not sure if all of 'em are doing it. They’re doing it in Houston, but all the locations are in the boonies.[/quote]

Austin locations are doing the marathon as well…but my money is going to IMAX. [/quote]
It’s you best bet, I think a decent chuck of the movie was filmed in IMAX.[/quote]

After seeing several movies in IMAX, I find the regular “big screen” to be pretty disappointing now. It’s like going from dating a girl that can suck your dick so good that your dead relatives bust a nut to a girl that thinks blowjobs are for birthdays and anniversaries. You just can’t go backwards and be satisfied.

965

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There’s a all theater chain here in Texas that’s showing a triple feature of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Returns on opening night for like 30 bucks. Tbey sell legitimate food and alcohol as well. Some buddies and I are seriously considering it.[/quote]

Which chain would that be?[/quote]

Alamo Draft House. Where you at? Know they’re in Houston, Austin and San Antone but not sure if all of 'em are doing it. They’re doing it in Houston, but all the locations are in the boonies.[/quote]

Austin locations are doing the marathon as well…but my money is going to IMAX. [/quote]

dimin’ my inner nerd out, but I saw TDK four times in the theater, the last being in IMAX. It’s hard to describe how awesome it was. I’ll definitely be seeing this in IMAX at least one of the times I catch it on the big screen.

966

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There’s a all theater chain here in Texas that’s showing a triple feature of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Returns on opening night for like 30 bucks. Tbey sell legitimate food and alcohol as well. Some buddies and I are seriously considering it.[/quote]

Which chain would that be?[/quote]

Alamo Draft House. Where you at? Know they’re in Houston, Austin and San Antone but not sure if all of 'em are doing it. They’re doing it in Houston, but all the locations are in the boonies.[/quote]

Austin locations are doing the marathon as well…but my money is going to IMAX. [/quote]

dimin’ my inner nerd out, but I saw TDK four times in the theater, the last being in IMAX. It’s hard to describe how awesome it was. I’ll definitely be seeing this in IMAX at least one of the times I catch it on the big screen.
[/quote]

Yeah…I missed out on seeing TDK in IMAX…so this is definitely a must.

967

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Yes, Batman Returns set an ugly precedent which Joel Schumacher then took and tried to rape in the ass but couldn’t because he was only half-hard.

What I like about Nolan is that he clearly has no problem eschewing whatever happens to be the big trend in Hollywood at the time, which isn’t rare in a director by any means. But it IS rare in a director making an action film, especially one based on a comic book character. I’ve liked some of the recent Marvel stuff, but let’s be real: they don’t even come close to approaching what Nolan has done with Batman. They’re much more in the vein of Burton and Schumacher’s films than they are Nolan’s.

Nolan uses big stars, but they’re all decidedly a notch below some of the names that have been rumored to be involved with his films but weren’t, Leonardo DiCaprio and Johnny Depp being two. Also, Nolan uses MUCH less CGI than most people realize, although I think Inception is a much better example of this than The Dark Knight or what I’ve seen from the Rises trailers. Also, no 3-D either, which I’m sure studio execs were trying to push onto him. I’ve said it before: I think the level of meticulousness and attention to detail, combined with what looks to me like a significant amount of independence from studio exec influence, makes him the closest thing to Stanley Kubrick that I’ve seen in a major director. I’m just disappointed that other serious directors like him haven’t taken on similar challenges in the action film realm. it seems that 99% of action films have little substance or depth. Everything that Nolan has made has been exciting, but with more intellect involved than a typical “exciting” film.

Apparently Nolan is the producer and writer of the next Superman movie. I’m skeptical about this one though, if only because Superman is a fag. I think in this respect Nolan has also chosen the best possible major comic character to make a serious, legitimate film about. I don’t think his approach would work well with characters like Captain America or SpiderMan or Ironman or the Hulk.[/quote]

Wow…that was a great read.

I love how something so erudite and most likely better than most essays written by college kids taking film classes was posted on a bodybuilding forum!
That’s why I love this place!

968

[quote]Nards wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Yes, Batman Returns set an ugly precedent which Joel Schumacher then took and tried to rape in the ass but couldn’t because he was only half-hard.

What I like about Nolan is that he clearly has no problem eschewing whatever happens to be the big trend in Hollywood at the time, which isn’t rare in a director by any means. But it IS rare in a director making an action film, especially one based on a comic book character. I’ve liked some of the recent Marvel stuff, but let’s be real: they don’t even come close to approaching what Nolan has done with Batman. They’re much more in the vein of Burton and Schumacher’s films than they are Nolan’s.

Nolan uses big stars, but they’re all decidedly a notch below some of the names that have been rumored to be involved with his films but weren’t, Leonardo DiCaprio and Johnny Depp being two. Also, Nolan uses MUCH less CGI than most people realize, although I think Inception is a much better example of this than The Dark Knight or what I’ve seen from the Rises trailers. Also, no 3-D either, which I’m sure studio execs were trying to push onto him. I’ve said it before: I think the level of meticulousness and attention to detail, combined with what looks to me like a significant amount of independence from studio exec influence, makes him the closest thing to Stanley Kubrick that I’ve seen in a major director. I’m just disappointed that other serious directors like him haven’t taken on similar challenges in the action film realm. it seems that 99% of action films have little substance or depth. Everything that Nolan has made has been exciting, but with more intellect involved than a typical “exciting” film.

Apparently Nolan is the producer and writer of the next Superman movie. I’m skeptical about this one though, if only because Superman is a fag. I think in this respect Nolan has also chosen the best possible major comic character to make a serious, legitimate film about. I don’t think his approach would work well with characters like Captain America or SpiderMan or Ironman or the Hulk.[/quote]

Wow…that was a great read.

I love how something so erudite and most likely better than most essays written by college kids taking film classes was posted on a bodybuilding forum!
That’s why I love this place![/quote]
I know. It’s hard to be anything but erudite when discussing Superman’s sexual proclivities and Joel Schumacher’s futile attempt to sodomize the Batman franchise with his half-turgid cock.

969

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Yes, Batman Returns set an ugly precedent which Joel Schumacher then took and tried to rape in the ass but couldn’t because he was only half-hard.

What I like about Nolan is that he clearly has no problem eschewing whatever happens to be the big trend in Hollywood at the time, which isn’t rare in a director by any means. But it IS rare in a director making an action film, especially one based on a comic book character. I’ve liked some of the recent Marvel stuff, but let’s be real: they don’t even come close to approaching what Nolan has done with Batman. They’re much more in the vein of Burton and Schumacher’s films than they are Nolan’s.

Nolan uses big stars, but they’re all decidedly a notch below some of the names that have been rumored to be involved with his films but weren’t, Leonardo DiCaprio and Johnny Depp being two. Also, Nolan uses MUCH less CGI than most people realize, although I think Inception is a much better example of this than The Dark Knight or what I’ve seen from the Rises trailers. Also, no 3-D either, which I’m sure studio execs were trying to push onto him. I’ve said it before: I think the level of meticulousness and attention to detail, combined with what looks to me like a significant amount of independence from studio exec influence, makes him the closest thing to Stanley Kubrick that I’ve seen in a major director. I’m just disappointed that other serious directors like him haven’t taken on similar challenges in the action film realm. it seems that 99% of action films have little substance or depth. Everything that Nolan has made has been exciting, but with more intellect involved than a typical “exciting” film.

Apparently Nolan is the producer and writer of the next Superman movie. I’m skeptical about this one though, if only because Superman is a fag. I think in this respect Nolan has also chosen the best possible major comic character to make a serious, legitimate film about. I don’t think his approach would work well with characters like Captain America or SpiderMan or Ironman or the Hulk.[/quote]
Superman is a fag, but a decent writer needs to embrace Supes natural faginess, it’s why All Star Superman by Grant Morrison is so great. I trust Nolan because he looks to the comics for inspiration. Also, apparently WB really pushed for Leo as the Riddler, but as we all know Nolan had other plans.

970

Val Kilmer may have been the best Batman if you exclude Christian Bale, Adam West, Michael Keaton and George Clooney.

971

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
There’s a all theater chain here in Texas that’s showing a triple feature of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Returns on opening night for like 30 bucks. Tbey sell legitimate food and alcohol as well. Some buddies and I are seriously considering it.[/quote]

Which chain would that be?[/quote]

Alamo Draft House. Where you at? Know they’re in Houston, Austin and San Antone but not sure if all of 'em are doing it. They’re doing it in Houston, but all the locations are in the boonies.[/quote]

Austin locations are doing the marathon as well…but my money is going to IMAX. [/quote]
It’s you best bet, I think a decent chuck of the movie was filmed in IMAX.[/quote]

After seeing several movies in IMAX, I find the regular “big screen” to be pretty disappointing now. It’s like going from dating a girl that can suck your dick so good that your dead relatives bust a nut to a girl that thinks blowjobs are for birthdays and anniversaries. You just can’t go backwards and be satisfied.[/quote]

I loled.

972

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Not sure I’d place blame on Burton for that. Literally every Batman movie or TV show before Nolan was anywnere from campy to outright ridiculous, and that’s including Burtons Batman (batdance anyone?). Nolan upped the ante on the entire genre. [/quote]
Listen to Kevin Smith on the issue, Burton didn’t even read any comics. It’s so obvious Nolan and Goyer have and it improved the stories that much more.[/quote]

Kevin Smith is in no position to criticize Burton, not when his highest profile contribution to the comic book movie genre so far was a cameo in Daredevil (not counting all the unproduced scripts he wrote: Superman Lives +…).

Burton didn’t read the comics because he saw Batman/ Bruce Wayne as another opportunity to put a weirdo outsider at the center of his story and live vicariously through them, just like he does in nearly every other movie he’s made (he gave Penguin the whitewashed oddball treatment in ’ Returns, too).

Batman '89 made so much that Warner Brahs allowed Burton free reign to re-construct Gotham from the foundations up as a Tim Burton story which happens to feature Batman characters. The ‘oompaah-oompah’ musical score, candystriped clowns and performing dog were straight out of Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.

We also get to find out that Pee-Wee’s balls finally drop, he moves to Gotham and sires an oil drooling man-bird with daddy issues.

That said, Batman '89 was a remarkable achievement considering that Burton had zero interest in the comics. It also set the standard for superhero movies. It’s easier to surpass a standard than to set one and compete with movies that haven’t been made yet.

973

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Not sure I’d place blame on Burton for that. Literally every Batman movie or TV show before Nolan was anywnere from campy to outright ridiculous, and that’s including Burtons Batman (batdance anyone?). Nolan upped the ante on the entire genre. [/quote]
Listen to Kevin Smith on the issue, Burton didn’t even read any comics. It’s so obvious Nolan and Goyer have and it improved the stories that much more.[/quote]

Kevin Smith is in no position to criticize Burton, not when his highest profile contribution to the comic book movie genre so far was a cameo in Daredevil (not counting all the unproduced scripts he wrote: Superman Lives +…).

Burton didn’t read the comics because he saw Batman/ Bruce Wayne as another opportunity to put a weirdo outsider at the center of his story and live vicariously through them, just like he does in nearly every other movie he’s made (he gave Penguin the whitewashed oddball treatment in ’ Returns, too).

Batman '89 made so much that Warner Brahs allowed Burton free reign to re-construct Gotham from the foundations up as a Tim Burton story which happens to feature Batman characters. The ‘oompaah-oompah’ musical score, candystriped clowns and performing dog were straight out of Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.

We also get to find out that Pee-Wee’s balls finally drop, he moves to Gotham and sires an oil drooling man-bird with daddy issues.

That said, Batman '89 was a remarkable achievement considering that Burton had zero interest in the comics. It also set the standard for superhero movies. It’s easier to surpass a standard than to set one and compete with movies that haven’t been made yet.

[/quote]
Literally any batman movie halfway decent would have “set the standard,” for superhero movies. That movie is hardly remarkable and the only good think about that movie is JN’s performance as the Joker. I think Smith can criticize away, and it would make sense for him to if you new the backstory between the two.

974

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Not sure I’d place blame on Burton for that. Literally every Batman movie or TV show before Nolan was anywnere from campy to outright ridiculous, and that’s including Burtons Batman (batdance anyone?). Nolan upped the ante on the entire genre. [/quote]
Listen to Kevin Smith on the issue, Burton didn’t even read any comics. It’s so obvious Nolan and Goyer have and it improved the stories that much more.[/quote]

Kevin Smith is in no position to criticize Burton, not when his highest profile contribution to the comic book movie genre so far was a cameo in Daredevil (not counting all the unproduced scripts he wrote: Superman Lives +…).

Burton didn’t read the comics because he saw Batman/ Bruce Wayne as another opportunity to put a weirdo outsider at the center of his story and live vicariously through them, just like he does in nearly every other movie he’s made (he gave Penguin the whitewashed oddball treatment in ’ Returns, too).

Batman '89 made so much that Warner Brahs allowed Burton free reign to re-construct Gotham from the foundations up as a Tim Burton story which happens to feature Batman characters. The ‘oompaah-oompah’ musical score, candystriped clowns and performing dog were straight out of Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.

We also get to find out that Pee-Wee’s balls finally drop, he moves to Gotham and sires an oil drooling man-bird with daddy issues.

That said, Batman '89 was a remarkable achievement considering that Burton had zero interest in the comics. It also set the standard for superhero movies. It’s easier to surpass a standard than to set one and compete with movies that haven’t been made yet.

[/quote]
Literally any batman movie halfway decent would have “set the standard,” for superhero movies. That movie is hardly remarkable and the only good think about that movie is JN’s performance as the Joker. I think Smith can criticize away, and it would make sense for him to if you new the backstory between the two. [/quote]

I do know the backstory. What do you want to know? That WB wanted to cast Stallone as Bruce Wayne before Burton fought for Keaton because he saw Batman as a normal guy who had to wear full body armor (two decisions which have influenced every other Batman movie since)?

They originally wanted to make Batman into an '80s action hero, which would have negated the need for the battlesuit, which developed out of the casting of Keaton. How would that have been for setting a standard?

Again, and let this sink in: it’s very easy to point out the flaws in a movie over two decades old after something better comes along. I didn’t hear many complaints when it was first released.

And no, Kevin Smith can’t criticize, not when his own contribution to the genre has been minimal. He’s in a position to make a superhero movie of his own, yet all he has on his resume is a series of unproduced scripts - go read Superman Lives and you’ll see why it was rejected.

Actually, come to think of it, he was due to work with Burton on Superman Lives so he’s just sore that his script was rejected.

It’s fine to champion the common geek and rail against the quality of superhero movies, so why doesn’t he push to make one of his own? He can’t because he deliberately burned his bridges with Hollywood, but there was a point where he could’ve directed a superhero movie of his own, but he passed on every chance offered to him.

975

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Come on now Nards, Burtons batman movies where great and with a touch of comedy that Nolans batman lacks.
[/quote]

The first Batman movie was decent mostly because it was the first serious attempt at a movie version of that character. The rest weren’t comedic so much as they were corny and overly cartoonish. They hadn’t come up with the concept of trying to insert these characters into a more real world. That is why the bat suit back then had nipples. You really can’t forgive how they portrayed Bane back then.[/quote]

Bane and the nipple-suit weren’t in Burton’s movies. He only directed the first two. I suppose that of all four of those movies the first was the closest thing to a more real world, but the second Burton movie with the Penguin wasn’t anywhere close to a “more real world”.[/quote]

Good point…but Burton caused the downhill slide by making Batman 2 less serious. Hollywood took it from there by turning it into a cameo star-fest instead of hiring some good writers.[/quote]

Not sure I’d place blame on Burton for that. Literally every Batman movie or TV show before Nolan was anywnere from campy to outright ridiculous, and that’s including Burtons Batman (batdance anyone?). Nolan upped the ante on the entire genre. [/quote]
Listen to Kevin Smith on the issue, Burton didn’t even read any comics. It’s so obvious Nolan and Goyer have and it improved the stories that much more.[/quote]

Kevin Smith is in no position to criticize Burton, not when his highest profile contribution to the comic book movie genre so far was a cameo in Daredevil (not counting all the unproduced scripts he wrote: Superman Lives +…).

Burton didn’t read the comics because he saw Batman/ Bruce Wayne as another opportunity to put a weirdo outsider at the center of his story and live vicariously through them, just like he does in nearly every other movie he’s made (he gave Penguin the whitewashed oddball treatment in ’ Returns, too).

Batman '89 made so much that Warner Brahs allowed Burton free reign to re-construct Gotham from the foundations up as a Tim Burton story which happens to feature Batman characters. The ‘oompaah-oompah’ musical score, candystriped clowns and performing dog were straight out of Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.

We also get to find out that Pee-Wee’s balls finally drop, he moves to Gotham and sires an oil drooling man-bird with daddy issues.

That said, Batman '89 was a remarkable achievement considering that Burton had zero interest in the comics. It also set the standard for superhero movies. It’s easier to surpass a standard than to set one and compete with movies that haven’t been made yet.

[/quote]
Literally any batman movie halfway decent would have “set the standard,” for superhero movies. That movie is hardly remarkable and the only good think about that movie is JN’s performance as the Joker. I think Smith can criticize away, and it would make sense for him to if you new the backstory between the two. [/quote]

I do know the backstory. What do you want to know? That WB wanted to cast Stallone as Bruce Wayne before Burton fought for Keaton because he saw Batman as a normal guy who had to wear full body armor (two decisions which have influenced every other Batman movie since)?

They originally wanted to make Batman into an '80s action hero, which would have negated the need for the battlesuit, which developed out of the casting of Keaton. How would that have been for setting a standard?

Again, and let this sink in: it’s very easy to point out the flaws in a movie over two decades old after something better comes along. I didn’t hear many complaints when it was first released.

And no, Kevin Smith can’t criticize, not when his own contribution to the genre has been minimal. He’s in a position to make a superhero movie of his own, yet all he has on his resume is a series of unproduced scripts - go read Superman Lives and you’ll see why it was rejected.

Actually, come to think of it, he was due to work with Burton on Superman Lives so he’s just sore that his script was rejected.

It’s fine to champion the common geek and rail against the quality of superhero movies, so why doesn’t he push to make one of his own? He can’t because he deliberately burned his bridges with Hollywood, but there was a point where he could’ve directed a superhero movie of his own, but he passed on every chance offered to him.

[/quote]
Superman lives was rejected because of Burton. The whole backstory is quote interesting and I would suggest you educate yourself about it, if you want to argue anymore. Why so all up on Burton’s nutz? Do you have a crush on Johnny Depp or something?

976

I hate Tim Burton.

977

[quote]Nards wrote:
I hate Tim Burton.[/quote]

Agreed. Beetlejuice and to a lesser extent A Nightmare Before Christmas were the only things he’s ever done that are worth a shit. I refuse to give that clown my money again.

978

[quote]Nards wrote:
I hate Tim Burton.[/quote]

So much of his stuff is exactly the same.

With zany depp and/ or zany helena bonham carter playing the same part in yet another crap movie.

everything about that guy is such fake BS even down to his crazy wildman hair.

979

I read somewhere on the net somebody joking that he should call his next movie Johnny Depp and Johnny Depp will be played by Helena Bonham Carter.

980

[quote]Nards wrote:
I read somewhere on the net somebody joking that he should call his next movie Johnny Depp and Johnny Depp will be played by Helena Bonham Carter.[/quote]

Helena Bonham Carter is his wife.

Burton is just a one trick pony that is past his prime, not even worth talking about.

981

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

Superman lives was rejected because of Burton. The whole backstory is quote interesting and I would suggest you educate yourself about it, if you want to argue anymore. Why so all up on Burton’s nutz? Do you have a crush on Johnny Depp or something? [/quote]

The Superman Lives script was rejected because it was a shitty mess, not because Burton had it in for Smith. Even someone who is too simple to calculate movie running times would see that, if they’d actually read the screenplay and not tried to bluff their way out of a hole.

A better question would be why you’re greedily slurping the jizz out of Kevin Smith’s meatus with the enthusiasm of a starved vampire, when he’s notorious for airing his dirty laundry in public and blaming other people for making the skidmarks.

It’s not being “all up on Burton’s nuts” to point out that Smith has had his opportunity to make a better movie than Burton but he blew his chance. Put up or shut up. Too late now, though: he chose to deliberately sabotage his chances of ever making one. He’s making more money now than ever with his roadshows and radio station, so he wanted out of Hollywood and he shit on everyone to do it.

If you’d READ my posts instead of playing the idiot savant, you’d have seen that I said that Batman was remarkable considering Burton wasn’t really looking to make a Batman film. I’m fully aware of Burton’s limitations, I acknowledged them here, and you’ve summarized it as “dickriding”…

And yeah, I have a massive crush on Depp, well I would if I had a big enough vice. How are you getting on squeezing out the anal glands of Pee-Wee’s performing dog?