criterionforum.org

Agreed, I mentioned this in the Spider-Man 3 thread already but when I went to go see it last weekend it was ridiculously blown up, to the point where the opening credits and any action on the edges of the frame weren't visible.

An IMAX frame measures 70mm horizontally, but IMAX has an aspect ratio of 1.43:1. It's not a huge deal to blow it up for IMAX when a film is shot flat or even in Super35, as they simply reduce the size of the mattes. If The Dark Knight is in 2.39 anamorphic Panavision like Batman Begins though, you're going to be looking at a severely panned and scanned image. About 40% will be chopped off.

Shane Rimmer is a god to me. I remember in elementary school, when I was obsessed with Bond movies, mentioning people like him and being completely ignored. Heck, even today, no one knows who the hell he is. I just watched Batman Begins for the first time and he was one of my favorite parts. I almost jumped out of my seat.

The film still loses points for leaving out John Ratzenberger, the other Shane Rimmer.

DrewReiber wrote:The film still loses points for leaving out John Ratzenberger, the other Shane Rimmer.

I agree.

Enjoy

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Enjoy

"The Choker", classic.

Hi! I'm new around here. I don't see any area where I can introduce myself. Oh, well. Here goes:

I'm probably one of the very few people who strongly prefer Tim Burton's Batman movies to this one. Revisiting those two film which I've seen numerous in my childhood after watching Batman Begins made me realize something: Yes, the campy, comedic Schumacher films are awful but I believe Christopher Nolan did it just tad too opposite of the spectrum. The Tim Burton Batman movies are dark, yes, but it also had a great deal sense of fun. I felt Nolan's Batman took itself just a tad too seriously. Not to mention Katie Holmes' weak-ass performance.

malcolm1980 wrote:Hi! I'm new around here. I don't see any area where I can introduce myself. Oh, well. Here goes:

I'm probably one of the very few people who strongly prefer Tim Burton's Batman movies to this one. Revisiting those two film which I've seen numerous in my childhood after watching Batman Begins made me realize something: Yes, the campy, comedic Schumacher films are awful but I believe Christopher Nolan did it just tad too opposite of the spectrum. The Tim Burton Batman movies are dark, yes, but it also had a great deal sense of fun. I felt Nolan's Batman took itself just a tad too seriously. Not to mention Katie Holmes' weak-ass performance.

While I can understand taking the Burton films on their own terms (I like them too) you have to understand many people prefer the Nolan film because it is the only Batman film that is "faithful" to the comics. So in this case, Nolan's Batman "taking itself too seriously" is just what the doctor ordered. Katie Holmes did suck a whole lot though. Tim Burton really just made a couple of Tim Burton films with a bunch of iconic characters he had heard of (he claims to have never read a comic book), and while many praised his unique vision (I think Ebert called Gotham City one of the great movie settings) comic book fans who were expecting a big screen version akin to Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" were disappointed.

The original burton film is a classic and will never be out-done; it's too unique in its tone and art style-- and the performances are iconic. It's unfortunate that he had to 'burtonize' the sequel though. Nolan's film was fine but nothing about it is enduring; it's just a well-made comic movie. I wish fans would shut the hell up and allow directors to do interesting things with these characters, which by now are ingrained in american mythology.

malcolm1980 wrote:Batman movies are dark, yes, but it also had a great deal sense of fun. I felt Nolan's Batman took itself just a tad too seriously.

And here I am dissapointed that we'll never see the R-Rated "French Connection meets Travis Bickle" Batman that Aronofsky promised.

What I really think is a shame is that we won't get Batman vs. Superman for now.

lord_clyde wrote:While I can understand taking the Burton films on their own terms (I like them too) you have to understand many people prefer the Nolan film because it is the only Batman film that is "faithful" to the comics.

I always take issue with people who claim this. Nolan's series is more faithful to the modern comics, but the first Burton film was very faithful to the tone of the late 30's/early 40's issues.

Tim Burton really just made a couple of Tim Burton films

This is also untrue. When Burton came aboard Batman, he took a film and screenplay that was already in development and just focused it with his own influences. He had a number of far more powerful people above him, including the producers and Nicholson. Returns was where the studio gave him full creative control, and the ensuing backlash was their reason for not asking him back.

Cold Bishop wrote:And here I am dissapointed that we'll never see the R-Rated "French Connection meets Travis Bickle" Batman that Aronofsky promised.

The script really sucked. It messed up many of the most incredible things about Year One and a third of the script was a Catwoman movie. The subplot with the crazy Bruce Wayne was hidieously contrived too. I would recommend you track it down, because the Gordon/police corruption material was the only bits worth saving. You would probably be surprised how many of the good ideas popped up in Begins. Apparently, for one time in comic book movie history, the producers had a good idea of where the franchise should go.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:What I really think is a shame is that we won't get Batman vs. Superman for now.

Do you mean the concept or the Peterson movie?

The concept.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The concept.

I'm really intrigued by the potential, especially because the project is inevitable now. Wolfgang Peterson is really deluded if he thinks he's going to be able to direct that film in 8 years or so, much less use what's left of the Andrew Kevin Walker screenplay now that Warner has Akiva'd (Goldsman) it up. My question would be, would either Nolan or Singer care?

DrewReiber wrote:I always take issue with people who claim this. Nolan's series is more faithful to the modern comics, but the first Burton film was very faithful to the tone of the late 30's/early 40's issues.

Other than the Joker killing people with his 'smile gas', I have to wonder what else was carried over from the issues you're referring to?

I actually think Batman Returns is a great film and ranks as one of Burton's best work.

lord_clyde wrote:Other than the Joker killing people with his 'smile gas', I have to wonder what else was carried over from the issues you're referring to?

If you're looking for tangible, easy to notice references like a character or a line of dialogue, then you're not going to find much. The translated elements from the original issues include the broad and dark tone, the primarily gangster-ridden plots, the gadgets, the era, and the very simplicity of the concept. The '89 version has far more in common with the first several years of the comics than any other live-action incarnation, especially with the depiction of Wayne and his attitude while Batman. The producers, by their own admission, set out to make a Bob Kane authentic film.

Having read many issues of the Kane/Sprang run when I was a kid, shortly after the film's release, I was thrilled by their aesthetic intentions. To this very day I can't believe they got away with it. I've since learned that Kane's vision and involvement was treated like royalty and he was ecstatic about the adaptation. Warner not only promoted that connection, but the people involved still make note of it today. I'm sorry, but when people complain that the Joker running around a museum acting like a maniacal jerk isn't true to the comics, they don't know what they're talking about.

I am also knowledgeable of the material contributed by Dennis O'Neil, Neal Adams, Frank Miller, David Mazzuchelli, Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. Though the stuff is often very good and I'm glad to see it adapted, their material functions far more as a revision of the Kane work than a true continuation of it. In fact, the 70's spent a number of storyarcs specifically retelling the original run in a contemporary manner, including the more eccentric ones such as Doctor Hugo Strange or the Mad Monk and his vampires.

Nolan is primarily adapting the modern material with filmmaking techniques of just the last few decades. Burton and the producers not only attempted to stay true to the original Kane run, but their aesthetics stuck largely to the 30's-50's era of film noir and gangster movies. Burton's additional contributions included his penchant for classic cartoon and comic stylings, which is why the '89 Batman will always have a far more illustrated design that relates splash page-esque images and connecting frames through moving camera.

I can understand people's preferences for either Nolan's approach or Burton's, and I can even see how there might be arguments as to who is better at what they're attempting to do. However, people consistently dismiss the fact that the second attempt at a Batman feature film was intentionally grounding itself in both the style of comics and the filmic design of the era in which the character was born. It's even more frustrating considering how truly obvious that is.

malcolm1980 wrote:I actually think Batman Returns is a great film and ranks as one of Burton's best work.

I don't think it's a great film, per se. I do think it's one of Burton's best, though. I very much love the look and feel of it. I'll never forget seeing it on a small 9" tv in the burger king my sister worked at. It might have been summer, but my eyes were glued in amazement to the snowy, black glossy details of the pictures. Everything was just like nothing else I had seen at the time. Hell, even the concept/teaser poster was a smash, with the snow breezed across the batman icon.

Anyway, I don't think it ranks up with Lawrence of Arabia, but I certainly feel it's one of Burton's most wildly, tastefully stylized films he's done. That, and Edward Scissorhands. And frankly, when I do see Batman Returns, it's usually just for crazy ambience. Like every time I watch Blade Runner, I so much want to live in that environment, even for just a day and night... That's how I feel about Batman Returns; it's gorgeous in that sense. And I never got that with the first film.

malcolm1980 wrote:I actually think Batman Returns is a great film and ranks as one of Burton's best work.

It's a good one. I think the remote controlled penguin missiles were a little much but everything else, from Penguin's henchmen kidnapping children in a giant toy train to Catwoman's birth with "Hell Here" glowing in the background is just offbeat enough to work. Hell, even Penguin greeting his campaign supporters while ripping into a raw fish and then biting a man in the face works for me.

DrewReiber wrote:

lord_clyde wrote:Other than the Joker killing people with his 'smile gas', I have to wonder what else was carried over from the issues you're referring to?

If you're looking for tangible, easy to notice references like a character or a line of dialogue, then you're not going to find much. The translated elements from the original issues include the broad and dark tone, the primarily gangster-ridden plots, the gadgets, the era, and the very simplicity of the concept. The '89 version has far more in common with the first several years of the comics than any other live-action incarnation, especially with the depiction of Wayne and his attitude while Batman. The producers, by their own admission, set out to make a Bob Kane authentic film.

Having read many issues of the Kane/Sprang run when I was a kid, shortly after the film's release, I was thrilled by their aesthetic intentions. To this very day I can't believe they got away with it. I've since learned that Kane's vision and involvement was treated like royalty and he was ecstatic about the adaptation. Warner not only promoted that connection, but the people involved still make note of it today. I'm sorry, but when people complain that the Joker running around a museum acting like a maniacal jerk isn't true to the comics, they don't know what they're talking about.

I am also knowledgeable of the material contributed by Dennis O'Neil, Neal Adams, Frank Miller, David Mazzuchelli, Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. Though the stuff is often very good and I'm glad to see it adapted, their material functions far more as a revision of the Kane work than a true continuation of it. In fact, the 70's spent a number of storyarcs specifically retelling the original run in a contemporary manner, including the more eccentric ones such as Doctor Hugo Strange or the Mad Monk and his vampires.

Nolan is primarily adapting the modern material with filmmaking techniques of just the last few decades. Burton and the producers not only attempted to stay true to the original Kane run, but their aesthetics stuck largely to the 30's-50's era of film noir and gangster movies. Burton's additional contributions included his penchant for classic cartoon and comic stylings, which is why the '89 Batman will always have a far more illustrated design that relates splash page-esque images and connecting frames through moving camera.

I can understand people's preferences for either Nolan's approach or Burton's, and I can even see how there might be arguments as to who is better at what they're attempting to do. However, people consistently dismiss the fact that the second attempt at a Batman feature film was intentionally grounding itself in both the style of comics and the filmic design of the era in which the character was born. It's even more frustrating considering how truly obvious that is.

I see what you're getting at, and for the most part I agree with you. But you have to admit that even for the time it was released not many people were reading the early issues, they were hot off of 'Dark Knight Returns'. Whenever I watch the '89 Batman I am completely sucked into the dark world of Gotham City, until Prince starts blaring on the soundtrack, then I'm lost.

lord_clyde wrote:But you have to admit that even for the time it was released not many people were reading the early issues, they were hot off of 'Dark Knight Returns'.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. What's the context? Are you talking about the comic fans who complain?

Whenever I watch the '89 Batman I am completely sucked into the dark world of Gotham City, until Prince starts blaring on the soundtrack, then I'm lost.

Dear sir, you are way off base! That Prince soundtrack was absolutely authentic 1940's yadda yadda yadda.

Drew wrote:

Whenever I watch the '89 Batman I am completely sucked into the dark world of Gotham City, until Prince starts blaring on the soundtrack, then I'm lost.

Dear sir, you are way off base! That Prince soundtrack was absolutely authentic 1940's yadda yadda yadda.

Do people just hate the Prince songs merely for the fact that they're Prince (ie. popular music)? I always thought they added greatly to the grotesquerie with their shallow, upbeat, inorganic sounds. Am I the only one who grins at the fact that a joyful, poppy song about partying plays while The Joker gleefully defaces works of art as he jumps over the dead bodies of his fresh murder victims? And the other Prince song feels pretty appropriate for the Joker's showboating parade, especially since the lyrics have something to do with money, if I remember. (I love the look of those toxic-gas-filled giant balloons).

When you really look at it, Batman is a pretty sick, dark little movie. There is a considerable amount of wanton murder in it, for one thing; and stuff like the Joker disfiguring his old flame's face with acid, or throwing a quill into a man's throat, or even that cartoonishly monstrous grin, makes you wonder how Burton got away with making such a nasty blockbuster. My theory is that he also managed to impart a real grandeur to the proceedings, helped immeasurably by Elfman's irreplaceable score. The film's grotesqueries are more effective than those of Batman Returns, for me anyway, because their contrast against the more straightforward noir elements gives them a real impact. Batman Returns goes all out, and while the whole show is fun, the excess diminishes the impact because all of it is so irrepressibly cartoonish as to make it seem commonplace, a given. Add to that the fact that the villains are all curiously ineffective, and that the film has no real momentum, being a series of great moments rather than a whole, and in my admittedly biased opinion, Batman is the better film. It is, anyway, nice to find it as great a viewing experience now as when I was a fascinated little kid.

Mr_sausage wrote:Am I the only one who grins at the fact that a joyful, poppy song about partying plays while The Joker gleefully defaces works of art as he jumps over the dead bodies of his fresh murder victims?

No, you're not the only one. I just have no argument to justify my enjoyment of what I believe is a commercially motivated decision that clearly contradicts an otherwise 100% consistent atmosphere. Even when I was 12, my best friend would stop the movie at that scene with the floats and go, "What were they thinking?" Money, obviously! But hey, I think that joyous tone you're talking about does come through for the Joker and it was smart of Burton to keep that music largely contained around that character.

DrewReiber wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:Am I the only one who grins at the fact that a joyful, poppy song about partying plays while The Joker gleefully defaces works of art as he jumps over the dead bodies of his fresh murder victims?

No, you're not the only one. I just have no argument to justify my enjoyment of what I believe is a commercially motivated decision that clearly contradicts an otherwise 100% consistent atmosphere. Even when I was 12, my best friend would stop the movie at that scene with the floats and go, "What were they thinking?" Money, obviously! But hey, I think that joyous tone you're talking about does come through for the Joker and it was smart of Burton to keep that music largely contained around that character.

It was certainly a good idea to keep the Prince stuff diegetic (a point which the movie goes out of its way to emphasize--"Clarence!"). It would otherwise be a genuine nuisance. Indeed, it seems, in its way, almost subversive (unintentionally or not) to associate the Prince music so entirely with evil (and either prefiguring or following excessive acts of violence).

This is just one of those movies I'll go unreasonably out of my way to defend, whether it deserves it or not.