Just because a movie studio calls it "Batman," doesn't mean it's Batman.
O Batman Where Art Thou?
Just because a movie studio calls it "Batman," doesn't mean it's Batman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just because a movie studio calls it "Batman," doesn't mean it's Batman.
10 comments:
More power to you, Sherm!
I've actually been thinking that they should go back to an Adam West-ish Batman again. Only in costume though. I think it would be great if there was a guy smashing gangster faces running around the city streets in a leotard, and freezing off his bacon and eggs.
Though I do like this Batman too actually. I get the feeling that all the Batman must be different in some way, so this one is different by actually being thing of the Fantastic Four.
I love the costume in "Batman: Year One." I also love the Adam West costume :) I know I sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but that's how I see it.
Batman: Year One was the very costume I had in mind.
Yes, and not one damn time during the modern movie era (since Burtons "Batman") has ANY studio or director at least tried to do a Batman film with the character, supposedly an Olympic-level athlete at the peak of human capability in some approximation of a "real" non-armored cloth costume. The utility belt and genius-level detective mind were supposed to off-set his lack of "super powers", but I guess Hollywood boardroom executives and others know so much better than seven decades of comics.
Totally agree with you. I like the new Batman movies, but I've never considered them batman.
I mean, look at the joker. Everyone loved him, but he was definitely not the Joker I knew.
Disliked the Nolan Batman movies a great deal. If a Batman movie isn't kid-friendly (not childish, just kid-friendly, like the recent Capt. America), then what's the point?
Bob, considering that the original Batman was pretty violent for 1939, the Nolan Batman movies make a lot of sense. Our great detective got toned down into a kids comic, so it only makes sense that some of his movie be more rowdy.
Part of what lured me to Batman (The TV series) when I was a boy in the 60's, was the fact that he wasn't some huge muscle bound freak. He was real (to me) and could lose in a fight, but used his smarts and clever contraptions to get his foe.
That same human quality also lured me to "The Rockford Files", but I digress.
The comic book was at it's best in the late 60's too.
Just my opinion.....and it can be attributed to my being 47 years old I guess.
I stopped watching the movies after the 1st one.
First, I am a VERY big fan of the 60's Adam West Batman (I mean, staying tuned next week for giant 'Robin-eating' clam..?)/Mazzuchelli style. Visually simple, yet striking.
Batman's 'power' was his ability to out-think and out-smart the villains. If that didn't work, a little POW! BIFF! SOCK!
However, in defense of Nolan, EVERY criminal nowadays is armed to the teeth. Even The World's Greatest Detective needs help (some type body armor)dodging a hailing spray of gunfire!
Post a Comment