|
Post by zaku on May 19, 2021 5:39:23 GMT -5
This is technically another example of the Earth-2/Earth-1 split, but: Well, at this point you can put ALL the Earth-2/Earth-1 splits as retcons, like Aquaman, Wonder Woman and so on.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 19, 2021 5:43:08 GMT -5
By the way, this was one quite bad retcon (Jor-El and Lara are still alive in suspended animation somewhere in the space)
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 19, 2021 7:28:26 GMT -5
I don't know if this qualifies as a retcon, but it's probably known the world over. The murderer of Thomas and Martha Wayne, according to the 1989 Batman movie, was Jack Napier, who would one day become the Joker. Not a good move, IYAM, though I can see why they would do that for the movie. I wonder if that ever became accepted in the comic books. By 1989 I wasn't following continuity too closely. Jeez... I hated, and still hate, that movie. The "clever" twist you cite was a big part of my hate. What's worse... is it started a whole trend where any given hero and their arch-enemy's origin stories suddenly "had" to be directly connected.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 19, 2021 7:52:38 GMT -5
Jeez... I hated, and still hate, that movie. The "clever" twist you cite was a big part of my hate. Yeah. The 1989 Batman movie is pretty bad. I saw it several times when if first came out because my roommate loved it. And it just didn’t get any better or make any more sense. I remember sitting there opening night and thinking "Christ! This is going to tank!"
I was shocked when it became a huge thing--to the point of as much bootleg bat-stuff as in '66. (Also, that Batman replaced Spider-Man as the default head on comic store signs and ads.)
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 19, 2021 8:10:12 GMT -5
Yeah. The 1989 Batman movie is pretty bad. I saw it several times when if first came out because my roommate loved it. And it just didn’t get any better or make any more sense. I remember sitting there opening night and thinking "Christ! This is going to tank!"
Well, perhaps this is the reason why you aren't a movie producer But really, regardless of personal taste, how could one think it could be a flop? It had famous actors, action scenes and a love story. We are not talking about a French New Wave movie. It seems to me that it had all the elements to please a large audience.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 19, 2021 8:54:41 GMT -5
Batman '89 is the only live-action Batman film I still enjoy to any real degree. Of course, I enjoy it more as a Joker movie than a Batman one. I have mixed feelings about it. I loved it when I saw it in the theatre, but every subsequent viewing I've found it a bit dull, and I really dislike Nicholson. But in a weird way, I still kind of like it. Nostalgia? I dunno.
However, I always really liked Batman Returns.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 19, 2021 9:06:25 GMT -5
Batman '89 is the only live-action Batman film I still enjoy to any real degree. Of course, I enjoy it more as a Joker movie than a Batman one. I have mixed feelings about it. I loved it when I saw it in the theatre, but every subsequent viewing I've found it a bit dull, and I really dislike Nicholson. But in a weird way, I still kind of like it. Nostalgia? I dunno.
However, I always really liked Batman Returns.
Wow, these are EXACTLY my feelings about this movie!
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on May 19, 2021 9:34:53 GMT -5
Batman Returns was WAY better than 1989 Batman!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 19, 2021 9:50:48 GMT -5
Batman Returns was WAY better than 1989 Batman! I’ve been meaning to watch Batman Returns again for almost 30 years. Except for the stupid way pre-Catwoman Selina Kyle was portrayed (which was apparently SO AWESOME to the WW84 screenwriters that it was appropriated for the Cheetah) and the origin of Catwoman, I remember it being much superior to Batman and a pretty entertaining film. I just never got around to seeing it again.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on May 19, 2021 9:51:38 GMT -5
I haven't seen Returns in years, but I did not think it was good at the time. Suffered from "too many villains" syndrome. Re watching Batman 1989 a few times, I progressively find it worse with each viewing. The last time I found the whole fight in the Cathedral quite bad.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on May 19, 2021 10:34:43 GMT -5
The '89 Batman suffers from Tim Burton Syndrome: that's when a director designs his big setpieces first, then writes a script around them with little regard for logic or fluidity. Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, and Zack Snyder have TBS, too.
Cei-U! I summon the tail wagging the dog!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 19, 2021 10:49:48 GMT -5
The '89 Batman suffers from Tim Burton Syndrome: that's when a director designs his big setpieces first, then writes a script around them with little regard for logic or fluidity. Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, and Zack Snyder have TBS, too. Cei-U! I summon the tail wagging the dog! And Christopher Nolan.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 19, 2021 11:03:21 GMT -5
I thought that even though Returns had 3 villains (2 "super" villains) the different subplots flowed well around each other, and didn't feel too stuffed or anything gratuitously tacked on (like, say, Spider-Man 3).
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 19, 2021 12:02:38 GMT -5
Batman Returns was WAY better than 1989 Batman! *CHOKE*....*SPUTTER*......*HACK*..........*SPUTTER*.......*ACH-PTOOOO* Sorry, I found that hard to swallow. It's all down to personal taste, but I much prefer the first to returns. to me, Returns is more of a Tim Burton Syndrome, that is, filling every square inch of frame with freaks and weirdos for the sake of having freaks and weirdos, to maintain the image of being an iconoclast. Burton reminds me of about 90% of the art students when I was in college, who spent more time trying to act like some tortured artist, who walked a different path from the masses, yet acted like every other art student doing the same thing and neither could draw a straight line. I Like some of Burton's films, but not that one. The only part I like is the back-and-forth between Batman and Catwoman, as it feels like the comics. The Penguin stuff is just Tim Burton trying to be Tod browning, with the Circus Gang added to be his freaky extras. The first film at least tries to stick to a narrative logic, stilted though it may be, and does spend way too much time on the Joker (likely a byproduct of getting Nicholson involved); but, on the whole, I though it was a decent story and a decent Batman story. It helps that it was largely based on the Englehart/Rogers run, as the script had been in development since that period (Boss Grissom is Rupert Thorne, Vicky Vale is actually Silver St Cloud, the Joker is there from "The Laughing Fish.") Schumacher's are just terrible and Batman Begins is the only Nolan one I really enjoy (Dark Knight is fine, but way to dark, for my tastes), though it has some issues here and there (Nolan never did have a decent female character, even with Catwoman). For my money, though, the best Batman movie is, hands down......
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 19, 2021 12:13:12 GMT -5
I don’t like Mask of the Phantasm either.
The best Batman movie is Batman: The Movie from 1966.
All the Batman movies are stupid and silly. But Batman: The Movie is the only one that doesn’t take itself seriously.
The other Batman movies takes themselves way too seriously for me to ignore all the dumb stuff in the dumb scripts.
|
|