If Batman was a real superhero, he would be using sonar and have the ability to fly. As it stands, he's a pajama wearing wannabee. Now Spiderman is a good representation of what a spider based super hero should be; shoots webbing, has spider proportionate strength; has 'spidey' sence, etc.
Superman? Already had his lunch handed to him by Bats (anyway, he's too busy dating Spiderman)
Wolverine? Duh-umb. As a rock.
Daredevil? Puh-leeeze...I said "SUPER hero".
Captain America? that is funny.
Iron Man? Love Iron Man, hate to see Batman wipe the floor with him.
The "real" Batman doesn't wear rubber tights with molded nipples, Bob Ringwood took a few liberties. The "real" Batman can turn his head without needing to turn his whole body around.
A neat thing I noticed: recently I saw the 1926 german film Metropolis by Fritz Lang and couldn't help but think that the belfry/church tower scene in Tim Burton's first Batman film was an homage to the ending of Metropolis which also has a belfry/bell tower ending.
It just seemed too obvious to me and also something quite neat. Has anyone seen both films and noticed this too?
The first Burton film had promise, but - in the end - it kinda played it safe and cute. The second one, more of the same. Don't even get me started on the Joel Schumacher-directed installments.
The best thing I've seen done to Batman in the past couple of decades was that cool animated series! Not only was the animation and artwork really amazing, but it had good writing and was head and shoulders above any other cartoon! As an adult, I could watch it and not want to throw a brick at the TV.
It had this cool retro vibe to it, but was also populated by cool devices and gizmos. The creators said they wanted it to seem as though it might be from the 30's or 40's, BUT they never blatantly say so. Then Batman or a criminal will pull out some pocket-sized digital device (an iBat? ) and you'd be COMPLETELY confused!
There's actually a big coffee table book out about that animated series: how it came to be, the artwork behind it, interviews with the creators, pics of storyboards and backgrounds, discussion of the entire reason for doing it, etc. I stood in Barnes & Noble one day and flipped through most of it. Gonna buy it here soon, probably. One of those "can look at it anytime and find something new and cool" kind of books!
Check it out!
And I also made a post here a couple of months ago where I talked about bringing Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" to the big screen and how, if I had anything to do with it, I would go about it: dark, sinister, unknowns in the leads so you're not sitting there going "there's [fill in the blank] playing Batman..." and heavy on CGI for the scenery, backgrounds, wild-ass stunts, etc.
There's a HUGE army of Batman fans out there who would eat this up, if done RIGHT.
Another cool movie would be to take that "Year One" comic series, where it chronicles Bruce Wayne's first attempts at "being Batman" and training himself to do what he feels compelled to do.
You all are going to laugh, but do you know who I think would make a good, believable Batman (and especially Bruce Wayne)? I thought Alec Baldwin does good with roles where, on one hand, he's this handsome, dapper guy who looks good in a tux or suit and slicks his hair back ("Malice", "Mercury Rising", "The Shadow"). He looks the part of some uppity millionaire type. But he always has that rasp in his voice and a sense of "this guy might be a ruthless maniac..." about him ("The Juror", "Getaway", "Heaven's Prisoners").
Think back on the four theatrical Batman films: there's probably no argument that he would've bested Kilmer and Clooney in every way (provided the material and directing weren't complete shit...which they were). And I believe he'd been better than Keaton.
But he's even too big a name for the way I have a new Batman film pictured.
I'd actually love to see a 1930's or 40's-based Batman flick, kinda like "The Rockateer" (great movie!), "The Phantom" or "The Shadow" (Baldwin!)...all very good takes on comic hero types, done in a cool, retro setting and time. And all pretty watchable, considering.
I talked to John Korty, who directed the animated movie "Twice Upon a Time", about the second Batman movie....the one with the Penguin. He was very angry that Tim Burton had "stolen" a scene from TUAT and used it in his own movie. The scene is where the Penguin is talking to all the penguins who are ranged around and above him inside that building. It's a direct lift from a scene in TUAT in which the character Synonamess Botch talks to all his bird minions. Korty indicated that since the same studio owned both movies that they saw no reason to sue themselves.
Judge for yourself if it's an homage or a ripoff.
Oh, and no doubt that Miller's "Dark Knight" has the potential to be one of the most amazing movies EVER, if only Hollywood wouldn't screw it up. Every Batman fan in the world who's read the book is waiting for that!
Comments
Superman is a fvcking boy scout.
Frank Miller's Dark Knight? mebbe
Michael Keaton?
Val Kilmer?
Adam West?
hmmmm?
Originally posted by thuh Freak
not superman's!
In Frank Miller's Dark Knight mini series, he beat Superman to a bloody pulp.
Batman vs. ...
Daredevil
Spiderman
Captain America
Iron Man
Who would win? Thoughts? Opinions?
Originally posted by Ra
Captain America
Hulk? Dufus.
Superman? Already had his lunch handed to him by Bats (anyway, he's too busy dating Spiderman)
Wolverine? Duh-umb. As a rock.
Daredevil? Puh-leeeze...I said "SUPER hero".
Captain America? that is funny.
Iron Man? Love Iron Man, hate to see Batman wipe the floor with him.
The "real" Batman doesn't wear rubber tights with molded nipples, Bob Ringwood took a few liberties. The "real" Batman can turn his head without needing to turn his whole body around.
The "real" Batman can KICK your superhero's ASS!
A neat thing I noticed: recently I saw the 1926 german film Metropolis by Fritz Lang and couldn't help but think that the belfry/church tower scene in Tim Burton's first Batman film was an homage to the ending of Metropolis which also has a belfry/bell tower ending.
It just seemed too obvious to me and also something quite neat. Has anyone seen both films and noticed this too?
The first Burton film had promise, but - in the end - it kinda played it safe and cute. The second one, more of the same. Don't even get me started on the Joel Schumacher-directed installments.
The best thing I've seen done to Batman in the past couple of decades was that cool animated series! Not only was the animation and artwork really amazing, but it had good writing and was head and shoulders above any other cartoon! As an adult, I could watch it and not want to throw a brick at the TV.
It had this cool retro vibe to it, but was also populated by cool devices and gizmos. The creators said they wanted it to seem as though it might be from the 30's or 40's, BUT they never blatantly say so. Then Batman or a criminal will pull out some pocket-sized digital device (an iBat?
There's actually a big coffee table book out about that animated series: how it came to be, the artwork behind it, interviews with the creators, pics of storyboards and backgrounds, discussion of the entire reason for doing it, etc. I stood in Barnes & Noble one day and flipped through most of it. Gonna buy it here soon, probably. One of those "can look at it anytime and find something new and cool" kind of books!
Check it out!
And I also made a post here a couple of months ago where I talked about bringing Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" to the big screen and how, if I had anything to do with it, I would go about it: dark, sinister, unknowns in the leads so you're not sitting there going "there's [fill in the blank] playing Batman..." and heavy on CGI for the scenery, backgrounds, wild-ass stunts, etc.
There's a HUGE army of Batman fans out there who would eat this up, if done RIGHT.
Another cool movie would be to take that "Year One" comic series, where it chronicles Bruce Wayne's first attempts at "being Batman" and training himself to do what he feels compelled to do.
You all are going to laugh, but do you know who I think would make a good, believable Batman (and especially Bruce Wayne)? I thought Alec Baldwin does good with roles where, on one hand, he's this handsome, dapper guy who looks good in a tux or suit and slicks his hair back ("Malice", "Mercury Rising", "The Shadow"). He looks the part of some uppity millionaire type. But he always has that rasp in his voice and a sense of "this guy might be a ruthless maniac..." about him ("The Juror", "Getaway", "Heaven's Prisoners").
Think back on the four theatrical Batman films: there's probably no argument that he would've bested Kilmer and Clooney in every way (provided the material and directing weren't complete shit...which they were). And I believe he'd been better than Keaton.
But he's even too big a name for the way I have a new Batman film pictured.
I'd actually love to see a 1930's or 40's-based Batman flick, kinda like "The Rockateer" (great movie!), "The Phantom" or "The Shadow" (Baldwin!)...all very good takes on comic hero types, done in a cool, retro setting and time. And all pretty watchable, considering.
Judge for yourself if it's an homage or a ripoff.
Oh, and no doubt that Miller's "Dark Knight" has the potential to be one of the most amazing movies EVER, if only Hollywood wouldn't screw it up. Every Batman fan in the world who's read the book is waiting for that!