Burton's Busts

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Tim Burton is like Tim Schafer. (Tim and Tim again?)

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.

I don't think "doesn't age well" is a really valid in determining if a movie was good or not. Lots of movies that were good for their times don't age well, that is just the nature of things.

I thought Michael Keaton did a good job as a more mature batman, who is was comfortable with both his Burce Wayne and Batman personas. Where as Christian Bale is playing a younger Wayne who is trying a little too hard but is also more intense.

Batman Returns was meh all around. It was visually more Tim Burton but at the expense of story coherence. The whole "catwoman got her powers by falling off a building" was really dumb.

I partially agree with these, though I did enjoy the Batman films, they were a bit silly but very imaginative. I think most of those movies are simply there for the spectacle and to entertain, not every film needs to have a deep narrative and complex structure and/or plot.

I personally like Burtons films because you can just escape into a weird world for an hour and just relax, much like Hayao Miyazaki's works, they are mad concepts sometimes, but very entertaining none-the-less

Gildan Bladeborn:

Matt_LRR:

Casual Shinji:
Well, seeing as Burton's Batman actually felt like "Batman" compaired to Nolan's terrorist-subtext cyber-Batman, I'd have to say that you are absolutely full off sh- your own opinion.

If by that you mean, "burton's, and subsequently Schumacher's Batman movies felt like Batman in the same sense that the 1960's Adam west batman felt like batman" and nolan's "feels like something far more real, and more akin to the comics of the modern era", then sure.

unwesen:
Burton's version was copying from both the cheesy TV version and the grittier comic books that had been published in the meantime. That is probably why, as you put it, "the pop-cultural importance of Burton's Batman can't be overestimated": it's always appeared to me to intentionally move the Batman franchise away from the silly caped crusader the mass market was used to from TV, without submitting the same mass market to a full-blown Frank Miller Splatterfest. It's either a masterpiece, or there was a ton of luck involved in timing and the exact design, and knowing Burton's other movies, I'd put more money on the former.

On the other hand it's fair to say that it hasn't aged terribly well; in part, that's because it was successful at bringing superheroes to the big screen. Of course the Dark Knight looks more contemporary; people have now been watching the same old superhero story for so long they again needed a fresh look, and the Dark Knight attempts just that. This is probably the first time we're made to forget that the main character dresses up as a bat, where we can take him entirely seriously and can be just a little scared of how far he can go in his quest for his version of justice.

I wholly agree with this assessment. It was, in fact, the realization that Schumacher's Batman & Robin was essentially a 90's era revisit of the 60's tv show that made me realize what exactly had gone on with the series.

-m

Burton has famously gone on the record to state that he did absolutely no research on the character of Batman prior to making those films, and has never read a single Batman comic. So he wasn't trying to adapt squat from them. It's not faithful to the source material because he never READ that material.

Be that as it may, and unwitting as it may have been - he ended up creating a film that incorporated elements of both the comics of the time and the Adam West series, and coupled it with exactly the right aesthetic.

-m

I sometimes worry that I'm the only person who DIDN'T think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the batman movies were great big piles of poop.

Gildan Bladeborn:

Matt_LRR:

Casual Shinji:
Well, seeing as Burton's Batman actually felt like "Batman" compaired to Nolan's terrorist-subtext cyber-Batman, I'd have to say that you are absolutely full off sh- your own opinion.

If by that you mean, "burton's, and subsequently Schumacher's Batman movies felt like Batman in the same sense that the 1960's Adam west batman felt like batman" and nolan's "feels like something far more real, and more akin to the comics of the modern era", then sure.

unwesen:
Burton's version was copying from both the cheesy TV version and the grittier comic books that had been published in the meantime. That is probably why, as you put it, "the pop-cultural importance of Burton's Batman can't be overestimated": it's always appeared to me to intentionally move the Batman franchise away from the silly caped crusader the mass market was used to from TV, without submitting the same mass market to a full-blown Frank Miller Splatterfest. It's either a masterpiece, or there was a ton of luck involved in timing and the exact design, and knowing Burton's other movies, I'd put more money on the former.

On the other hand it's fair to say that it hasn't aged terribly well; in part, that's because it was successful at bringing superheroes to the big screen. Of course the Dark Knight looks more contemporary; people have now been watching the same old superhero story for so long they again needed a fresh look, and the Dark Knight attempts just that. This is probably the first time we're made to forget that the main character dresses up as a bat, where we can take him entirely seriously and can be just a little scared of how far he can go in his quest for his version of justice.

I wholly agree with this assessment. It was, in fact, the realization that Schumacher's Batman & Robin was essentially a 90's era revisit of the 60's tv show that made me realize what exactly had gone on with the series.

-m

Burton has famously gone on the record to state that he did absolutely no research on the character of Batman prior to making those films, and has never read a single Batman comic. So he wasn't trying to adapt squat from them. It's not faithful to the source material because he never READ that material.

Good grief I can't believe you're actually defending Burton's shocking lack of respectful research into the subject he was about to internationally insult by a lack of adaption. The
"hey man, I didn't know ok!" approach doesn't work so well when you're creating muitimillion dollar movies presenting the title that so many thousands of people know and love.

And also.....I sometimes worry that I'm the only person who DIDN'T think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the batman movies were great big piles of poop. It's comforting to know I'm not alone.

Planet of the Apes at least, EVERYONE knows is crap.

Warachia:
wasn't there supposed to be FOUR others? There are only 3 (four including alice) where's the fifth?

Batman
Batman Returns
Planet of the Apes
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Alice in Wonderland

Yep, that's five. Seems like Burton's worst films are adaptations. Of course, some of his better ones are also adaptations, so there we are.

I disagree with the notion of Burton's work on Batman as failures.
While the first may be throwaway entertainment, what Burton successfully achieved in Batman Returns was adaptation without any kind of reverential catering to the original material.
He took chances, dabbled in unexpected ideas. Drew inspiration from biblical imagery, third-wave feminism and post-modern currents.
And pulled it off.
I have never understood the desire to replicate, rather than invent.
Returns was a brilliant re-invention of the expressionistic school of filmmaking, since the surreal and bombastic imagery of Batman fitted perfectly into the chosen format.
Why Nolan's films never worked for me, was because they constantly attempted to rationalize the mythology of the character.
- At the end of the day, it's still a multimillionaire dressing up in a latex getup fighting crime.
Burton embraced the exaggeration, Nolan fought it.

P.S
Bob thinks Inglorious Basterds is a more substantial work than The Hurt Locker?
Well, there goes that trace of credibility.
D.S

I have disagreed with Bob on many occasions (Such as his stance on the Bayonetta being well designed and Avatar deserving the best picture Oscar, let alone any award.) but I'm glad to know he hasn't inhaled the dangerous drug of nostalgia.

In the 1990's the Batman movies were panned for their style over substance way of filmmaking. Reviews were mixed at best. Anybody who wasn't a comic fan would bring up how terrible and juvenille a character Batman was due to their only exposure being Adam West and the Burton/Schumacher movies. Only after I chloroform them in blind rage and strap them down to a chair with Batman: The Animated Series playing would they appreciate the character as having serious artistic merit.

On Batman forums across teh internetz, everyone bemoaned how Hollywood doesn't understand Batman and that he was only done right animated. When Daredevil came out, viewers stated it was Batman finally done right. That's right, the fucking Daredevil movie with Ben Affleck. That's how much Batfans hated it. Every piece of fanfiction that came out started with an author's note reading: This is for Bill Finger R.I.P. and the true Batman fans. Fuck Tim Burton, Samm Hamm, Joel Shumacher, and Akiva Goldsman. It wasn't until the release of Batman Begins did I see deluded nostalgia geeks claiming that the '89 Batman was the best movie, let alone the flood of trolls that coincided with the Dark Knight's release. True fans praised Mask of the Phantasm and not the Burton movies.

Adam West's Batman was (in my opinion) the best. Yeah, it was silly and stupid and hilariously cheesy, but that's all the concept of Batman is, when you think about it. At least Adam West's version was FUN.

Seeing Batman and Robin riding in a pint-sized, glass, see-through "bat helicopter" in broad daylight, waving to old couples having picnics in the park as they fly by is oh so hilarious!

I do mostly agree with this list though. Then again, I myself have never been much of a Burton fan.

Matt_LRR:

Casual Shinji:
Well, seeing as Burton's Batman actually felt like "Batman" compaired to Nolan's terrorist-subtext cyber-Batman, I'd have to say that you are absolutely full off sh- your own opinion.

If by that you mean, "burton's, and subsequently Schumacher's Batman movies felt like Batman in the same sense that the 1960's Adam west batman felt like batman" and nolan's "feels like something far more real, and more akin to the comics of the modern era", then sure.

-m

Nah, I mean Burton's Batman felt dark, twisted and stylish. Just like the animated series and even Batman AA.

I was rather excited when I heard Nolan was gonna make the new Batman movie and that Bale was dawning the cape. But Batman Begins was so incredibly boring with such badly edited action scenes. The Dark Knight was atleast better thanks to the underrated Aaron Eckhart (who would've made a killer Batman) but still felt like a mismatch of uber-gritty and kid-friendly super hero.

I recognize the quality in both Begins and Dark Knight, but I just can't enjoy them.

So I guess what I'm saying is: They're good movies, they're just not good Batman movies. Kinda in the same sense that Casino Royale is a good movie, but not a good Bond movie.

Pretty much nailed it with the "Admit it, for a moment you actually forgot..." comment lol. I too was curious about what he would have to say in regards to Sweeny Todd. I really liked that one.

The_root_of_all_evil:

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.

I haven't heard that poem in years. Brought back Nursery rhyme memories

As much as I liked individual aspects of Burton's Batman films, they probably do belong in this list, though standing head & shoulders above the others. His "wouldn't know a good script if it bit [him] in the face" quote is certainly apt, & having read The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy & Other Stories, I doubt he can tell when his own work sucks either.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Tim Burton is like Tim Schafer. (Tim and Tim again?)

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.

In theory, but when was shafer ever bad?

Also, Bob. Willy Wonka is not the title character in Charlie and the Choclate factory.

My problem with a lot of what people seemingly are doing, this goes for Bob as well, is that everyone compares many of these movies to different franchises. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory didn't follow the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more based off the book. Both actors did a good job in their own write, they delivered different portrayals of the Willy Wonka character. Same with batman. The Dark Knight series is very different from the first 2 batman movies made. Sames goes for Planet of the Apes, again...wasn't meant to mimic the original. It's disappointing to see so many jump on the "it's a copy and not as good as the original" bandwagon, when the "remake" isn't even the same story line or character for that matter.

I'll give you Charlie. I'll give you Planet. I'll even let Batman Begins go, albeit with some reservations. But the original Batman? No. N-O. Flat wrong. Batman is one of the very, very few movies where Burton's tendencies to goth everything up and cap off every arc with a final action scene actually worked. It's full of moments that say everything to an audience without having to beat them over the head- the dinner with Vicki Vale in the long, empty dining room; the room full of exotic armor, the Joker's destruction of paintings in the museum, the rivalries and conflicts between the straight and corrupt factions of the Gotham police... It had a villain who was actually funny and terrifying in turns and a hero who had decidedly gone to some very dark places within himself to find what it took to face the evil he saw on the streets. And it did it without having tons of dark angsty superhero movies to draw upon. That Movie Bob actually prefers the mediocre CGI and borderline professional wrestling antics of the first Spider-Man movie warrants a smack upside the head.

I'm not saying it's a perfect movie. Word certainly is that there were things cobbled together at the last minute, and that the revelation of Batman's identity to Vicki Vale is never really handled so much as shuffled aside seems to buttress that impression. But however things came together, they did- brilliantly. That Joel Schumacher can't shoot or choreograph a fight scene and thinks that putting the villains front and center with a lot of lurid neon is the same thing as developing them is not Burton's fault.

I like Nolan's Batman- probably, pushed to the wall, I like it more than Burton's, though they're very different takes on the character. But I also recognize that without Burton's, Nolan's wouldn't exist- and neither, most likely, would Sin City, Iron Man, or any of the good X-Men movies. Geek culture owes Burton's Batman for turning superheroes into something more than just kiddy power fantasies and slapstick, and creating the modern dark hero after the light of film noir had largely faded.

And don't you forget it, bub- er, Bob.

More and more I learn how different the world's views are from the one's I've become used to (namely my own or my family's). I like the first couple Batman flicks (first few, if you wanna slap in the LOLarity of "Quick, Robin, hand me the shark-repellent Bat Spray!"). I was young at the time, single-digits (I think the movie actually came out within a couple years of my birth), so for a time, they were all I knew of Batman, so it struck me weird when I later read, in my mid-to-late-teens, that the Joker and [the] Penguin were such different bases/characters (OK, intermission (lulz) here, but I was also exposed to the Batman-meets-Scooby-Doo (well, vice-versa) special, and TAS came in somewhere, with the VHSs of both flicks in our entertainment center, so I had other bases for Penguin and the Joker's design and origin, respectively). I don't know how I'd view them now, but I know that it felt full-circle (or something, whatever kid-me felt aboot it) for the Joker the be the guy who killed his folks, however corny that may be plain-told, and the Penguin's design and army, and the city-wide campaign was prolly something awesomely absurd (still creepy, in the way dirty porcelain clowns are). I wanna say I found Catwoman's outfit weird (still had an action figure of her), and I can totally understand the mentioned cliff-fall-power-up being derrf.

I also totally get the "black-on-black" trappings criticism. For Batman, it's fine, it's his shtick, but everyone? Yeah, it looks something more professional, but does Hollywood need a superhero taken seriously for it to not be a kid's film (The Incredibles not included, for being aimed at all audiences)?

Will call you out, Bob, for ripped in the Batman flicks not being true to source material (which, really, they don't need to be; a proper vibe is damn good enough), and then demerit Planet of the Apes (which while I don't really remember it, it wasn't wholly forgotten, prolly because of the Michael Jackson ~ Monkey Person image, and I totally wasn't aware it was a Burton venture) for not featuring Burton's style (and/or trappings?). Not exactly the same, I know, but again with the vibe thing, it feels a bit double-standard.

Charlie, I'll agree, I don't care for, despite the nice color depth and interesting mix-up of songs, maybe for the reason's Burton's style doesn't click with me. Like the MegaTen games, it's a style that seems a bit too creeped out, like a liquid branch without a core. ...or something. These things feel like they're entirely comprised of the flayed parts on the outskirts without any of the solidarity of the center, which I suppose is part of their charm, that you don't have something to base yourself on or fall back on, but unless it's a subject I click with (Beetlejuice, Batman, Nightmare (I know I walked around like Jack did during the graveyard song)), it's gonna end up too fringe for me to care. That, and Depp will now always look creepy to me well-shaved due to Pirates. His Charlie hair looks dumb, no matter if it's period'd or not.

Did find Ed Wood entertaining, though again, it's got that fringe aspect on it where I don't feel a base for the proceedings. Nothing to hold on to, just a fleeting weirdness that's there on the outskirts of my internal comprehension, and then fades off out of my consciousness.

And Corpse Bride... I think I'm tainted with how much I liked/like Nightmare, that I see it as weaker. I'unno.

EDIT: Also, that Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck promo before the [Batman] movie on VHS (and that soda commercial on there, too).

Tootmania:
Adam West's Batman was (in my opinion) the best. Yeah, it was silly and stupid and hilariously cheesy, but that's all the concept of Batman is, when you think about it. At least Adam West's version was FUN.

Seeing Batman and Robin riding in a pint-sized, glass, see-through "bat helicopter" in broad daylight, waving to old couples having picnics in the park as they fly by is oh so hilarious!

fuck. yea.

personally, i have yet to like a burton film other than that batman one.
his style never seems to stick with me

Im fearing that he might be doing another reimagining. One that is loved by video gamers everywhere. A game that says "Tim Burton" all over it, but would be ruined by him...

Gentleman, we have to stop him before he makes Grim Fandango.

This was an interesting list, but its mostly because I thought (personally) that "Mars Attacks!" was going to be on this list.

I didn't care for Mars Attacks simply because it was too F'ing Weird. I know that is Burton's style to be that way, but the movie couldn't decide if it was a parody or a real movie (Also based on a series of Collectable Trading cards, BTW) and because of that, the movie was disjointed and exactly why Tim Burton made a giant fanfiction sequel called "Alice in Wonderland" - because to him, He thought all the collections of A.I.W. movies felt like a bunch of various situations with Alice headlining the one major character part, not characters interacting in the same universe, which, by the trailers, is exactly what he aimed for in this movie.

Now, to Everything Moviebob didn't like:

I haven't seen ALL of the first two Batman movies, I'll admit, I grew up watching the Schumacher pictures, my parents weren't big on the Burton ones. However, being more grown up, I should try to make an honest attempt to see them.

Planet of the Apes is the highlight of bad pictures by Aforementioned Director, as Film Critic Roger Ebert oh so appropriately put it in his review, "He's made a film that's respectful to the original, and respectable in itself, but that's not enough. Ten years from now, it will be the 1968 version that people are still renting."

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was perhaps not near as bad, but it certainly could have been worse. I will watch it on T.V. if nothing else is on, and have watched it mostly every time successfully over the Wilder Version. Nothing personal, but I've seen the Gene Wilder version so many times, I almost have no reason to watch it again, since every line rolls off the tongue, it being so memorable.

But, for all intents and purposes, I will see Alice in Wonderland, just because as a movie goer, I must.

after seeing a bunch, you kind of like some and get bored at other movies he does...

TheGreenManalishi:
Sometimes, I feel like the only one who hates Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Gene Wilder's performance cannot be matched.

I agree with you there, glad to see I'm not the only one that still remembers that movie XD

OT: The worst Burton film for me was Planet of the Apes, terrible, terrible film...

I'd like to see MovieBob talk with Doug Walker. I imagine they'd have words for each other over the Batman choice.

I have to be fully honest here. I think MovieBob's being a bit trollish with this one. Charlie was not THAT BAD, Batman was good, and everyone else has already bashed Planet of the Apes. I see no reason for this article's existence.

GOOD.
I was this close to thinking he would have put Sweeney Todd in that list.
AND NO ONE
I MEAN NO ONE!
Shall ever say anything bad about that movie.

I'm watching you...

Callate:
I'll give you Charlie. I'll give you Planet. I'll even let Batman Begins go, albeit with some reservations. But the original Batman? No. N-O. Flat wrong. Batman is one of the very, very few movies where Burton's tendencies to goth everything up and cap off every arc with a final action scene actually worked. It's full of moments that say everything to an audience without having to beat them over the head- the dinner with Vicki Vale in the long, empty dining room; the room full of exotic armor, the Joker's destruction of paintings in the museum, the rivalries and conflicts between the straight and corrupt factions of the Gotham police... It had a villain who was actually funny and terrifying in turns and a hero who had decidedly gone to some very dark places within himself to find what it took to face the evil he saw on the streets. And it did it without having tons of dark angsty superhero movies to draw upon. That Movie Bob actually prefers the mediocre CGI and borderline professional wrestling antics of the first Spider-Man movie warrants a smack upside the head.

I'm not saying it's a perfect movie. Word certainly is that there were things cobbled together at the last minute, and that the revelation of Batman's identity to Vicki Vale is never really handled so much as shuffled aside seems to buttress that impression. But however things came together, they did- brilliantly. That Joel Schumacher can't shoot or choreograph a fight scene and thinks that putting the villains front and center with a lot of lurid neon is the same thing as developing them is not Burton's fault.

I like Nolan's Batman- probably, pushed to the wall, I like it more than Burton's, though they're very different takes on the character. But I also recognize that without Burton's, Nolan's wouldn't exist- and neither, most likely, would Sin City, Iron Man, or any of the good X-Men movies. Geek culture owes Burton's Batman for turning superheroes into something more than just kiddy power fantasies and slapstick, and creating the modern dark hero after the light of film noir had largely faded.

And don't you forget it, bub- er, Bob.

Yes, this.
I don't think the Burton Batman has aged well...they're still fun to watch, but I definitely prefer the modern Dark Knight incarnation in terms of seriousness and general feel, but the simple fact is that prior to 1989 comic book movies were dominated by poorly animated cartoons and flicks like Superman IV, a movie so bad that between it and Superman III it's a wonder anyone even remembers the first two movies (which also haven't aged well) for all the effort it took to expunge the later sequels from our brains.

Burton's Batman managed to take a character visible in a serious light only in graphic novels and present it to popular audiences. And while Spider-Man is a perfectly decent movie, it's still not as good as Batman or Batman Returns.

Overall, even with the handful of Tim Burton movies that I've witnessed either in whole or in part, I can usually tell a Burton movie from the style. All the unusual goth and emo crap everywhere is the biggest hint. I seriously have trouble judging the difference in his live-action movies because Johnny Depp is in every stinking one of them (except for Beetlejuice, that I know for sure).
He clearly likes working around dark themes in movies, but it sucks when he takes perfectly good ideas and make them all look like The Crow.
And yeah, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory stunk. But it is hella evil if you hear it with a German dub. Something about little guys that all look identical and singing in German just had "creepy" all over it. Gene Wilder is the only one who should have ever held that role, because Burton made Willy Wonka out to be some pathetic goth kid instead of a eccentric lunatic like he was supposed to be played. Wilder was the bomb in Willy Wonka, yo!

Alice in Wonderland... the whole thing just sounded like a wet bag of crap being flung at audiences, particularly children I assumed. After all, this is supposed to be a kid's story, and can't be worse than the made-for-TV version we had in the 80s. Ok, might have been nice to see that presented in a more modern way as far as effects could go, just don't jerk around the story line. Keep it simple and just make it more pretty, not stick Depp in there and dress him like a pimp on LSD and make the movie revolve around him. Isn't Johnny Depp getting too old to keep playing these roles, or is there some weird Martin & Lewis routine going on with Burton & Depp? Can't have one without the other?

Worth reminding people that Burton didn't direct Nightmare before Christmas (but he might as well have I suppose) I agree with Planet of the Apes and Charlie totally except that Tim Roth made Planet of the Apes watchable. He chews the scenery in a really intense villain. As for Bats I'm just grateful he went with his instincts and didn't do the 60's style version he originally planned, though it still shows. I hated Sweeny Todd even when everyone else loved it. it had all the Sleepy Hollow ingredients going on but none of the charm. I just could not get over how the film wanted to be as fucked up as possible but was entirely predictable and felt like a re tread of all his themes. On the other hand credit where credit is due, he's not afraid to take risks.

Mullahgrrl:

The_root_of_all_evil:
Tim Burton is like Tim Schafer. (Tim and Tim again?)

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.

In theory, but when was shafer ever bad?

Full throttle? Making Brutal Legend an RTS...

Cousin_IT:

I haven't heard that poem in years. Brought back Nursery rhyme memories

Given the subject matter, I thought it was appropriate :)

Latinidiot:
wha-

but I liked Charlie!

Watch the original and realize how terrible Burton's version is.

So, in your schema of Burton-themed movies, where does Corpse Bride fit in? Good, bad, stellar, just-good-enough-to-not-make-the-shit-list, smack dab in the middle?

I utterly loathe Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory to the point that I would not even watch the remake when it came out until I was convinced that they weren't the same. Nothing about the first one appeals to me at all. So I watched the Burton one. It felt completely and utterly Burton, and that annoyed me, but otherwise I rather enjoyed Depp's significantly more malicious and indifferent approach to playing Wonka.

Then I read the book, watched Willy Wonka again, and my particularly purist side when it comes to adaptations would not stop screaming.

Neither of the movies really captured Wonka, but Wonka is a short little troll man who is significantly creepier than Wilder or Depp.

I also hate the Burton Bat-movies. I like Adam West's Batman, and the Conroy-voiced Animated Batman more. Significantly more. I don't actually recognize "Forever" and "Batman and Robin" unless I absolutely have to. Everything about the Burton-Bats are really what Bob said. Michael Keaton was also a horrible choice and utterly failed to convince me that he was either Batman or Bruce Wayne.

iddstar:
I sometimes worry that I'm the only person who DIDN'T think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the batman movies were great big piles of poop.

No, you're not the only one.

I saw Batman when I was 11, I loved it. I still watched the Batman TV series with Adam West on TV, so the zanny-over the top cheese wasn't a problem for me, but the fact that it was so much darker and violent (the joker's buzzer gave me nightmares) really thrilled me and made an impression. It was the first movie I bought (got the VHS).

I didn't like Batman Return so much... the movie is bad. There's a lot of fridge logic going on in it and while it looked cool and stylish and all that... a bad script is a bad script.

A few years back (early 2000s) I saw Batman again. I don't even have a VHS player anymore and it had been years since I had seen it... and my god did it not age well. It's terrible really. Groan inducing - the 'funny' bits aren't funny anymore, they're retarded. I wonder how long it has been since the people defending it have actually seen it.

It doesn't take away from the fact that this movie did a lot for geek culture and I loved it when I was a young teenager... but yeah, is it a good movie? Not really.

I really enjoy many of Burton's films because I grew up watching them. He may not be my favourite director but he generally gets the job done in the entertainment category. However I too agree that he has made some "turkeys" as MovieBob put it. I am one of few who disliked Beetle Juice, for instance, and even one of fewer who hated Nightmare Before Christmas. But Big Fish is an incredible yarn, I still love the Keaton-era Batman movies, and Sweeney Todd was nothing except hilariously Gothic entertainment in its purest form.

...

Reading back, I don't know the point I was trying to get across when I wrote this. This was a bit of a rambling session I guess. So to change the topic to something a little more straightforward: I lmao'd when Bob compared Will Smaith to Taft. He is my least favourite US President (including Dubya) and I'm glad to see someone else taking a swipe at him. lol good show.

I am not going to debate whether Burton's Batman films were faithful adaptations or not because I do not care. Burton's Batman films were great movies and Moviebob is simply being closed minded to an alternate interpretation of the character which will happen when any character shifts mediums. In my estimation, if MovieBob would remove his geek hat for his analysis hat he would be a much better reviewer.

And in case anyone wants to know I saw the Batman films a couple of years ago and did not grow up with them.

ShinningDesertEagle:
I am not going to debate whether Burton's Batman films were faithful adaptations or not because I do not care. Burton's Batman films were great movies and Moviebob is simply being closed to an alternate interpretation of the character which will happen when any character shifts mediums. In my estimation, if MovieBob could remove his geek hat for his analysis films he would be a much better reviewer.

Someone give this soul a media outlet.
- The world would benefit from it, I guarantee.

Ah, the Escapist Forums. So full of people so full of their own intelligence that anyone that disagrees is obviously an idiot. How do you people have friends if you can't converse and disagree? I mean, Jesus Christ, you're like children.

I watched both Burton films recently, and while they are entertaining, they aren't really all that great either. I can only conclude that people that still love them are full of nostalgia. "It's got style!" Well, that's nice and all, but style isn't everything.

In particular, I blame Batman Returns (and in some ways even Jack's portrayal of the Joker) for ruining the later films. See, having The Penguin have weird gadgets, penguins with jetpacks and giant rubber ducks, it all basically meant Batman villains were supposed to be absurd to a comedic, evil clown extent. Hence Two Face being a ridiculous attempt at being another version of the Joker and The Riddler...well, under certain circumstances Jim Carry could be an excellent Edward Nigma, actually. But that variation was just basically a typecasting. Basically, they were just trying to fit a model established by Burton.

Nolan's Batman has actually done a similar harm to the potential of the franchise. By being grounded in reality so much you'll never see Victor Freize, who is PERFECT for the atmosphere and mood Nolan is going for. A man that isn't necessarily evil, but does evil things. Unfortunately, you can't do Mr. Freeze without breaking reality (and considering Nolan is more interested in the comics anyway, he likely wouldn't be interested; Mr. Freeze was always a joke until The Animated Series made him something awesome).

I actually dig Planet of the Apes for what it is, but it lacks something. The original was a very different movie, but it also felt like it had more meaning and purpose to it. To this day I enjoy watching it.

As for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, maybe movie buffs have a reason for preferring Gene Wilder but I swear NO ONE CARED about Willy Wonka until Tim Burton "remade" it (which is more like "reinterpreted" it). It's the biggest cluster of bullshit that people hate on it JUST because Gene Wilder was "better". He may have been, but the first movie is still boring and a victim to the time period (or maybe the studio? I can't even tell it's that uninteresting).

It's worse than when people bitch about the new Producers being so much worse than the original and yatta yatta, even though it's based off the script WRITTEN BY MEL BROOKS. "Ferris Bueller is totally wrong for the role! Gene Wilder was perfect!" Gee, it's a shame because that's who Mel Brooks cast for the stage version. Guess he was wrong!

I do feel the need to mention Sweeney Todd is a film I have not yet seen, because I saw the stage version before the film was in the works, thought it was awesome (a friend was basically proving to me that there are musicals that aren't complete gay-bait), loved the music. Then Tim Burton comes along and takes an aggressive psychotic intent on revenge and casts an actor who is more fit playing a timid psychotic intent on stalking your adolescent daughter. Not only that, but I've heard the film soundtrack and neither Johnny Depp nor Moira-from-Fight-Club are right for the roles because they can't sing them right.

Everyone makes a big deal out of it, like Tim Burton made this awesome film when he took an established piece of excellent entertainment and did it anything but justice. I'm sure the film is entertaining, but because I know there were better performances out there it will always be ruined for me. Now I can't wait until he ruins Into the Woods and all the little Hot Topic girls with their plastic vampire fangs squeel about how awesomely dark it is without even getting the point of the play.

Argh.

Rant over.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here