Trouble getting into Batman Arkham Asylum
Big Blu-82
doing it for me. Gameplay seems disjointed with long gaps between
action, puzzles seem contrived and repetitive, plot is really
struggling to get my interest. Has anybody else think this was
overrated or should I give it a another chance?
I really hope the sequel is an open-world sandbox style game in the
GTA, Mafia ilk....
AGENT47
It's stealth based game, so if your looking for all out action all the
time not gonna happen.
I thought the entire game was just short of masterpiece.
Take your time listen to dialogue watch joker blab on.
The scarecrow scenes are breathtaking and the highlight of the game.
10% though seems like you've barely scratched the surface, you gain
much better abilities as you progress through the game.
I can't say much more without spoiling but you do go outside really
soon if you haven't yet.
Did you watch joker talk in the beginning as they wheeled him in?
I really enjoyed the production value of the game.
It's kinda of tongue and cheek humor throughout the game but scarecrow
blew my socks off.
Play at least until your first scarecrow encounter.
Do you game in HD or SD?
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Sometimes, even if a game is well-developed, something about the
aesthetics, design, action, art direction, etc. simply won't click for
you. It happened with me when I got Darksiders, which has garnered a
fair amount of praise- I played through a rather large chunk of the
game (around 10 hours,maybe?), yet no matter how much I tried, or
appreciated some of the atmospheric touches, it felt almost like a
chore at times. I understood that the gameplay mechanics were fine,
that the developer seemed to actually care about the product they put
out, and that the visuals had a certain flair........yet in the end,
it simply didn't give me a hell of a lot of enjoyment. In the end,
critical success can only indicate so much as to whether you're going
to enjoy a game, especially one that is so focused on appealing to a
very particular sensibility, the way Arkham Asylum is.
Big Blu-82
> On Feb 14, 5:59 am, Big Blu-82 <spremen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've persisted and persisted and I'm about 10% in but it's not really
> > doing it for me. Gameplay seems disjointed with long gaps between
> > action, puzzles seem contrived and repetitive, plot is really
> > struggling to get my interest. Has anybody else think this was
> > overrated or should I give it a another chance?
>
> > I really hope the sequel is an open-world sandbox style game in the
> > GTA, Mafia ilk....
>
> It's stealth based game, so if your looking for all out action all the
> time not gonna happen.
I love stealth games, but I wouldn't go so far as to call B:AA a
stealth based game. An action game with some stealth elements would be
more accurate. Walking through vacant areas for extended periods of
time certainly does not constitute "stealth". This element seems to
be added to artificially prolong the life of the game. In a sandbox
game, gaps in gameplay are acceptable because the time can be used for
exploring, but B:AA is (a) quite linear, (b) very limited free-world
roaming.
argento32
Speaking as a life-long Batman fan I can say without a shadow of a
doubt that Arkham Asylum was almost a completely perfect experience
and I think the linear story works very well. Some games and
characters need structure. Sandbox can be a very lazy fall back.
AGENT47
10%
I completed the game and killed a majority of the enemies in stealth ,
swooping down killing one then hiding again. The later missions are
like challenge rooms , you can go all out melee action or kill all
enemies while coming in and out of stealth. Many of the enemies never
even know you are there except for the dead team mate they find on the
ground.
Some games just don't click for everybody
The first 10%-15% felt like an introduction level
Once you get out of Arkham you can go the way you want it's not
entirely linear.
Try to get to your first Scarecrow encounter then judge the game.
Sorry to hear you don't like it
The scarecrow missions/scenes are what drew me closer to the AA
storyline
Glenn Shaw
> I completed the game and killed a majority of the enemies in stealth ,
> swooping down killing one then hiding again. The later missions are
> like challenge rooms , you can go all out melee action or kill all
> enemies while coming in and out of stealth. Many of the enemies never
> even know you are there except for the dead team mate they find on the
> ground.
>
*ahem* Sorry, but Batman doesn't kill. You're knocking out all the thugs
you take down -- the "Detective Vision" visor shows all downed enemies as
unconscious, not dead.
--
Glenn Shaw � Indianapolis, IN USA
... a big fan of Batman: The Animated Series....
To reply by e-mail, swap the net and cast
Big Blu-82
I've now played up to 24%. Here are my thoughts:
- it _is_getting better but not by much. I've tried to use more
stealth in my approach. The problem is there is no penalty for not
using stealth.
- I admit it has a excellent production values and a strong plot.
- The upgrades are keeping my interest, but only just
- I've played through two Scarecrow scenes. The first was "wow".The
second was laborious and a rehash of the first (I've would have
preferred if it was played out as Bruce Wayne as a child).
AGENT47
yeah I know that was a brain fart by me, I even made a long post about
how I just finished the game and didn't kill one single thug in
another forum.
I made the post in reference to splinter cell , someone said they're
glad SC has turned into a non-boring stealth game where you can kill
everyone.
I made a comment I just finished Batman AA without killing anyone and
thoroughly enjoyed it. My point was you don't have to be a ruthless
killer in every action game for it to be enjoyable , I enjoy a
protagonist who has a moral compass not killing everyone standing in
their way.
Like Chaos Theory I actually prided myself on killing only one person
from start to finish , which is actually a nice challenge.
AGENT47
>
> - Show quoted text -
well if you don't like you nothing wrong with that, I never found GTA
IV to be exciting but I know I'm in the minority ,sometimes games that
the general populace love with a unison of agreement , they just don't
click with you.
No reason to force yourself to like a game just because the general
populace is enthralled with it.
I hated the Batman demo and even said the game reminded me of
kindergarden stealth , but after the last credit rolls I realized the
entire package was well put together, the story the accuracy with the
comic book connections is there.
I' was taken aback by the scarecrow missions , but remember them
coming a bit later in the game.
oh well move on bud
The alMIGHTY N
The Batman demo was crap. It seemed like little more than a standard
beat 'em up. Glad that was the wrong impression...
timm3r
finally have a real game true to the characters. I can't remember playing a
good Batman game before this came out. So I think if you're not truly a fan
of the Bat, you may easily pass on this game or feel less than entertained
by it.
In all actuality Tim Burton ruined Batman for me with his uber dark movies
and poor cast selection for the bad guys with the exception of Jack Nicolson
and Tommy Lee Jones. If he does in fact make another movie about Batman look
for Johnny Depp to be Bruce Wayne. Yuck!
"Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGord...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8e1d4e11-bef2-45a2...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Not Sure
No one cares. Eat a bullet.
I've tried to use more
> stealth in my approach. The problem is there is no penalty for not
> using stealth.
> - I admit it has a excellent production values and a strong plot.
> - The upgrades are keeping my interest, but only just
> - I've played through two Scarecrow scenes. The first was "wow".The
> second was laborious and a rehash of the first (I've would have
The alMIGHTY N
> I think Batman comic book fans enjoy this game a bit more because they
> finally have a real game true to the characters. I can't remember playing a
> good Batman game before this came out. So I think if you're not truly a fan
> of the Bat, you may easily pass on this game or feel less than entertained
> by it.
>
> In all actuality Tim Burton ruined Batman for me with his uber dark movies
> and poor cast selection for the bad guys with the exception of Jack Nicolson
> and Tommy Lee Jones. If he does in fact make another movie about Batman look
> for Johnny Depp to be Bruce Wayne. Yuck!
Tim Burton's Batman movies were pretty good. Joel Schumacher's... not
so much (Tommy Lee Jones was in one of the latter directors movies).
Johnny Depp was actually rumored to be sought after for the role of
The Riddler in the next Christopher Nolan Batman movie. If anything,
that's probably the role Tim Burton would want for Depp, also.
> "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:8e1d4e11-bef2-45a2...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
argento32
The only way I wanna see Depp as the Riddler is if Burton is helming
the pic. I don;t think I can stomach much more "uber-realism" crap
from Nolan.
The alMIGHTY N
After the Batman masterpieces Nolan directed, I don't think I could
watch anymore Burton-directed Batman movies. They were good for what
they were, but Nolan's movies were far and away the better ones, much
closer in spirit to the actual characters.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Loved the 1989 Batman movie- I think it's safe to say that besides
Superman, it was one of the first comic book movies that was well
done. That being said, the Nolan Batman movies were great as well,
and in some aspects, much better. The Joker still felt like a larger
than life, comic book character, but more in line with a graphic novel
sensibility. It was a new take that was definitely different than a
straight translation, a la Watchmen (which I also liked), but never
felt like a slap in the face to fans.
argento32
To a huge fan of Batman and as a guy thats been collecting for over 30
years that didnt at any point in the film seem like teh Joker to me.
Though that wasn;t my big problem with them. Eckhart was such a damn
good actor and Ledger did a great job with the character he was given
(that just happened to be called the joker but instead acted more
along the lines of anarky) that Bales performance as batman really
stood out as sub-par. From the ridiculous growling to the over-doing
it. Subtlety seemed completely lost on Bale in his portrayal.
Far from being in the spirit of Batman I thought it was just the
opposite and seemed to go from Batman in order to appease todays
audience.
Its kinda silly saying that the 89 film was less in spirit to Batman
because as a long time reader it really depends on the era you are
speaking of.
The 89 Batman kept pretty much in the era of the 40s Batman pre-Robin.
Batman returns stayed with that darker approach coming closer into the
50s era Batman. Batman Forever took the 60s approach lightening the
film, adding Robin and making the characters to a degree more out
there. Batman and Robin takes on the late 60s early 70s era of
complete silliness that was going on in the Batman comics during that
time. (Batman in space, Bat-hulk..that sort of thing<yes bat-hulk is
earlier but you get the idea>)
The nolan films try to hard to add a hyper-realistic approach. To me
they seemed like films for people who wanted to watch Batman but
wouldnt lower themselves to watch a comic book film. No Im not saying
everybody but I`ve noticed a high level of ìm better than you`with the
fans of the Nolan films.
People who suddenly completely disregard the films that started the
whole process in the first place. The original Superman film and the
89 Batman film completely and forever revolutionized the industry and
the way comic films were looked upon.
The fact that latter sequels did bad does absolutely nothing to
diminish the originals and I have yet to feel that Nolan understands
any character in the Batman universe aside from two-face. he one
character he got right. Well perhaps Gordon but I dont like his take
on Batman, the Joker, Alfred, or many other aspects of the films. Can
I enjoy them as films. Yes they are compently made. Are they the
masterpieces that many proclaim hell no. Burtons Batman and his take
on the mythos were literal works of art. Gotham was amazing to
behold.
Ok..Rant over..For me Batman is Burton and the cartoon series that was
obviously Burton inspired.
The alMIGHTY N
While you're correct that there have been various interpretations of
Batman through the decades, when speaking of "the spirit" of a
character, you have to look at the most common aspects of the
character in all his incarnations. You're correct to point out that
the more "light hearted" and "silly" versions of Batman were more
reflections of the times than any real portrayal of the character,
thus you have to look at what is core to character of Batman.
Batman was created as a darker and more grounded super hero, and I
think that comes through more in the Nolan films, with their darker
tone, than in the Burton films, which were essentially "the Tim Burton
version" of Batman. Nolan's films were truer to masterpieces like Year
One and The Dark Knight Returns, two stories widely regarded by Batman
fans as among the best and most definitive Batman tales told.
Don't get me wrong - I *love* the Tim Burton Batman movies. A lot of
that stemmed from the fact that they were closer in spirit to the
comic books than the portrayal non-comic book fans knew, which was the
60s television series (which I also happened to enjoy but recognize as
a complete bastardization of the character). However, they're just not
as good a portrayal of the characters and the essence of Batman as
Nolan's films.
For one thing, Bale's Bruce Wayne is a much more believable version of
the character. He fits into society and plays his appropriate role
such that people would never suspect that he's Batman. He's actually
shown as being the head of the company (and gives off the wrong
impressions to his employees and his clients) whereas the Bruce Wayne
in Burton's films seems more like a recluse that virtually never steps
outside his mansion. And Burton's Wayne was a bit neurotic as well...
he decidedly *didn't* fit into society. That line where Robert Wuhl's
character mentions how quirky or eccentric Wayne is... I don't
remember Wayne ever being portrayed in that manner in the comic books
or in the animated series.
Plus, the growling, while a little much in the second movie due to
audio post processing, makes sense because he's making his voice as
menacing as possible to intimidate the common crook and more
importantly as different from his actual voice as possible. I find it
hilarious that anyone who has any regular contact with a super hero's
secret identity could never recognize their voice even if their face
is hidden behind a mask. Keaton's Batman growled a bit more subtley
but it sounded like Michael Keaton growling. There wasn't enough
difference there.
And Nicholson's Joker, while entertaining to watch, came off way too
much on the "buffoon" end of the scale. He was way too much "Clown
Prince" and not enough "of Crime." The animated series' Joker was also
clownish and maniacal but much more like the original comic book Joker
in that he was an intelligent, cold, crafty, and calculating villain,
which Ledger's Joker was as well. Nicholson's Joker seemed to be
laughing and joking just for the sake of laughing and joking, whereas
the other portrayals of the character seem to have a rhyme and reason
to their madness.
Probably the biggest flaw with Nicholson's Joker was that he never
came off as scary or dangerous. The comic book Joker, the animated
series Joker, the video game Joker, and Ledger's Joker all gave off
that hint that they were not people to be f***ed with. Even while
Hamill's cackling, even while you see the "HAHAHA" bubbles all over
the page, there's that underlying evil in there that makes you think
twice about underestimating what he's capable of. Nicholson just seems
to be there to make you laugh. And the whole "infatuated with Vicky
Vale" subplot was just an insult to the comic book character.
As far as your criticism of "hyper realism" of Nolan's movies, I think
that's one of the key's to the film's quality. The Nolan films feel
like how the Batman character and the world of Gotham would be if they
were created today whereas the Burton films feel like something only
Burton could have hoped to create out of his wacky mind. They include
pretty much all the hallmarks of Tim Burton films and you can tell
right off the bat (no pun intended) when you look at them that they
were done by Tim Burton. Edward Scissorhands, the two Batman films,
Sleepy Hollow, and Beetlejuice all share a lot of visual stylistic
elements and directorial techniques.
I agree with you that Burton's Batman films have a very unique and
interesting look to them. I especially love the gothic style of the
architecture, although ultimately I think it's not really in line with
Gotham City itself, which was created as a parallel of New York City.
On the other hand, I wasn't in love with the 40's style clothing that
everyone was wearing because it the movie look too dated, as if it was
The Green Hornet or The Phantom.
"The original Superman film and the 89 Batman film completely and
forever revolutionized the industry and the way comic films were
looked upon."
I don't know how meaningful a statement that actually is. Prior to
Superman in 1978, there were virtually no theatrical adaptations of
popular comic books. The Batman movie in 1966 was an extension of the
television series rather than a standalone adaptation of the comic
book. The ones before that were made for television (a distintively
different beast than a full length Hollywood feature film) or were
really old serials from the 40s and 50s back when super hero comic
books were in their infancy.
I don't think many people disregard the Superman films (at least the
two Richard Donner ones) because they're more like the Nolan films in
terms of being movies based on a comic book character but made for
mass audiences. I can't think of a single person who thinks that Bryan
Singer's Superman movie is better than the first two Donner films even
though they're made in the same style with the same personality and
even progressing from the same storyline.
"To me they seemed like films for people who wanted to watch Batman
but wouldnt lower themselves to watch a comic book film."
It's not that they don't want to watch a "comic book film" but that
they don't want to watch a "comic book film made solely to appease
comic book fans." If you make a movie that kowtows solely to the
desires of fans of the original source material, you're not going to
have very many people watching the movie or you're going to start off
well and end up being ridiculed and panned to the point where the
viability of the source material for the film industry is destroyed,
which is what happened in the case of the previous Batman series.
The key to making a successful, good comic book film is to tell a
story that can be encapsulated within the limits of a two and a half
hour time frame but still portrays the key essence of the characters
and tones and themes of the franchise as a whole.
Nolan's movie does this. The movie, like the original character, is
dark and grounded in reality. The crisis presented seems closer to
home and more believable (especially since you don't have a guy whose
facial nerves were permanently twisted into an impossible grin trying
to do the same to people by poisoning their grooming products), one
whose core could work in any movie, not just a "comic book movie."
Spider-man and Spider-man 2 were successful because they did this as
well. They told a story with morals and themes that went to the heart
of many viewers. People could relate to what was happening on the
screen even if they couldn't swing around on organic webs shooting out
of their wrists. Of course, Spider-man was not *too* grounded in
reality but then again the character has always been kind of
fantastical and had a more light hearted and playful personality.
The personality of the better Batman eras has always been dark and
gritty, cerebral and mysterious. The character was always meant as an
antithesis to the Superman and Spider-man types of colorful, more
vibrant characters. That's why it's most important for Batman to be
portrayed in a more serious and realistic manner.
"The fact that latter sequels did bad does absolutely nothing to
diminish the originals"
Few people judge the Burton films based on the Schumacher films. In
fact, most people can point to the two Schumacher films as "where it
all went wrong" without necessarily knowing the director.
And don't forget that people don't have to hate or even dislike the
Burton films in order to like the Nolan ones better.
"I have yet to feel that Nolan understands any character in the Batman
universe aside from two-face. he one character he got right. Well
perhaps Gordon but I dont like his take on Batman, the Joker, Alfred,
or many other aspects of the films."
Nolan's version of Ra's al Ghul is a good movie adaptation of the
character. He doesn't have the unbelievable aspects like the Lazarus
Pits and being centuries old, but there's a nod to that in his
conversation with Bruce where he says that he as an ideal is immortal
and centuries old - instead of being immortal and living for all that
time, someone by the name of Ra's al Ghul and with the same
convictions and principles has always existed as part of the League of
Assassins.
Further, while his motivations are a bit different in detail, the
spirit is the same. The comic book Ra's al Ghul was the uber
environmentalist who wanted to kill most people to keep a perfect
environmental balance. The movie version wanted a balanced world as
well but not because of environmental reasons but just so no one group
of people became too rich and powerful while leaving everyone else in
the dirt. And he went about his business in a similar manner to the
comic book character.
Nolan's version of The Scarecrow is pretty spot on. There are aspects
of the comic book character that didn't carry over into the film but
they're ones that developed later on whereas in Batman Begins we were
witnessing the birth of the villain. The movitations are the same as
the character's original motivations, however, as are the techniques.
And as long as we're on this subject, do you honestly think that Tim
Burton's interpretation of the Penguin character showed some "true
understanding?" The character Danny DeVito played was about as far
from the comic book version as you can get - The Penguin is an arms
dealer and mobster gentleman who mingles with high society, not a
deformed freak of nature with a grudge against society who is serviced
by trained killer penguins.
I'm curious what you don't like about the Michael Caine version of
Alfred, who is in line with the original character as a father figure
and source of guidance, and especially why you think the Michael Gough
version, who comes off as little more than a butler, is superior.
"Can I enjoy them as films. Yes they are compently made. Are they the
masterpieces that many proclaim hell no. Burtons Batman and his take
on the mythos were literal works of art."
Nolan's movies are better films and better art in that sense. Burton's
Batman movies were visually interesting but really were just "Tim
Burton movies." Whether that makes them works of art...?
"Ok..Rant over..For me Batman is Burton and the cartoon series that
was obviously Burton inspired."
Really, it's just the visual style that the cartoon series adapted
from the Tim Burton movies due to the series starting up around the
time of the second film's release. And that decision was more to keep
a consistency amongst the Warner Bros. works - it wouldn't make a lot
of sense for the same company to be making movies that look completely
different in visual design from the television series they were
concurrently producing.
On the other hand, the characterizations of all the heroes and
villains in the show are more in line with the type of reference works
that Nolan's films are based on.
"For me Batman is Burton and the cartoon series that was obviously
Burton inspired."
To each their own. I loved Burton's films but they're simply not as
rich and engaging as Nolan's, who truly redefined what a super hero
comic book movie could be.
argento32
I respectfully disgaree. Me and Batman have been together for long
over 30 years and much of Nolans Batman films have little to do with
the Batman universe as I know it.
I mean its nice that Nolan combed the wealth of 2 whole graphic novels
about Batman and one that is basically set far into Batmans future but
Batman is a much deeper character than those two novels and if he
actually picked up the comic. I'd suggest he read some of the classic
Joker stories for a start because I don't know who the hell was on my
screen during the Dark Knight but it bared only a light passing
resemblance.
Michael Gough literally comes off the screen as Alfred. He looks and
sounds the part. He is far from a mere butler to Wayne and its quite
obvious in the way he speaks with him. Gough comes across as the
father figure that Bruce needs. He knows when to tell him whats on his
mind and he knows when his job is best done quietly. Caine although a
great actor comes across as well..Michael Caine.
The whole idea about making Bruce as quirky a character as he is in
the Burton films is basically you can imagine him wearing the Batman
suit because honestly he's determined and eccentric enough to do this.
I never believed in Bales Portryal of Batman. Bruce I could see but
his voice was overtly cartoonish and has been the subject of ridicule
for a reason. Basically because it comes across as too forced and too
silly. I dont see how that makes him scary or threatening at all.
The reason they used the timeless 40s era is basically because thats
exactly where Batman's roots are. They aren't in the Dark Knight
Returns. They are not in Batman Year One. They are in the actual comic
book. And even the worse of the earlier Batmans still basically honed
in on a specific era of the character.
Vicky vale was far from an insult to any comic fan especially those
familiar with Bruce's love interest in the comics and definitely comes
across better than the female character in the Nolan films.
Nicholson's Joker is there to "just make us laugh". No thats a
ridiculous statement and its definitely one that Ledger who loved
Nicholson's portryal would definitely disagree with. I find it
insulting as a fan of the film and of Nicholson. He did and amazing
job and he did it very subtley which isn't exactly something nicholson
is always known for. The part of the Joker was as tailor made for
Nicholson as the voice was made for Hammill.
Honestly the whole lets make this realistic because people obviously
wouldnt except Batman if he was done in the spirit of the comics is a
slap in the face to me.
Nicholson's joker doesnt make the grade so instead we have a guy with
a painted face who slit his mouth and slurs his words. Where is the
art in his crimes? Where the hell is the joke? Nicholson's Joker
starts as a henchmen whose high up in the organization who obviously
sees himself above them all. He feels he gets the joke in life and his
crimes are used to terrorize and deconstruct society and what they
deem acceptable.
Ledgers Joker rarely goes above the being a punk level and his
ideology comes across like Anarky's. A different Batman character
completely. The only passing resemblance with the Joker is by lifting
the "differing origin" sequence from the Killing Joke and expanding on
it.
Please don't get me started on the ridiculous vehicles that go about
in the Nolan Batverse. You say his voice isnt changed enough so people
could guess his character. You wanna know how I think a villian can
figure out Batmans identity. How about those huge freakin tire treads
that lead back to Wayne's place. That'd be a pretty big red flag for
me.
If I seem overly bitter towards teh films its because most of those
die hard fans that claim what a superior film it is over the Burton
films haven't bothered to actually pick up a Batman comic and there
only knowledge comes from maybe..maybe reading a couple of the graphic
novels at best.
Film noir existed and was done much better long before Nolan came
around and Batman was done better and truer to his source material as
well.
Its a damn shame that he has to be tweaked and changed so that Nolan
can have a Batman that he's not so "ashamed" of because in the end the
real fan is left with very very little of the characters, spirit, or
identity that has kept the comic has had for so many years.
The Nolan films are ok..as films. The are passable as Batman films.
They cannot touch the Burton films in terms of artistry or truth to
teh character in my opinion.
Even the Penguin who took on a completely more twisted origin in the
Burton film rang very true to the origins of the character. Burton got
the isolation of Copplepot, the bitterness, and the longing to be part
of a society that he didnt fit into. Hes far from an arms dealer and a
mere mobster. In todays comics he has gotten to that level but the
origin of the Penguin and the differing crimes he has commited over
the years led to his place in the Batman universe. Just like the
Riddler is not just an in genuis detective like in the comics now.
There is a richer history to delve into.
I have to ask in all sincerity are you a fan of Nolan or are you a fan
of Batman. Because there is a huge difference.
The alMIGHTY N
I'd be lying if I said I expected anything else. :-)
> Me and Batman have been together for long
> over 30 years and much of Nolans Batman films have little to do with
> the Batman universe as I know it.
I could say the same thing about Tim Burton's movies. Hell, Burton's
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne weren't even killed by the right person!
> I mean its nice that Nolan combed the wealth of 2 whole graphic novels
> about Batman and one that is basically set far into Batmans future but
> Batman is a much deeper character than those two novels and if he
> actually picked up the comic.
There's the interesting thing. Tim Burton stated that he never read
the comic books (or comics in general) save for The Killing Joke.
Nolan also wasn't a comic book fan growing up but he read quite a
number of them to do research for the movie, and most importantly he
hired a writer - David Goyer - who is a *MASSIVE* comic book geek and
a huge fan of Batman to pen the script.
Most Batman fans agree that Nolan's movies are much more in the spirit
of the character, but of course each individual is going to have their
own opinions about that.
> I'd suggest he read some of the classic
> Joker stories for a start because I don't know who the hell was on my
> screen during the Dark Knight but it bared only a light passing
> resemblance.
To his credit, Burton did read *one* Batman story that happened to be
a classic Joker story.
On the other hand, Nolan's Joker was directly inspired by the
personality of the character in The Killing Joke as well as the
original version of the Joker. Nolan stated that the reason he didn't
even bother dealing with "the origin" of the Joker was that he wanted
to mimic how the Joker arrived in the comic book series - the
character's origins weren't explored until much later.
> Michael Gough literally comes off the screen as Alfred. He looks and
> sounds the part. He is far from a mere butler to Wayne and its quite
> obvious in the way he speaks with him. Gough comes across as the
> father figure that Bruce needs. He knows when to tell him whats on his
> mind and he knows when his job is best done quietly. Caine although a
> great actor comes across as well..Michael Caine.
Michael Gough comes off like an old butler. Go back and watch the
movie again and listen to the actual words and the way he says them.
Hell, you can even look at movie quote sites to see just how unlike a
father he is. Plus, the fact that he let some broad Bruce only just
met into the Batcave was the furthest thing from the comic book
character.
And Gough looks *nothing* like Alfred. At best, he looks like 60s TV
series Alfred, which is still a stretch.
Caine sounds and looks like Michael Caine, of course, but his lines
and the way he delivers them are much more like the father figure
Alfred is supposed to be.
All Gough talked about was popping open champagne bottles and Vicki
Vale being a nice girl (and when he did it he still had to do it like
the subservient lap dog he was). Caine, on the other hand, acts more
like an equal with Wayne (like, shock, a father figure). He's gently
forceful when he needs to be, and he actually tells tales to explain
his points as opposed to just doing one liners before disappearing
into the kitchen to make some soup.
How could you listen to the conversation in the second movie when
Bruce says something like "When it all catches up to me you can point
out how you were right all along" and Alfred says something like "When
that happens I won't want to?" *THAT* sounds like a discussion between
a father and a son, not "Let me get you some champagne before you bed
that reporter, master."
LOL
> The whole idea about making Bruce as quirky a character as he is in
> the Burton films is basically you can imagine him wearing the Batman
> suit because honestly he's determined and eccentric enough to do this.
Which doesn't make sense because if he acts quirky in front of people,
then people would, like you, possibly think that he's eccentric enough
to do it. The Nolan Bruce is much more believable because he's
actually doing a secret identity the *right* way - Bruce is the
furthest thing from the type of person people would imagine. He's a
playboy millionaire trust fund baby... he probably never lifted a
finger in his life. I love how in the second film he waltzed into the
room where the two people were making out and entered his "panic room"
without even stopping to let them into safety... that's what a selfish
rich bastard would do.
> I never believed in Bales Portryal of Batman. Bruce I could see but
> his voice was overtly cartoonish and has been the subject of ridicule
> for a reason.
It was only the subject of ridicule in the second film because, like I
said, someone made the strange decision to amplify it in post
production.
> Basically because it comes across as too forced and too
> silly. I dont see how that makes him scary or threatening at all.
Because you're looking at it from the point of view of someone in the
know. I don't particularly find a guy running around in a cape all
that scary, either. And driving what looks like the bastard child of a
sports car and a dildo doesn't particularly scare people.
> The reason they used the timeless 40s era is basically because thats
> exactly where Batman's roots are. They aren't in the Dark Knight
> Returns. They are not in Batman Year One. They are in the actual comic
> book. And even the worse of the earlier Batmans still basically honed
> in on a specific era of the character.
Batman came out in the 40s. Nothing more, nothing less. When most
people, Batman fans included, think of Batman, they don't think "he's
from the 40s." There's no reason for him to be stuck in that time
period, especially when the character is still highly popular now and
lives in the current time as well. I suppose part of it is a fault
with American comics in general where characters live for 30, 40, 50
years and look essentially the same age as when they started out.
Nonetheless, Batman spanned a long period of time and was continually
updated to fit the appropriate time. He's not like The Phantom or The
Green Hornet whose entire existence was defined within a specific
period of time and are defined partially by the nature of the world
during that specific era.
> Vicky vale was far from an insult to any comic fan especially those
> familiar with Bruce's love interest in the comics and definitely comes
> across better than the female character in the Nolan films.
I didn't say that Vicky Vale herself was an insult... I said that
having The Joker be infatuated with her and get involved in that kind
of love triangle was an insult.
> Nicholson's Joker is there to "just make us laugh". No thats a
> ridiculous statement and its definitely one that Ledger who loved
> Nicholson's portryal would definitely disagree with. I find it
> insulting as a fan of the film and of Nicholson. He did and amazing
> job and he did it very subtley which isn't exactly something nicholson
> is always known for. The part of the Joker was as tailor made for
> Nicholson as the voice was made for Hammill.
Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker was exactly that - Nicholson's
portrayal of The Joker. Like Batman and Batman Returns were vintage
Burton movies, The Joker in Batman was vintage Nicholson acting. There
was absolutely *nothing* subtle about it. Ledger's Joker was subtle.
Nicholson's was loud and boisterous, dancing around on the bodies of
his victims, constantly cackling like a drunk uncle - the dude made
The Joker character in the comic books look like a dull librarian with
no sense of humor. It was overdone, which was part of the reason it
was enjoyable as a general performance.
Hammill's Joker is much better because it is not nearly as over-the-
top as Nicholson's.
To say that Nicholson's Joker was subtle is ridiculous. The only
really subtle scene he had was when the camera slowly panned in on him
and he kind of stares out into the empty room with an expression that
shows contempt even behind the mutant smile and he says, "Wait till
they get a load of me."
> Honestly the whole lets make this realistic because people obviously
> wouldnt except Batman if he was done in the spirit of the comics is a
> slap in the face to me.
Then you're taking it way too seriously, LOL.
Comic book fans are a niche audience. A movie studio isn't going to
spend loads of money to make a Batman movie with great special
effects, design, costuming, etc. if it's going to be a straight "port"
of the comic book to the screen when most people don't read comics and
have no interest in seeing a "pure" and 100% accurate comic book
movie.
Why do you think video game adaptations are pretty much never accurate
to the source material? Hell, even video games are taken more
seriously now yet they can't get a break from Hollywood. Resident Evil
was much more of a slap in the face to its inspiration's fans than
anything Nolan could have done to you, haha.
And don't get me started on the Street Fighter movie with Jean-
Claude...
> Nicholson's joker doesnt make the grade so instead we have a guy with
> a painted face who slit his mouth and slurs his words.
That was supposed to be an interpretation of a Chicago accent, LOL.
And slitting his mouth was perfect - that makes sense of a physically
impossible feature of The Joker's. Instead of looking like a cartoon
character in a live action movie, he looks like an actual person, and
a dangerous one at that. It fits perfectly well with the sadistic,
psychotic side of the Joker.
Further, who the hell knows whether he even did that to himself or
not? The character is deliberately vague about how he got the scars.
> Where is the
> art in his crimes? Where the hell is the joke?
There's art in making people's faces twist up into impossible smiles?
Where exactly is the joke?
And how about the little art museum sequence? What's so artistic or
funny about spray painting portraits?
> Nicholson's Joker
> starts as a henchmen whose high up in the organization who obviously
> sees himself above them all. He feels he gets the joke in life and his
> crimes are used to terrorize and deconstruct society and what they
> deem acceptable.
Ledger's Joker sees society as a whole as "the joke in life."
Nicholson's Joker isn't anywhere near as deep or poignant... he's
laughing all the time because he's just insane. Nothing more, nothing
less.
> Ledgers Joker rarely goes above the being a punk level and his
> ideology comes across like Anarky's. A different Batman character
> completely. The only passing resemblance with the Joker is by lifting
> the "differing origin" sequence from the Killing Joke and expanding on
> it.
>
> Please don't get me started on the ridiculous vehicles that go about
> in the Nolan Batverse.
ROTFLMAO
The vehicles in Nolan's movies make infinitely more sense than the
ones in Burton's universe. First of all, it doesn't even make any
sense at all that Batman could just build a super powered car all by
himself in a cave. Second, Burton's Batmobile was ludicrous. It kinda
looked cool (although still like a giant dildo not unlike the
Ambigously Gay Duo's vehicle) but that "impenetrable armor to cover
the *entire* vehicle coming out of the hubcaps" thing was the most
asinine thing I'd seen in a long time.
> You say his voice isnt changed enough so people
> could guess his character. You wanna know how I think a villian can
> figure out Batmans identity. How about those huge freakin tire treads
> that lead back to Wayne's place. That'd be a pretty big red flag for
> me.
As opposed to tire treads made by the Burton Batmobile? You're
grasping at straws here, buddy.
> If I seem overly bitter towards teh films its because most of those
> die hard fans that claim what a superior film it is over the Burton
> films haven't bothered to actually pick up a Batman comic and there
> only knowledge comes from maybe..maybe reading a couple of the graphic
> novels at best.
On the contrary, most diehard Batman fans prefer the Nolan films to
the Burton films for many of the very reasons I stated above.
I may not have read every single Batman comic that ever existed but I
loyally followed the character from the age of 5 to about college, I
read many of the collection reprints, I've read the graphic novels,
I've read books about the character.
And I know plenty of people who are bigger fans of the character than
I've ever been. One of my good friends has followed the character for
about as long as you have and, like most people, find the darker
graphic novels by Frank Miller and iconic stories like The Killing
Joke to be the definitive Batman tales that best represent the
intended spirit of the character as a whole.
Quite honestly, you are the *first* person I've ever witnessed stating
that the Burton films were better Batman movies than the Nolan films.
That novelty is the reason why I've been so interested in this line of
discussion in the first place.
> Film noir existed and was done much better long before Nolan came
> around
I wouldn't call either of Nolan's films "film noir."
> and Batman was done better and truer to his source material as
> well.
And Burton's movies have nothing to do with that. The funny thing is
that Burton a) doesn't think his film Batman is very good and b) only
did it because he wanted to make Edward Scissorhands. He's admitted to
not really putting that much into the movie, and he wasn't really
trying to make a Batman movie for the fans.
Batman is nothing if not a Tim Burton movie involving a Tim Burton
version of an iconic character. And I would love to hear what you
think about the treatment of Superman Tim Burton was going to do
considering how (incorrectly) you think the director "understands" the
characters he makes movies about.
> Its a damn shame that he has to be tweaked and changed so that Nolan
> can have a Batman that he's not so "ashamed" of because in the end the
> real fan is left with very very little of the characters, spirit, or
> identity that has kept the comic has had for so many years.
You're the only real fan I see complaining. ;-)
> The Nolan films are ok..as films. The are passable as Batman films.
> They cannot touch the Burton films in terms of artistry or truth to
> teh character in my opinion.
Artistry? Well, that's a *very* subjective aspect. More people than
not think Tim Burton sucks as a filmmaker. I happen to love his movies
but I have no illusions.
> Even the Penguin who took on a completely more twisted origin in the
> Burton film rang very true to the origins of the character. Burton got
> the isolation of Copplepot, the bitterness, and the longing to be part
> of a society that he didnt fit into. Hes far from an arms dealer and a
> mere mobster. In todays comics he has gotten to that level but the
> origin of the Penguin and the differing crimes he has commited over
> the years led to his place in the Batman universe. Just like the
> Riddler is not just an in genuis detective like in the comics now.
> There is a richer history to delve into.
When you refer to "the origins" of the character, however, you're
referring to something that came along much later. The Penguin as a
character started off as a criminal who was a bit more "dignified"
than a cold killer like The Joker (who was quickly toned down since
Kane thought it would be bad for Batman to not be able to permanently
put away a mass murderer). He ran heists and that sort of thing but
wasn't really a sadistically evil murdering type. He worked under the
pretense of being a gentleman, part of the high society that he either
saw from the outside or was born into but bullied nonetheless
(depending on which origin story you refer to), and was a very
different style of criminal.
On the other hand, the Burton Penguin was a deformed freak of nature
who actually communicated with penguins and wanted to murder children
in order to get back at the rich folk that rejected him. And he was
*really* grotesque and deformed because that fit into the style of
characters Burton is known for. There's rarely anything subtle about
any of Burton's films.
Burton's Penguin is far more different from the original character
than anything Nolan and Goyer came up with.
> I have to ask in all sincerity are you a fan of Nolan or are you a fan
> of Batman. Because there is a huge difference.
One can't be a fan of both? Honestly, it's tough to be a "Nolan fan"
as he hasn't done that much work. I saw Memento which I thought was
great and then I saw Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, both of which
I thought were great.
I think Nolan's interpretation of Batman is much truer to the dark,
gritty spirit of Batman. Like I said in my previous post, it's easy to
see how Nolan's films are what Batman would be like if he were created
in today's world whereas nobody other than Burton could have created
his interpretation of Batman.
And to be crystal clear again, Burton's Batman films are great,
enjoyable films, but I see them only as Burton's interpretations of
the characters and not really true to the spirit of the character.
While I recognize and acknowledge that Batman has changed with the
times through the past 70 years, as many comic book characters have,
there's always been that general sense of a bit more reality, a bit
more groundedness, more darkness with that series. I think we got a
glimpse of that in Burton's films but Burton's films are generally a
little too wacky and quirky to take *too* seriously, and Batman above
all other comic book characters needs to be taken seriously.
argento32
I'm not going to lie. I respect your opinion but I disagree on almost
absolutely every point. Alfred isn't suppose to be Batman's equal. The
vehicles are horrible in the Nolan movies. I dont care how much you
enjoy the films I dont know even a die-hard fan of the films that will
defend the tumbler in Batman Begins.
As for him not Gough not looking much like Alfred I seriously suggest
you go back and check out the older comics. You might also be a little
surprised at Alfred and Batmans relationship. For the record I own the
Ultimate Batman dvd set and watched all 4 films last week so my
viewpoint is fresh on this.
I've been reading along with the Jim Aparo Batmans went and searched
out the Bill Finger and folloewed it up throughout every era only
dropping the book once during the time when they made Kelley Jones
permanent artist for awhile.
Im hitting 39 next month and I started reading Batman at about 5 and
Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins is a good film. The Dark Knight is
much more flawed but it has good aspects to it.
However of all the characters I love aside from Robert E. Howards
Conan, Batman was my favorite. Christopher Nolan's Batman is not the
Batman I grew to love and he's done nothing yet to draw me into his
Bat-verse. And I feel bad for what happened to Ledger but he wasn't
the Joker not in any sense of the word.
You can say it makes sense because or its more realistic because but
it comes down to the same thing..its just NOT Batman.
There are plenty of people out there that didnt enjoy the Nolan films
half as much as the Nolan-ites would like to think. I`m just more
vocal than many because anytime someone says a semi-negative word
about them they get laughed at and bullied by film snobs who think
they know better than everyone else.
I`m sorry but Ebert can say whatever he wants about a film that doesnt
mean I have to like it and I do respect your opinion but its just the
same as mine MERELY an opinion.
I`m a fan of the comics and I`ve followed them through and I have a
strong sense of the Batman universe and I`ll be damned if I`ll let
anyone look at me and tell me that Ledger`s Joker, The Tumbler, or
Michael caine`s version of Alfred is what I`ve been reading in the
comics for the last 30 odd years because its not..its not even close.
AGENT47
The alMIGHTY N
You can chalk me up as your first, then. I think the Tumbler was great
as a vehicle. I don't think it should have been Batman's *only* land-
based vehicle, but I loved the idea behind it, which was inspired
mostly by Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns." The reason Bruce
created the Batman guise was to strike fear into the heart of
criminals, which the tank-like Tumbler does. *Everyone* would be more
scared of a giant tank busting through the wall than a sleek, svelte
sports car drifting to a stop, LOL.
And there are plenty of people who agree regardless of how you try to
position your opinion.
> As for him not Gough not looking much like Alfred I seriously suggest
> you go back and check out the older comics.
I know what Alfred way back when he wasn't even "Alfred Pennyworth"
before he had a mustache and lost about 50 pounds. If I recall
correctly, there was some asinine scenario given as to how he so
drastically changed in appearance.
> You might also be a little
> surprised at Alfred and Batmans relationship. For the record I own the
> Ultimate Batman dvd set and watched all 4 films last week so my
> viewpoint is fresh on this.
Challenge accepted! ;-)
I own all four movies on DVD but I'm not watching them on DVD - I've
been shopping around for the Warner Bros. Blu-ray release of the first
Burton film so when I get it, I'll watch it again and give you my
fresh perspective on how unlike a father figure Gough's Alfred
was. ;-)
> I've been reading along with the Jim Aparo Batmans went and searched
> out the Bill Finger and folloewed it up throughout every era only
> dropping the book once during the time when they made Kelley Jones
> permanent artist for awhile.
>
> Im hitting 39 next month and I started reading Batman at about 5 and
> Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins is a good film. The Dark Knight is
> much more flawed but it has good aspects to it.
>
> However of all the characters I love aside from Robert E. Howards
> Conan, Batman was my favorite. Christopher Nolan's Batman is not the
> Batman I grew to love and he's done nothing yet to draw me into his
> Bat-verse. And I feel bad for what happened to Ledger but he wasn't
> the Joker not in any sense of the word.
>
> You can say it makes sense because or its more realistic because but
> it comes down to the same thing..its just NOT Batman.
>
> There are plenty of people out there that didnt enjoy the Nolan films
> half as much as the Nolan-ites would like to think. I`m just more
> vocal than many because anytime someone says a semi-negative word
> about them they get laughed at and bullied by film snobs who think
> they know better than everyone else.
>
> I`m sorry but Ebert can say whatever he wants about a film that doesnt
> mean I have to like it and I do respect your opinion but its just the
> same as mine MERELY an opinion.
I know that, and I haven't tried to imply otherwise. You, on the other
hand, have been quite defensive from the start.
> I`m a fan of the comics and I`ve followed them through and I have a
> strong sense of the Batman universe and I`ll be damned if I`ll let
> anyone look at me and tell me that Ledger`s Joker, The Tumbler, or
> Michael caine`s version of Alfred is what I`ve been reading in the
> comics for the last 30 odd years because its not..its not even close.
As I was saying, LOL.
argento32
We're going to have to completely disagree on thsi because nothing
will change my opinion on these films.
Actually the first Alfred would later be reconned into not actually
being Alfred at all..at least not the same Alfred Pennyworth from the
comics afterwards. However Alfred was Bruce's loyal butler and
servant for years. The fatherly aspect came much later in the stories.
In fact Alfred even died only to come back as the villian the
Outsider. This is a character I am very familiar with Batman ,
Sueprman, and Spider-man have the best supporting casts in all of
comics.
Yep the horrible Tumbler came from the Futuristic elseworlds style
tale The Dark Knight returns. And again I have to state the Dark
Knight is probably one of the worst graphic novels to use as a source
material because it plays very fast and lose with the Batman mythos.
Also you have to remember that the tank like vehicle used in that
novel was because of the way things had gotten in society and due to
Bruce's age.
This is a young Bruce in modern day times it doesnt fit.
Smith Comma John
they compare to the old television show with Adam West. I really enjoyed the
show as a youngster but cannot remember much of it. How does this
fail/exceed in comparison to the Burton Films? Or Nolan's? Which movies did
Schumacher make? I ask because I don't have access to the web here so links
don't do me any good.If he was involved with the Mr. Freeze failure I say we
could exclude him from these talks.
And have you played Arkham Asylum? You seem to be quite nowledgable on all
things Batman, so I think you could give some notable opinions.
`Agent Smith
"argento32" <aaron...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13563b9e-1d0f-4095...@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > everybody but I`ve noticed a high level of �m better than you`with the
The alMIGHTY N
> We're going to have to completely disagree on thsi because nothing
> will change my opinion on these films.
I agreed to disagree a long time ago. ;-)
I have to wonder how many people actually expect to be able to change
someone else's convictions about something in a debate.
Personally, the point of a debate is to simply present your case and
let other people decide for themselves. It's also always interesting
to see other people's viewpoints.
> Actually the first Alfred would later be reconned into not actually
> being Alfred at all..at least not the same Alfred Pennyworth from the
> comics afterwards. However Alfred was Bruce's loyal butler and
> servant for years. The fatherly aspect came much later in the stories.
> In fact Alfred even died only to come back as the villian the
> Outsider.
That sounds retarded. I hate when they do those kinds of things. At
least with Hush it wasn't who they tried to imply who it was...
> This is a character I am very familiar with Batman ,
> Sueprman, and Spider-man have the best supporting casts in all of
> comics.
>
> Yep the horrible Tumbler came from the Futuristic elseworlds style
> tale The Dark Knight returns. And again I have to state the Dark
> Knight is probably one of the worst graphic novels to use as a source
> material because it plays very fast and lose with the Batman mythos.
> Also you have to remember that the tank like vehicle used in that
> novel was because of the way things had gotten in society and due to
> Bruce's age.
>
> This is a young Bruce in modern day times it doesnt fit.
That becomes a question of whether a movie adaptation should be a
straight up "port" of stories from the comic series or its own story
that represents the idea of the character.
The alMIGHTY N
> I'm not really in tune with the Batman comics but I would like to hear how
> they compare to the old television show with Adam West.
Three words: Bat Shark Repellent
> I really enjoyed the
> show as a youngster but cannot remember much of it. How does this
> fail/exceed in comparison to the Burton Films? Or Nolan's? Which movies did
> Schumacher make? I ask because I don't have access to the web here so links
> don't do me any good.If he was involved with the Mr. Freeze failure I say we
> could exclude him from these talks.
Burton made the first two of the earlier film series (The Joker, The
Penguin/Catwoman). Schumacher made the second two (The Riddler/Two
Face, Mr. Freeze/Poison Ivy/Bane).
> And have you played Arkham Asylum? You seem to be quite nowledgable on all
> things Batman, so I think you could give some notable opinions.
>
> `Agent Smith
>
> "argento32" <aaronpyn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > everybody but I`ve noticed a high level of �m better than you`with the
argento32
> I'm not really in tune with the Batman comics but I would like to hear how
> they compare to the old television show with Adam West. I really enjoyed the
> show as a youngster but cannot remember much of it. How does this
> fail/exceed in comparison to the Burton Films? Or Nolan's? Which movies did
> Schumacher make? I ask because I don't have access to the web here so links
> don't do me any good.If he was involved with the Mr. Freeze failure I say we
> could exclude him from these talks.
>
> And have you played Arkham Asylum? You seem to be quite nowledgable on all
> things Batman, so I think you could give some notable opinions.
>
> `Agent Smith
>
>
> read more »
Pick up Batman Showcase Presents Volumes 1-3 especially 2 and 3 to get
an idea of what the comics were like around the time of the Adam West
series. Just before the series you'd find Batman fighting a lot of
gangster type villians and the series made it a little more cheesy and
colorful. My favorite cover of that era has Batman telling robin he's
not going on patrol because hes going to watch his tv show.lol
Schumacher did Batman Forever( the Riddler and Two-Face were the
villians) and Batman and Robin(Poison Ivy, Mr Freeze, and Bane
comprised the villians)
Batman forever actually isn't that bad. Its much higher camp than
Burtons films. The riddler by Carey is actually quite well done but
two-face is completely off the mark. As Batman Kilmer did a good job
at being the dark knight and was expected to come back but he chose to
do the Saint instead.
Clooney Took over as Batman in the Batman and Robin film. Both
schumachers Batman films are more inspired by the cheesier Batman era
comics and by the tv series.
To be fair on the last film there was a pretty strong leaning by the
company for him to `create toys`.
The batman films have always been joys visually. Burton created a high
benchmark and the latter directors tried to follow.
Comic-wise the closest film so far has probably been Batman.(89).
Though I do like the darkness thats conveyed in Batman returns.
Glenn Shaw
news:6738c907-e513-49ef...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 1, 8:09�pm, "Smith Comma John" <Sm...@john.com> wrote:
>> I'm not really in tune with the Batman comics but I would like to
>> hear how they compare to the old television show with Adam West.
>
> Three words: Bat Shark Repellent
Hilariously spoofed by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw in his video review of
Batman: Arkham Asylum:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bat-ark
(the reference is close to the end of the review)
--
Glenn Shaw � Indianapolis, IN USA
AGENT47
very funny
direct linky
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/926-Batman-Arkham-Asylum
The dog from that film you saw
"Glenn Shaw" <tog...@comnet.cast> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2FCFE7B4A1D...@188.40.43.245...
> The alMIGHTY N <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:6738c907-e513-49ef...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 1, 8:09 pm, "Smith Comma John" <Sm...@john.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not really in tune with the Batman comics but I would like to
>>> hear how they compare to the old television show with Adam West.
>>
>> Three words: Bat Shark Repellent
>
> Hilariously spoofed by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw in his video review of
> Batman: Arkham Asylum:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/bat-ark
>
> (the reference is close to the end of the review)
as much as i liked the batman game it did seem to be aimed at ' comic book
fans ' whoever they might be - i think we call them strange folk.
to most people, batman is colourful, action packed, has robin, batwoman and
big thwack signs onscreen during fights.
if arkham asylum had followed this batman image it would have been even
better than it was - and it was good.
just too grimy.
imagine how much fun it would have been if it had a 1960s styling and music,
a joker styled on caesar romero, batman looking like adam west did rather
than the steroidal moody onscreen character we were given.
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!
The alMIGHTY N
<d...@removethisbitbtinternet.com> wrote:
> "Glenn Shaw" <tog...@comnet.cast> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D2FCFE7B4A1D...@188.40.43.245...
>
> >news:6738c907-e513-49ef...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Mar 1, 8:09 pm, "Smith Comma John" <Sm...@john.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm not really in tune with the Batman comics but I would like to
> >>> hear how they compare to the old television show with Adam West.
>
> >> Three words: Bat Shark Repellent
>
> > Hilariously spoofed by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw in his video review of
> > Batman: Arkham Asylum:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/bat-ark
>
> > (the reference is close to the end of the review)
>
> as much as i liked the batman game it did seem to be aimed at ' comic book
> fans ' whoever they might be - i think we call them strange folk.
> to most people, batman is colourful, action packed, has robin, batwoman and
> big thwack signs onscreen during fights.
> if arkham asylum had followed this batman image it would have been even
> better than it was - and it was good.
> just too grimy.
If Arkham Asylum followed that Batman image, it wouldn't have been
Arkham Asylum and would have been panned by most everyone. The reason
the game was so well received was because of this so-called
"griminess."
> imagine how much fun it would have been if it had a 1960s styling and music,
> a joker styled on caesar romero, batman looking like adam west did rather
> than the steroidal moody onscreen character we were given.
Done. Now imagine the game selling only a fraction of the copies
Arkham Asylum did. LOL
The alMIGHTY N
Oh Jesus...
Comics at the time were such a parody of themselves...
The thing I always remembered from the television series was an
episode where Batman and Robin were driving to the scene of a crime
and Batman suddenly asks Robin something in Spanish. When Robin
replies in Spanish, Batman gives him a verbal pat on the back and
stresses the importance of learning other languages.
It's the kind of cheesy crap that you could put into grade school
classrooms.
> Schumacher did Batman Forever( the Riddler and Two-Face were the
> villians) and Batman and Robin(Poison Ivy, Mr Freeze, and Bane
> comprised the villians)
>
> Batman forever actually isn't that bad. Its much higher camp than
> Burtons films. The riddler by Carey is actually quite well done but
> two-face is completely off the mark. As Batman Kilmer did a good job
> at being the dark knight and was expected to come back but he chose to
> do the Saint instead.
You're not going to tell me that Carrey's Riddler looked anything like
the comic book character, are you? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised
if Burton would have gone with the same look and feel for the
character... I mean, look at what Johnny Depp looks like in that
upcoming Alice in Wonderland film...
Did you really like Kilmer? I thought he and Clooney were awful.
Keaton will always be the best Batman of that era of the film series.
> Clooney Took over as Batman in the Batman and Robin film. Both
> schumachers Batman films are more inspired by the cheesier Batman era
> comics and by the tv series.
"Holey rusted metal, Batman! The ground - it's metal and full of
holes. You know, holey." What a winner of a line there.
argento32
Why are you still making this fruitless arguement. What happened to
agreeing to disagree? Do I think Kilmer did good in the role yeah he
sure beat Bale's portrayal. Holey rusted metal was a throwaway line to
give a wink to the original series. Most people took it for the fun it
was meant to be and wouldn;t point it out as a definingly bad line in
the film.
Keaton is Batman but Kilmer did a great job taking over. As for
Clooney he sure looked the part of the Dick Sprang era-Batman but we
all know how the film turned out.
The arguements not working here. I am a dedicated long term Batman fan
and Nolan's films seem more for a pretentious film snob then a good
fun Batman film for actual fans of the comic. Burton differed from
the comics but he still had that feel that lends itself to Batman
Thats my opinion. End of story.
alMIGHTY
I'll mimic Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze and say that GOOD LORD you need
to chill the hell out.
You made a bunch of comments in this post that you didn't bring up in
our debate and don't even necessarily have anything to do with it so I
commented on them.
When did I mention anything about Christian Bale? I simply expressed
my genuine surprise that you thought Val Kilmer was a good Batman
because I've never heard anyone say that before. Maybe you missed
where I praised *Keaton?*
As far as "Holey rusted metal" - *few* people took it for the fun it
was meant to be... I had to watch that movie three times in the movie
theater and each time that line came up there were collective groans
from people old enough to know the point of the line... so yeah, most
people would point it out as a "definingly bad line in the film."
Clooney certainly *looked* good as Wayne, but he was just so wooden in
his performance. I suppose every big name actor's allowed to just cash
in a paycheck every once in a while...
*** Nolan's films seem more for a pretentious film snob then a good
fun Batman film for actual fans of the comic.
Hahaha! Defensive much?
Pretentious film snob vs. pretentious Batman comic book snob... I
guess you just have to pick your poison, LOL.
You are *way* too tightly wound about this.
argento32
Hey hey..im a pretentious film and Batman snob..I just dont like them
mixed. No with you its a good natured debate. I respect your opinion
even when I dont agree with it.
Though honestly teh holey line was kinda funny for a kid that grew up
watching the early Batman series.lol..
yeah I'll give Clooney a pass. I really thought he woulda done a good
job but we'll never know because of that script.
Schumacher made 8 MM so we know he can make dark gritty stuff. I
wonder if the outcome of his films would have been different if he
didnt have so much studio involvement. I think it depends on his view
of the character.
Hey im not tightly wound....SPRUNG!!!!
alMIGHTY
And I very much respect your opinion on Batman and the Batman films.
It's refreshing to hear someone who likes Burton's films and even
appreciates Schumacher's films for what they were since many of my
friends (especially some who are most certainly elitist and
pretentious film snobs... one in particular comes to mind) are less
than favorable towards them.
> Though honestly teh holey line was kinda funny for a kid that grew up
> watching the early Batman series.lol..
Personally, I thought it was a nice tip of the hat and a little funny
in a cheesy way, but the emphasis is on the cheesy part. My only real
issue with it is that it kind of broke the feel of the movie. Yes,
Schumacher's movies were cheesy but in their own way... this was
cheesy in the 60s "learn your Spanish Robin while I get my bat shark
repellent" style that is a whole other level of dairy. Which I loved
but felt should stay its own entity.
> yeah I'll give Clooney a pass. I really thought he woulda done a good
> job but we'll never know because of that script.
My biggest problem with Clooney is that he seemed too "suave." To be
fair, a lot of that was the general public perception of him at the
time thanks to the role that made his career, but even if you look at
the movies he's done, he almost always plays this smooth talking
ladies' man type, and Bruce Wayne never struck me as that kind of
person.
> Schumacher made 8 MM so we know he can make dark gritty stuff.
That was a pretty f***ed up movie for its time. I saw it with my
family and my father was almost insulted by it.
I think Falling Down might be a better movie to show off in the
resume, LOL.
> I
> wonder if the outcome of his films would have been different if he
> didnt have so much studio involvement. I think it depends on his view
> of the character.
According to the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Schumacher, most of it really
was due to the studio's requirements although the director accepted
responsibility for ultimately making the film that way. The whole
reason he was brought in was because Batman Returns, while
stylistically interesting, was considered essentially the opposite of
what you said you liked about those four films (that they were good,
fun, comic book-y type films more people could enjoy) - Warner Bros.
found it difficult to market Batman Returns because it was considered
family unfriendly and too dark for the demographic they were aiming
towards.
Schumacher stated that the studio heavily emphasized the need for his
films to be kid-friendly, especially since they had the whole animated
series going on at the time (and of course because of merchandising -
I still have all those glass cups from McDonald's). However, certain
criticisms like the nipples, close ups of Batman and Robin's asses
when they were suiting up and lots of statues of nude men were
entirely his idea, LOL.
He did go on the record to say that he was a devoted fan of the
character and that if he had been able to make a Batman film, it would
have been based on Year One. When the studio decided that they should
put the franchise on hiatus after the fourth film made less than the
previous film (with a higher budget) even though they already had a
lot of ground work laid out for a fifth movie that he was to direct,
he tried pushing them for a chance to reboot and make a "true Batman"
film that was dark and gritty because he felt he owed the Batman
fanbase. He also said that he hopes to one day be able to re-edit
Batman Forever to make it closer to his original vision.
Unfortunately for him, those two movies essentially murdered his
career. He was an up and comer seen with a lot of potential before
Warner Bros. hired him for the Batman films, and since then he's been
trusted with only one big budget Hollywood movie and the only movie
he's made that actually did really well financially was the Phantom of
the Opera adaptation.
argento32
Yeah its definitely been a fun debate about my favorite comic
character. And its great seeing a fresh look that isn't what I usually
get.
If you haven't picked up the Batman Ultimate Edition set yet. The
features alone really make it worth it. JS talks a lot about what
happened and he comes off as a stand up guy taking more credit for the
films than you know he actually deserves. Honestly i could re-watch
the special features on those dvds over and over again. I really would
have liked to know how he would have done the film without studio
interference. I think it would still be kinda cheesy because I feel
that JS probably really enjoyed the earlier Batman campy stuff and I
can't fault him for liking that. It says a lot for Batman that his
character has survived so many unique interpretations of his
character.
Question for you. If Nolan stopped doing the films tomorrow. Who do
you think should take up the mantle of the films?
The alMIGHTY N
I considered the Blu-ray four-pack, but I like Schumacher's films
significantly less and they have the "book" release of the first film
on Blu-ray...
> Question for you. If Nolan stopped doing the films tomorrow. Who do
> you think should take up the mantle of the films?
That's a good question.
If I could ignore the likelihood of the particular director doing a
"comic book movie" in real life, then I would consider from the
"Platinum-level" directors:
- Martin Scorsese: Aside from the fact that he's one of the best
directors of all time, he has had some experience with period pieces
(Gangs of New York, The Aviator) and of course a *LOT* of experience
with gangster movies (do I really need to list any LOL), both of which
fit in with popular interpretations of the character.
- Clint Eastwood: His gritty and sometimes visceral filming style
would go well with the kind of vigilante nature of everyone's favorite
Dark Knight. I could see a lot of elements from movies like Unforgiven
and Gran Torino working in a Batman film.
- Ridley Scott: He tends to make movies that are intense and action-
driven with a sort of grounding in reality. Perfect for a Batman movie
that covers another facet of the character. The only thing is that a
Batman movie by Ridley Scott would probably be similar to either of
the Batman movies by Christopher Nolan.
Realistically speaking, though, the directors who have recently
adapted comic book fare to the silver screen with a fairly high level
of success would be more likely candidates as a) they already worked
on similar projects so b) they'd be more likely to work on similar
projects:
- Sam Raimi: Raimi is great at getting to the humanity of a character.
Sure, the action sequences in the three Spider-man films were great,
but the true strength of the movies was in how well he directed the
Peter Parker character and the evolution he had to go through in each
story.
- Bryan Singer: Like Raimi, Singer's good at humanizing characters so
that the audiences can identify with them, although he's not quite as
good at it as Raimi is. Singer did, however, prove some skill in
crafting mystery and thrill with The Usual Suspects and The Apt Pupil
which could come in handy in a movie based on the Batman universe.
- Jon Favreau: Favreau comes off as a kind of big "child at heart"
kind of guy, at least with regards to geeky "cool" stuff that so many
kids love. His comic book adaptation was arguably the most "fun" of
the three with a lot of loyalty to the source material, which would be
great for a fan like you.