Originally posted by CascadorJust because it's more realistic doesn't mean it's a better movie than the one of '89. I don't compare them...they are totally different. But realistic doesn't stand for better[/B]
I agree... just because its more realistic or more to the comic or whatever doesn't necessarily make it a better movie... people need to understand that!
I never said that made it better, I just used that to explain the batmobile and such.
Also, does being more realistic HINDER a movie? Does it make it worse?
You're using circular logic, and if you apply the same circular logic to your own position, you defeat your own arguement... Surely, you can do better.
I think BB was an amazing movie, but I can see where a lot of you are coming from with this talk of it being "boring". There were lots of informational parts and that's not what people go to superhero movies to see. A lot of people aren't interested in how and why the guy does it, just that he does it. With BB it's a matter of what kind of person you are.
Originally posted by Ganner Rhysode
Also, does being more realistic HINDER a movie? Does it make it worse?
I would think it does sometimes because then it takes away part of the intrigue about how he manages to make all of his gadgets. If you see him design something, make it, then test it- when he finally uses it its like... um... okay, seen it already.
Originally posted by atharpina
I think BB was an amazing movie, but I can see where a lot of you are coming from with this talk of it being "boring". There were lots of informational parts and that's not what people go to superhero movies to see. A lot of people aren't interested in how and why the guy does it, just that he does it. With BB it's a matter of what kind of person you are.
Background info adds depth to the film. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but more "movie people" prefered BB and the background info was a big part of that.
Originally posted by Knightfall93
Errr... he doesn't make the gadgets in it though... Lucius Fox does. I think Yr1 says he uses Wayne Enterprises unofficially to get all his gadgets made and Ra's al GHul works out his ID in Daughter of the Demon by working out that only Bruce had bought what Batman had to have!
When I said "he" I was generally refering to Bruce/ Alfred/ Fox collectively. I should have phrased it better I know but my arguement stands. It's just less impressive when you know that the stuff he's using is real-life technology rather than some kind of exclusive technology only known to Wayne Enterprises.
Because its like the way it is in the Begins universe Batman's identity isn't so secure because the things he's using were already made for some other purpose but discarded by the military for them not being able to use them.
Originally posted by Ganner Rhysode
Yeah, the original concept of Batman is the better one. So everything older must be better... Like, the ORIGINAL 1960's Batman TV show that was a COMEDY.And the Super Friends, that wiped everyone's originality and made everyone the same plastic, static hero.
And all the old stuff like that. Old does not nessecarily =/= better. We revise, improve, and redesign things for a reason. That's why, for example, we aren't still driving 1930's Cadillac's so much these days.
Batman Begins was a much more realistic and possible approach to Batman - everything that happens in the film is MUCH more close to reality and possiblity then anything else.
I also disagree that Batman is a psycho. Clearly it is YOU, Batman Returns, who has not read enough Batman, who doesn't know Batman. If you knew the slightest bit about his character, you would know how utterly intelligent and sane he was. The fact that he dresses up in a costume does NOT make him insane - that you would insinuate otherwise is just absurd.
As for BB being a bad movie in general, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I, however, am entitled to my own opinion, and am entitled to disagree with yours.
Good day, sir.
Okay I know I said I wasnt going to return to this thread but there are some posts here that really need to be addressed so I am back now..You are correct Ganner,it is Batman Returnswho clearly doesnt read enough Batman. I wish you and the others here would take the advise me and roughrider just said,dont egg this guy on,he is not a batman fan,he is just posting because he is seeking attention around here.The more and more you feed him,the more and more he will just keep smiling that you all are still responding to him.
Originally posted by Ganner Rhysode
I never said that made it better, I just used that to explain the batmobile and such.Also, does being more realistic HINDER a movie? Does it make it worse?
You're using circular logic, and if you apply the same circular logic to your own position, you defeat your own arguement... Surely, you can do better.
great point Ganner,well said. 👆
Originally posted by atharpina
I think BB was an amazing movie, but I can see where a lot of you are coming from with this talk of it being "boring". There were lots of informational parts and that's not what people go to superhero movies to see. A lot of people aren't interested in how and why the guy does it, just that he does it. With BB it's a matter of what kind of person you are.
Actually its only Batman Returns who is the only poster here saying it is boring which is ludicrous.ALL movies have some moments where they are standing around talking and explaining stuff,so to say it was boring because we got to hear informational stuff about batman is again ludicrous because most people want to know something about the characters of the movie,and to not go into depth about the main character how he got to be who he is,would have been a disgrace to this film. As someone else said,most people like batman begins the best of the batman films and that a big part of it,the character development of Bruce wayne.Thats where batman returns cripples his arguments all the time and has no credibility saying that batman begins is boring but burtons batman movies are not.I mean batman begins had LOTS of action in it like a batman movie should have,thats one of the reasons I prefer batman forever over the burton films is because of that,the burton batman films made many people fall asleep or have a hard time staying awake because of how boring it was especially with the first film.Because with the first film,the first hour in a half,they just stood around talking the whole damn time with just a few action scenes here and there.boring boring boring.thats why I cannot help but laugh my butt of over batman returns criticisms of the film.he cripples his arguments everytime. 😆
Originally posted by Knightfall93
BUt BR was more intrested in moaning to get attention than genuine opinions!
yep.and the more and more people that keep responding to him,they are just giving him the satisfaction of egging him on.There used to be this one poster that got banned sometime back named Esteemed Leader.He used to criticise Batman Begins all the time when he was here.His criticsems were laugheable-he said all the batman movies including batman and robin was much better than batman begins,he constantly put down batman begins all the time,but I could at least respect him because he was being genuine in his critques about batman begins where with batman returns,this isnt the first time he's come on here and ragged on batman begins.He has come on in the past and called people like harvey dent,a bunch of names anytime they criticise the burton batman films and just makes posts like these to get a rise out of people.
just wondering knightfall.all the burton/schumacher movies sucked in one way or another,I know you agree on that.Tell me if you agree on this or not.That Batman Forever was the only halfway decent batflick of that debacle? I have always maintained its the only fairly good one that was made because 1.Val Kilmer made a much better bruce wayne than Keaton did.Kilmer at least fit the role of bruce wayne and came close to resembling the part.Kilmer wasnt this short runt,who was half bald with a receding hairline,with a pudgy belly and out of shape.Kilmer at least came close to lloking the part and at leats had a strong phiscial build like bruce wayne is SUPPOSE to have,also the movie was FINALLY about bruce wayne and not mostly all about the villains,it had lots of action in it like a batman movie should have,the special effects were breathtaking like when kilmer went through the battunnel and the batplane through the caverns and watching the batmobile,that all made me go wow!!!! plus batman did not look like a wuss in a fight like he did in the first batman film with that goon of the jokers at the end,we at least got to see batman fighting and see the martial artist he is with him demonstrating those skills.thats why I have always maintained that forever was really the only halfway decent batman flick of the four.do you agree on that or not?
Originally posted by Ganner Rhysode
I never said that made it better, I just used that to explain the batmobile and such.Also, does being more realistic HINDER a movie? Does it make it worse?
You're using circular logic, and if you apply the same circular logic to your own position, you defeat your own arguement... Surely, you can do better.
I never said it makes it worse, those are your own assumptions...I just think realism doesn't make a movie better...depends from movie to movie. And I don't know what you're talking about that I use circular logic. The fact is I like both films...I'll defend them to a Burton basher and I'll defend them to a BB basher...