A Stupid Argument

Originally posted by mindbomb
but useing your logic all batman got the insperation from the original batman who did kill after all if he never existed their would be no batman
so doesnt that mean that the argument that burton should of followed some type of continuity fall in the same category of arguments your calling stupid

I never said Burton got the inspiration from the Batman of the golden age. If you read the original comics, Batman was still very different from the Burton films. He was more of a pulp character and he killed in self defense only or when he thought it was necessary (similar to the Shadow; Batman was originally based on him). He also used a gun. There was no Alfred, the batmobile was different, and the Joker was more of a tactical serial killer/terrorist. Vicki Vale always suspected Bruce Wayne of being Batman.

The only thing Burton's Batman and the Golden Age Batman have in common is the fact that they both kill. Besides that, everything else is different. And even their way of killing was completely different too. Whenever people defend Burton's films as being valid adaptations with the whole "Batman killed in his first year of publication", that would be the same as France cancelling all of their sport tournaments except hockey while Canada had no sport tournaments but hockey tournaments for the past 20 years. Does this mean that France was inspired by Canada to cancel all of their tournaments? No. It is just a coincidence they both made this decision (France and Canada both have more than just hockey tournaments. I was only giving an example of what I meant. I know it is a very crappy example but you get the point).

I don't know if you know this but when Batman was first created, he was based heavily off the Shadow. Detective Comics #27 was actually a retelling of the Shadow's first appearance. Batman got rid of his gun when he became his own character (people say he stopped killing due to censorship but it was actually because of both reasons).

but if it was not for the first batman no batman comic would ever exist
you saying that a story should follow the continuity of another earyer story leads to the conclusion that all stories should follow the original continuity of the first story

Originally posted by mindbomb
but if it was not for the first batman no batman comic would ever exist
you saying that a story should follow the continuity of another earyer story leads to the conclusion that all stories should follow the original continuity of the first story

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if a franchise wants to follow the continuity of an earlier age of comics, I am ok with that. But I never said all stories should follow the first continuity that first existed.

Batman Begins>Batman 89
The Dark Knight>Batman Returns

/thread

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Batman Begins>Batman 89
The Dark Knight>Batman Returns

/thread

Agreed.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Me or mindbomb?

Dude you should know I met Mindbomb.Like all Burton apologists he is desperatly grasping at straws which again is normal for Burton apologists to avoid admiiting the truth that the burton films are a disgrace to the comic and his character. 😆

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude you should know I met Mindbomb.Like all Burton apologists he is desperatly grasping at straws which again is normal for Burton apologists to avoid admiiting the truth that the burton films are a disgrace to the comic and his character. 😆

it isn't being an apologist to like what is considered to be at the very least a decent movie.

being a troll, though...

Originally posted by -Pr-
it isn't being an apologist to like what is considered to be at the very least a decent movie.

being a troll, though...

yeah thats what you are,a troll who cant stand to hear the truth. 😆

no an apologist is someone who ignores the evidence and facts such as yourself that keaton was a horrible casting choice for the role and how Burton raped to death his character and the comicbook. Ive seen too many times in the past from our discussions how you always grasp at straws to try to avoid admitting that to be the truth. 😆 bye.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah thats what you are,a troll who cant stand to hear the truth. 😆

no an apologist is someone who ignores the evidence and facts such as yourself that keaton was a horrible casting choice for the role and how Burton raped to death his character and the comicbook. Ive seen too many times in the past from our discussions how you always grasp at straws to try to avoid admitting that to be the truth. 😆 bye.

i love how you talk about "evidence", "truth" and "facts" when you present none, and try to claim your opinion is somehow fact. i also love how anyone that even dares to disagree with you (for good reason) is automatically branded an apologist, though in all honesty i'd rather be an apologist than a blind troll.

so yeah.

Parker, your irrational hatred isn't evidence or fact. There have been too many incarnations of Batman over the years to make a movie exactly true to the comics.

If you can't post without trolling then don't post here. Any more problems and it will be a warning. Thanks.

what about him calling me a troll? He started it with the name calling just for stating the truth how that comicbook raped to death the source material and his character.I assume you have read the comic.because as most batman fans that have,know that to be true. I fail to see how stating the truth of how a movie was not faihful to a comicbook to be trolling either. example. unlike Keaton, Bale was a great casting choice because he had the right physical build and was tall like Bruce wayne is SUPPOSED to be.not half bald and short.
He didnt kill people in cowardly ways in the movie either,neither did he in the comicbooks.The Burton films did that.those are FACTS.I fail to see how pointing those facts out proving Burton raped to death the materal is trolling.

It's the manner in which you present your information, not the information itself, that's the problem.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
what about him calling me a troll? He started it with the name calling just for stating the truth how that comicbook raped to death the source material and his character.I assume you have read the comic.because as most batman fans that have,know that to be true. I fail to see how stating the truth of how a movie was not faihful to a comicbook to be trolling either. example. unlike Keaton, Bale was a great casting choice because he had the right physical build and was tall like Bruce wayne is SUPPOSED to be.not half bald and short.
He didnt kill people in cowardly ways in the movie either,neither did he in the comicbooks.The Burton films did that.those are FACTS.I fail to see how pointing those facts out proving Burton raped to death the materal is trolling.

The problem isn't that you hate the Burton movies. I personally don't care what you like or hate. The problem is that you see it as your divine right to rag on and bash those that don't share your point of view. That, and whatever else you do, IS trolling. You can disagree if you want, but I really don't care.

Also, newsflash: The Nolan movies aren't exactly comic accurate either.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
what about him calling me a troll? He started it with the name calling just for stating the truth how that comicbook raped to death the source material and his character.I assume you have read the comic.because as most batman fans that have,know that to be true. I fail to see how stating the truth of how a movie was not faihful to a comicbook to be trolling either. example. unlike Keaton, Bale was a great casting choice because he had the right physical build and was tall like Bruce wayne is SUPPOSED to be.not half bald and short.
He didnt kill people in cowardly ways in the movie either,neither did he in the comicbooks.The Burton films did that.those are FACTS.I fail to see how pointing those facts out proving Burton raped to death the materal is trolling.

If you say that you weren't trolling, then I guess I'll take your word as the honorable truth.

batmanwave

Originally posted by -Pr-
it isn't being an apologist to like what is considered to be at the very least a decent movie.

being a troll, though...

I agree with you. Despite Burton's film being a terrible adaptation of Batman, it is ok as just a movie. I can't say the same thing about Batman Returns though. It was a terrible Batman adaptation but also a terrible movie IMO. Batman Forever was an ok Batman adaptation and an ok movie in general. It was a pretty good mix of the campy Batman and the dark Batman. Batman & Robin was just terrible. And I haven't seen the 60's movie so I can't comment on that.

Originally posted by Badabing
Parker, your irrational hatred isn't evidence or fact. There have been too many incarnations of Batman over the years to make a movie exactly true to the comics.

If you can't post without trolling then don't post here. Any more problems and it will be a warning. Thanks.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Also, newsflash: The Nolan movies aren't exactly comic accurate either.

Whenever someone adresses the Burton films as bad Batman adaptations, a few people always say "Nolan's films aren't 100% true to the comics either."

Newsflash: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS ENTIRE PLANET that stays 100% true to the source material. In fact, I will go as far as saying that I will take back everything I said about the Burton films if someone can find me an adaptation that is 100% faithful to the original source material. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make an adaptation be 100% true to the source material.

When making an adaptation, the most important part is the basics of the personalities of the characters and the basics of their powers and abilities. Nolan's films have both of those things. All of the characters have the same personality and powers/abilities as in the comics. The only character that I would say was altered a little too much was Ra's Al Ghul because they never specify whether or not he was immortal. But I still wouldn't say he was completely far off. He was pretty good because:

1) He still had the same personality that Ra's Al Ghul had in the comics.
2) They never fully specified if Ra's was mortal or immortal. They hinted Ra's immortality a few times throughout the movie. Plus, Ra's has a reputation for being a mysterious liar in the comics. He always lies to Batman and never even revealed all of his secrets to Batman or anyone else. So there is a chance that Ra's was immortal in Batman Begins but never told Bruce about the Lazarus Pits.

Back on topic: With the exception of the whole immortality thing of Ra's in Batman Begins, all of the other characters' personalities and powers/abilities are as close to the comics as possible in live-action. An adaptation doesn't have to be 100% faithful as long as they get these basics right. Burton failed at getting the basics and personalities of the characters right while Nolan succeeded. THAT is the difference.

Burton didn't base his Batman on the canon comics, though; and both movies were almost twenty years apart.

You're looking for a fight where there isn't one.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude you should know I met Mindbomb.Like all Burton apologists he is desperatly grasping at straws which again is normal for Burton apologists to avoid admiiting the truth that the burton films are a disgrace to the comic and his character. 😆

The people on these forums that like the Burton films are NOT Burton Apologists. I have encountered a lot of Burton Apologists on other websites in the past. And they were some of the WORST and most DISCUSTING trolls I have ever seen. They would have done ANYTHING to insult people that disagreed with their opinion and proceeded to even harass them. Burton Apologists are people with no lives that dedicate their life to doing anything to prop up Burton's films and bring down Nolan's films. You have never encountered a real Burton Apologist. The people we argue with daily on these forums are nowhere near being Burton Apologists. They are just normal people.

And why would you call the people on this forum trolls? I disagree with them too and I don't think they're trolls though.

You need to reread through the last page of your thread and see what was said to me before I said that.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
You need to reread through the last page of your thread and see what was said to me before I said that.

Oh, I see. Pr called you a troll. I could kinda understand why you were pissed at him. He also told me that I am here to pick a fight. And that kinda pissed me off too since I am not here to pick a fight.