I think Burton's apaptation was great considering the cirumstances. He made it when most people thought of the Adam West Batman, not the comic book Batman. He was able to make it more like the Comicbook hero, but at the same time added some humor. It was able to target a wider audience that way, not just comic book dorks who still live with their parents. It has about a million good quotes, especially from the Joker.
And Mr Parker...Remember... you... are my number one... guy!
Burtons Batman 89 was a pathetic version of Batman.Mostly for batman fans.I mean if your going to make a serious adaptation of Batman you dont go and make a pathetic casting choice like Michael Keaton for Batman who was so physically wrong for the role. Because of that,people could not take his Batman seriously.keaton brought no credibility to the role to many batman fans .They found him a joke in that role because of what I i just mentioned.Nolan accomplished what Burton TRIED to do but failed. Batman was only a huge success at the box office because he the extreme popularity of the character.Batman 89 on the screen back then was new to movie goers.Not so with Batman Begins since they could view a batman movie on tape anytime they wanted to which is why it did not do nearly as well at the box office as Batman 89 did.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Mar 27th, 2006 at 07:26 PM
The quote "you... are my number one... guy!" is from Batman 89. Boss Grissom says it to Jack Napier and then the Joker says it to Bob. Grissom says it basically as a kiss of death. Right after he tells him it, he tries to have him killed. The Joker too kills Bob later in the movie. But I was saying it as a joke.
Last edited by JackN on Mar 27th, 2006 at 09:48 PM
Strange thing is that if Tim Burton's Batman '89 failed so horribly as you claim, mr. Parker...why did people bother to go to see Batman Returns which happens to be a film of the "horrible" Tim Burton too...
__________________
"The greatest hero is the one who learns to face his fears and overconquers it!"
Tim Burton is a great director with a great vision and masterpieces movies like edward sissorhands, the night before christmas, the corpse bride, ed wood, bettlejuice, sleepy hollow or big fish. But he is terrible with his vision of batman. Batman and batman returns are not only bad films, they are unfaithful and unloyal with the source of origin. Batman is a supporting character, is a killer, is a bad fighter, and looks as michael keaton. What a joke. To cast Keaton as batman is as wrong as to cast dustin hoffman as superman or woody allen as green lantern. Not only he is the phsichally opossite of batman and bruce wayne, he was playing a goofy dumbass insecure with women and with memory problems, a clark kent bad copy that didnt work in any moment. And if i cant believe that keaton is batman , the movie doesnt work, because if you cant believe in the main character all the another things sucks.
Surely, the two movies has its good things, but the bad things are so superior that the movies sucked so bad. The schumacher movies are as bad as them and has a lot of mistakes too. The only good batman movie, not only more loyal to the character also with a good story and good performances and with the right actor in the main role. Chris bale is batman, keaton isnt.
__________________ The beatles, best group ever.
John Lennon, Musical genius of all time
Helen Mirren and Julie Christie , most lovely british actresses of all time.
you say why did PEOPLE bother to go see it? uh dude in case you weren't aware,there are millions of people in this country,of course there are going to be PEOPLE to go and see Batman Returns. Think before you post cascader,this sounds about as crazy as the logic batman returns has.Now HIM I would expect to say something absurd like that,but YOU?come on,you can do better than that. Also apparently your not aware that Batman Returns had a HUGE significant dropoff at the box office from Batman 89.Batman 89 grossed 250 million dollars.Not at all surprising since he is such an extremely popular icon figure and it was the FIRST Batman movie.Where Batman Returns only grossed a mere 160 million dollars.Thats quite a huge dropoff at the box office compared to Batman 89.The thing that I think is so hilarious from the burton apologists such as yourself that the first two batman movies were good but the last two sucked is if Batman Forever was so bad and worse than the first two films-no argument on Batman and Robin,I've NEVER argued that Batman and Robin was a horrible movie,but I would like to know from the burton apologists such as yourself and spycspider,why if the first two batman films were so great and batman forever was not near as good as those two,WHY Batman Forever did better at the box office than Returns did? IT grossed 180 million dollars where again Returns ONLY grossed 160 million.Pretty impressive considering that most movies by the time the timethe third film is made,it starts losing steam at the box office and usually does not do as well as the previous two films did.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Mar 28th, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Mr Parker you say why did PEOPLE bother to go see it? uh dude in case you weren't aware,there are millions of people in this country,of course there are going to be PEOPLE to go and see Batman Returns. Think before you post cascader,this sounds about as crazy as the logic batman returns has.
ok obviously somebody is not comprehending the context in which the question had been asked.....
Cascador's asking why would people still flock to see Batman Returns given your assumption that Batman 1989 sucked. If the first movie left such a sour taste in people's mouths, then surely most of them wouldn't have gone to see the sequel, but history showed that it still made money despite your "significant" dropoff.
C'mon just say what you wanna say. It's because "the majority of moviegoers out there like watching CRAP!"
__________________ Paying member of the Official Cliegg Lars Fan Club
well frankly I don't give a shit about box office...cause like I said before...Empire posted Batman Returns as one of the best superhero films. And I think you'll like to hear this, mr. Parker...they listed Batman Begins as second best....first was X-Men 2. I don't remember where Batman Returns was listed but it didn't came close to Batman Begins and Batman '89 wasn't even in the list. So they absolutely didn't look what the box office said if what you say is true, cause like you said Batman '89 grossed more.
and SpyCspider I agree with you...the majority of people likes to watch crap! But like I said in my previous post....same counts for Batman Begins....and since the popularity increased of movies in these 14 years between Batman Returns and Batman Begins it's very likely that much more people who like crap went to see Batman Begins
and don't get me wrong I think Batman Begins is certainly one of the best superhero movies...and also one of the best Batman movies. I'm not in a position to decide which one is better, cause they are too different. All I can say is that I can certainly count out Schumacher's movies, cause those films were indeed crap...
__________________
"The greatest hero is the one who learns to face his fears and overconquers it!"
Here are my ranking of the five most recent live-action Batman movies:
1. Batman 89
2. Batman Returns
3. Batman Begins
4. Batman Forever
5. Batman and Robin
Batman Begins did have some good stuff in it. It did try to be more like the comics, but it was still pretty boring.
Well... I have to honestly say that Batman Forever was kinda okay... I mean it was amusing and all... had A LOT of inaccuracies but then again they all did... I mean look at Batman and Robin... if that wasn't the worst Batman movie ever I don't know what was!
I mean ya got Robin in a Nightwing-like getup... and Batgirl, what the hell were they thinking! Alicia Silverstone and Alfred niece??? SO very wrong!
And Arnold Shwarzenegger as Freeze, hell Arnold Shwarzenegger at all is just so awful! Ivy was kinda alright if ya never knew anything of her comic-wise.... and I heard on some Barbra Walters special that Clooney admits he played the part of Batman as gay... I found that greatly amusing... I mean if you watch that movie now it explains a lot!
Arnie and Uma Thurman COULD have been great in their roles, they are both half decent actors, it was just Clooney and the script that was god-awful... compared to Batman and Robin, Forever was a masterpiece, compared to all the other films it was ok.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 26th, 2006 11:45 PM
Because of that,people could not take his Batman seriously.keaton brought no credibility to the role to many batman fans .They found him a joke in that role because of what I i just mentioned.Nolan accomplished what Burton TRIED to do but failed. Batman was only a huge success at the box office because he the extreme popularity of the character.Batman 89 on the screen back then was new to movie goers.Not so with Batman Begins since they could view a batman movie on tape anytime they wanted to which is why it did not do nearly as well at the box office as Batman 89 did.
Think before you post cascader,this sounds about as crazy as the logic batman returns has.Now HIM I would expect to say something absurd like that,but YOU?come on,you can do better than that. 
good to see you back posting again.
