[TheeeChosenOne]

Great choice IMHO!

http://www.cinecon.com/news.php?id=0309117

[azryan]

Well,

IMO... he 'could' do a great job, but the Batman flicks have gotten worse and worse with lots of A-List actors and megabuck productions.

Bale IMO isn't any better or worse than say Val Kilmer (See him recently in the great Salton Sea on DVD).

It's all about the writing and the director, and if I had to guess I'd bet this is going to be a half-assed Batman production.

Bale's a B-list actor at best (last saw him in the horrible Equilibrium on DVD). I bet they'll be going for a little younger stupider Mtv teen crowd w/ this next one.
and bet the story will be as bad as most of the other ones were.

If it were up to me... I'd have no prob. casting Bale in the role (or any number of no-name actors even for added realism) but I'd try something risky... It'd make an actual detective story.

That's the point of Batman. It's not about gadgets and wild super villians dancing to Prince or wearing chrome body armour.

It's about a tragic case that the cops can't solve and it takes a man w/ the brains and brawn to dig into the underworld and bring someone to justice that would otherwise go free.

I'd find the best mystery/crime/private eye script or novel I could and adapt it to fit Batman as the lead.

I'd also film in w/ in Black and White w/ deep shadow lighting effects. You could make it so creepy and dramatic! Batman's costume as a shadowy figure scarier than the criminals themselves would be seen for the first time ever on film.

And his classic Carey Grant playboy Wayne would look perfectly natural in B&W.
Something old becomes new again.

You could add CG film grain effects during darker dangerous scenes to accent the crime/danger taking place. There's so much you could play with in B&W.

I'd still keep things like the Batmobile and a few batarangs, but nothing that looked silly and illogical, or pulled you out of the main story.

Something H-Wood doesn't seen to know anything about. Story? Oh we'll just wing it I guess. Spent too much on that cheesy set to get a good screenwriter. Oops.

I'd build characters that you really felt for and made you really give a damn that Batman NEEDED to catch the bad guy/s.
And actually show him figuring out clues instead of him kickboxing henchmen that belong on the 60's TV show!

Who cared if Jim Carrey got caught or not? It was silly crap.
Don't you want something that really matters to you??

I'd also get rid of the body armour Bat costume. I'd make the costume look more classic and shadowy, than "generic 90's body armour superhero" (if you know comics, you know what I mean).

Wouldn't it be awesome to see a Batman film that could stand a chance to win an Oscar??
It might seem far fetched but it's totally possible if done with care.

Think something like L.A. Confidential in Black and White in surreal film noir.
Or the action, yet class, style, and actual fairly strong story of Crouching Tiger-.

It'd be on the cheap end to film too. Be the best Batman film by far, make Bale and instant A-list actor and show that comic books can be anything... ANYTHING.

[azryan]

Hey,
when you find out what hot young starlet is starring in this new Batman too (since inevitably there'll be one)... I'll be much more able to describe just how bad the next Batman will be.
 
Also if you find out what supervillian/s will be in it -that'll say a lot too as to the budget and direction they're trying to take the next film.

I'm betting the Mtv crowd is the target, w/ no goal of actually trying to make a solid film. Quick buck. Make more than the budget and send it to DVD in 5 months. Not a shred of 'art'.

xXx, Fast n' Furious type audience. Or anyone who didn't realize just how generic all the Batman films were (though Tim Burton did have an interesting artistic take to the 'look'), and how totally awful the last one was.

[wshuff]

I don't know.  Marvel's characters seem to be doing well in the movies.  Spiderman, the X-Men, both better than any Batman as far as I'm concerned, and far more...what?  Realistic isn't the word, but not ridiculous like Batman became.  Then there's the Hulk, which I didn't particularly like, but it tried so hard to be cerebral.  And even DareDevil, which was my least favorite of the recent Marvel films, still was better than most of the Batman movies.  So maybe the studio is realizing that the formula that they were using, which I think they stole from James Bond (you know, get a big star to be a villain, get somebody to do a theme song, lots of noise, explosions, and gadgets, and, well, who needs a story?), isn't working anymore.  Or that there is a new formula to be followed.

I for one like Christian Bale, probably because I still love Empire of the Sun ("P-51 Mustang, Cadillac of the Sky!!!"), and I would love to see him in a movie based on Batman: Year One.  I do want it in color, though.  But if you have the dark, gritty night scenes, I guess it would be basically black and white.

[azryan]

I liked Spider-Man for what it was, mostly just the origin story, and Sam Rammi has been the only comic-book director who actually knew anything about the comic-book he was filming. Certainly a nice 'plus'. heh

I still think that film tilted to the CG, Actionfest typical Hollywood spectical -and changed Green Goblin's costume to body armour like I mentioned in my first post (but was actually thinking of Mr. Freeze).

That formula while still pretty generic worked perfectly for Spidey. In his most classic form Spidey's a bright colorful wisecracking character.

Batman's a whole 'nother animal, and just because their both comic book doesn't mean they should be approaching in the same way. Not that anyone here said that or anything.

"-Marvel's characters seem to be doing well in the movies. Spiderman, the X-Men, both better than any Batman as far as I'm concerned,-"

I think both were done very much in the same formula as the Batman films. And for what usually Didn't work for Batman, was perfect for Spidey, and fairly good for X-Men (I didn't see X2, but heard from a trusted source it was even better than the first though).

Like you mentioned Hulk didn't work for you. Daredevil (which had basically turned into Marvel's version of Batman in the 80's and has been ever since) you liked better than better than most Batman films for you.

To me it had a lot of flaws, and I call it as bad as most Batman films have been. Not worse than Batman and Robin. That crap's hard to top of course. heh

I'd say the third Batman w/ Kilmer was better though. no?

"-So maybe the studio is realizing that the formula that they were using, which I think they stole from James Bond (you know, get a big star to be a villain, get somebody to do a theme song, lots of noise, explosions, and gadgets, and, well, who needs a story?), isn't working anymore. Or that there is a new formula to be followed.-"

But what pattern do you see? Spidey, X2, Hulk, DareDevil... they don't keep getting better and better, and basically all follow their own directions. Hulk was the clearest experiment at trying to do something that really mattered and had kick butt action and effects, but most seem to have been disappointed by it.

Every character is diff.
Batman's theme as a dark vigilante/detective has such potential for a dark moody crime story film, without making it slow, or skipping out on the action.

"-I for one like Christian Bale, probably because I still love Empire of the Sun ("P-51 Mustang, Cadillac of the Sky!!!"), and I would love to see him in a movie based on Batman: Year One."

Did you like him in anything since he became an adult? Breath of Fire, Amer. Psycho, Equilibrium (awful IMO). I'd bet a good director could pull a great performance out of him though.

Story is king though.

Year One has been batted around ever since Batman 1. It's a good story IMO, but though since he's Wanye more than actually being Batman.
And now after how many films, can you really go back to the begining?
Didn't work for Lucas! hehe

"Year one was  I do want it in color, though. But if you have the dark, gritty night scenes, I guess it would be basically black and white."

The artwork certainly works in the comic books. And author Frank Miller eventually did a whole series of crime stories called Sin City -all in B&W.

If only H-wood would have the guts.

[azryan]

The style I'm thinking of would be somewhat like the artwork in the Batman graphic novel -Arkham Asylum.
A must read if you are even mildly interested in Batman.

Amazing mix-media artwork and written by one of the most famous comic book writers -Grant Morrison (of Sandman fame).

Morrison's currently writing X-Men which is probably one of the most shocking thing in comics in a long time -since he's almost never done any 'superhero' comics throughout his career.

I've heard many comic fans say that Arkham Asylum would make a great movie (probably would come in 2nd place to Year One in a poll), and mostly I'd agree, but part of me feels it's just too easy to re-do a story for a film.

I mean for true Batman fans -they already know the story.

They deserve something new and original IMO -though they'd probably be some of the most enthusiastic to hear about that graphic novel's look and story being the next Batman film.

If we're going to say 'what if'... might as well shoot for the stars right? Not just say "They should redo this story".

I heard a rumor that the Scarecrow might be the next villian. That 'could' be great for making a more psychological and surreal film -I (sadly) would still have to bet against that happening.

Hopefully you're right, that Hollywood is trying to make better comic book films and the next Batman has a much better chance of being decent because of what's come out recently.

I'd still bet against it being better than 'decent' at best. Hope I'm wrong of course.

If we find out David Fincher is directing it, then I'll certainly change my bet!
He's the best man IMO to put to film the type of story/look I'm talking about.

Certainly the use of multiple famous villians per film is totally out of hand, and IMO totally ruins any potential for a true solid story.  One villian, one case. And boot Robin.

They've been talking about a new Superman film (Bale's name was rumoured to that as well, and also Nick Cage -awful choice IMO, and VERY glad that fell through).
Also a Superman/Batman film... again... IMO very glad that fell though.

Batman's just not the type of cartoon character so many other 'superheros' are.

Wolverine in a solo film would be another 'potentially' great film, that could far expand from the comic book stereotype that non-comic fans wouldn't expect.


Oh yeah...

What Bond villians were really famous? I guess some weren't nobodies, but not like the top names most of the Batman villians were at all. No?

[Rob Babcock]

I think the graphic novel, "Gotham By Gaslight" would rock as a movie, but I don't suppose DC would have the stones to put Batman back in 19th century London, w/no batmobile or cheesy "bat toys" to fall back on.  Short of actually coming up with a halfway original script or story, I think "The Dark Knight Returns" would also be a great movie.  Just watching him kick the shit out of Superman would be worth the price of admission.

I think Marvel has definately hit their stride lately.  Spiderman was a pleasant surprise to me; slightly updated but very true to the original books.  And c'mon, you wouldn't serious want GG to be the same spandex wearing lameass he was in the comics, wouldja?  What works in a book is often laughable when brought to the bigscreen.  Daredevil was pretty good, I thought, good fun but not as good as Spidey.  And I was really surpised by how much I enjoyed the Hulk.

At any rate, I really don't care much for the Batman character, never really have.  But I liked the first movie a lot, the second one a little, and I never saw the later ones.  But I think Bale will be just fine.  Of course, some of the films Azryan lists as his stinkers are quite highly thought of by a few of us here at AC.  

Anyhow, I agree there's about as much chance of Hollywood making an Oscar-worthy BM flick as Keanu has of earning an Oscar for Best Actor.

[azryan]

Hey Rob,

"Gotham By Gaslight" was good. I agree.

It's far closer to the line I'm trying to describe than any of the actul Batman films that've been out. In the end though, I really don't see why you'd actually have to re-do a story. No reason not to be able to put together an actual 'original' Batman story.

You like "Gotham By Gaslight". Cool. You're right... it IS good. So you want to see it as a film? Why?... just re-read it. Don't you want something even better and new to you?

Same for 'The Dark Knight Returns'. That one, while being probably THE most famous Batman story has all sorts of things about it that would make it be a really tough transfer to film in both style and story elements.

Damn near dead, old, retired Batman (which was awesome but probably impossible to sell to a film audience IMO), 80's media clips, Joker (who died in the first Batman film), etc...

I'd elaborate more, but I don't want to ruin the story for anyone who didn't read it.

And IMO, if ANYONE who cares about a new Batman movie HASN'T read this... GO get it. It's pretty easy to find in graphic novel form at any major book store. Pick up Arkham Asylum while you're there too. hehe

Rob, have you read any of the Legends of the Dark Knight series? I don't know if it's still running.

It's along similar lines as "-Gaslight" (Elseworlds) in that the stories were self contained various length mini-series, and totally independent of the normal continuing Batman series.

IOW... writers/artist could do almost anything. They didn't do alternate times though like Elesworlds -Gaslight, or Batman vs. Dracula, or that Barbarian Batman story (weak).

The second 12-part mini-series called 'Gothic' is very much along the lines of they type of crime story a Batman film needs. Also written by Grant Morrison (like Arkhan Asylum I had mentioned).

Another 2-parter called 'Tao' was great too, and the most incredibly realistic artwork next to almost photo-real painter Alex Ross.
Kid's stories they ain't, and neither has a famous or flashy/chessy 'arch nemesis'. Just a solid 'case' to be solved, and little 'superhero' elements.

On Marvel...

Rob you said...
"-I think Marvel has definately hit their stride lately. Spiderman was a pleasant surprise to
me; slightly updated but very true to the original books."

I agree about Spiderman (as I said). You have to know... the comicbook industry even with all these major hit mainstream Hollywood films... is still doing like a 10th of the business of it's best times in the 90's, and will probably NEVER do better than it is now.

Hell, Marvel filed for bankrupcy several years back. They're stronger now, but still a very tiny market that even they don't expect to grow.

Hollywood was riding the wave of X-Men. It had been looking to ride the wave of Batman, but then the Batman films did worse and worse business, and Marvel had been doing so poorly it was tough to bring a really great film to the screen.

You ever see The Punisher or The Fantastic Four films? Awful straight to video crap.

Spiderman as a big budget film had been in development for like over a decade. James Cameron was going to film it at one time even.

If X-Men hadn't been passable-to-decent like it was, Spiderman still wouldn't have gotten the greenlight.

And after both were hits Hollywood said (as they always do) let's squeeze this fad for all it's worth. I believe that wave has crested and is falling, and while we'll still get some comic book films in the future, it won't ever be like this recent massive glut.
 
Hulk (a mixed bag by most accounts).
DareDevil (not awful, but very flawed/substandard script/directing. At best no one calls it as good as Spiderman or X-Men).
League of Ext. Gent. (which is great in comic form and from what I've read was just an awful film and the story was bastardized).
Barb Wire (if it weren't Pam Anderson's ASSets, no one would have watched that crappy film).
Did anyone care that it was a comic book even? I know I have the first issue.
Tank Girl. (awful. 100% crap).

I forgot about Blade too. Blade was a totally nothing minor Marvel character. I think the films were pretty killer though. Not incredible stories but better than most other comic stories, and it was just filmed really well for the type of pure action story that it was.

Hellboy (which I doubt many have heard about) MAY have a chance to be great.

That's a really cool X-Files type of series by a famous writer/artist Mike Mignola, and the guy playing Hellboy in the film is the guy who Hellboy the drawing was based on.

Mignola from what I hear is having a lot of direct input into the movie, and the director seems to really know and love the series, so like Blade... we might see another character that most people never heard of turn into a great film... but anything can happen. We'll see.

I've heard of at least another DOZEN characters being batted around for films. All w/ the potential to be killer, but Hollywood could care less. Bottom line is $$, and it doesn't take a quality film to get a profit. A cheap so-so film w/ massive ad budget is much smarter for them to try.

"-And c'mon, you wouldn't serious want GG to be the same spandex wearing lameass he was in the comics, wouldja?-"

Um... that was a little tough to follow? I 'think' you're asking if I really think Green Gob. should have looked like in the comic where he wears spandex?

1) No superhero wears 'spandex'. People like you just like to say 'spandex' since it's skin tight. Spandex isn't nearly as old as the Green Goblin is or any 'spandex-wearing' superhero from Superman on so clearly spandex was never the original intent.

For a film costume... cyber/techo/body armour is NOT the only alternative to 'spandex'. Say that out loud so it sinks in. hehe

Would you thought it better if Spidey was wearing a body armour costume instead of them mostly reflectiong the comicbook intent like they did??

In many drawings the Green Goblin's pants look like they almost have scales on them.
You could use spandex and paint scales on it and it'd look really really dumb. Probably what you seem to think I would prefer.

You could though have a tight material (probably cloth or leather) that looks like raised muscles w/ scales on it. Not silly purple spandex aerobic leggings.

Obviously the bright green/purple colors would probably look pretty silly on screen, so that could get re-worked. Maybe keep the colors though, and make them more muted, darker.
Like DareDevil is solid red in the comic, and in the film they made him a dark leather red. They went to far w/ the body armour again though changing the whole look too far.

Hollywood altering the origin of the Goblin and inventing cyber/techno/body armour was damn generic and sad.

In the comic the Goblin's costume was actually pretty much a MOVIE costume. His mask was supose to be a latex mask JUST like they use in movies. So if in the film Defoe had stolen or say had collected a 'Goblin' costume from some weird, obscure, horror film, his costume's look would only be limited by what a great Hollywood costume of a Goblin could look like.

Now try to imagine it was of the look and quality of say an Orc in Lord of the Rings?? Call that cheesy. I dare you. hehe

That's what I would have done, and what I had hoped they would have done. And damn... they'd have only had to make ONE. Not thousands like LotRings did.

I don't mean so filthy and bloody, but just a very realistic 'real' Goblin look, but more PG-13 toned down.
It would have been totally faithful to the comic, AND looked much better than what they did.

In a latex mask Defoe could have also had his facial expressions show though when in costume instead of us just hearing his voice from a helmet.

Same for the 'pumpkin bombs'. In the comic they were actually like real little pumpkins filled w/ explosives and w/ wicks hanging off of them.

That's something a delusional guy who thought he was a Goblin would come up with and it would've been very realistic, and same result in the scrpit they wrote.

Now the hovering glider... that's totally unrealistic in both comic and movie but think about it...
that's something that the government might be working on. A hovering rocket glider. Not so totally far fetched.

Then a crazy man who's got access to it steals the thing. (And that's what happend right?)

That's not pushing believability that much, BUT....
how incredibly dumb does someone have to be to think the government had developed a body armour costume that looked like a freakin' GOBLIN??

Remember, he only turned into the Goblin after that accident and was wearing that body armour almost right away. He'd have never had time to build that or even alter a 'normal' looking set of body armour. Hell, it was bright metallic GREEN? I know our military's very stupid quite often, but they're to THAT dumb.

And Pumpkin-like grenades?? That's beyond stupid for the military to have been developing. But a crazy guy who think's he's a Goblin and makes home-made bombs. That's really pretty believable. Maybe by using material stolen from the military project. That fits.

I know 'it's just a comic book' for most people, and they don't care what's believable or what might work better. Most people just accept whatever they see in a movie, and just say 'liked it' or 'didn't like it' at the end.

That lack of thought is killing America IMO. Acceptence of the so-so/passable/mediocre as actually being really good.

The comic had everything there, and for no reason other than 'cool action figure tie-in' Hollywood changed the great classic Goblin costume that was right there in front of them.

It's all in how you do it. You can have Golum, or you can have jar jar binks.

You could have detailed realistic Goblin mask and creepy outfit from a fictional horror film production, or a cheesy unbelieveble Military developed Goblin body armour.


"-What works in a book is often laughable when brought to the bigscreen.-"

Very true. But ther reason WHY is what's improtant. It's not the fact that it was a 'comic book' that's the reason. It's the bad Hollywood bastardization of the comic that's the problem.

"-Daredevil was pretty good, I thought, good fun but not as good as Spidey.-"

If that's the depth of the 'review' then you didn't think about it much, and clearly didn't notice the many many awful things in it.

Don't read this if you haven't seen DareDevil people....

How 'bout they never mention that his partner's name (Foggy Nelson). He's talking to this guy, and no one watching the film cares who he is!?

How 'bout Electra's not shocked that a damn BLIND man just followed her out a shop and down the street!?

How 'bout they then spar to wildly rediculous wire-fu extent in front of a schoolyard of children. Doesn't much care about a secret identity does he??

How 'bout he goes after a rapist and lets him get torn in half by a subway train (something totally out of character for DareDevil), and later when he could have killed Kingpin who he KNOWS had his father killed and thinks Electra and her Father... he doesn't!?

That's in character, but not compared to that subway killing. And the total illogic that Kingpin won't reveal Matt's identity 'cuz he'd look stupid in prison and so then someone would kill him for getting locked up by a blind guy???

Moronic.

1) If he was put away by DareDevil (who beat a LOT of other criminals) it certainly can't look that bad. And wouldn't you think that people would just think Matt WASN'T blind and had been faking for a secret identity (think -Clark Kent's glasses).

2) He doesn't need to reveal Matt's identity to put a hit out on Matt and have every hitman in the country come to town to collect a huge pay off.

I swear to you I can list MANY more things that were just as senseless in that film.

Back to Batman...

"-At any rate, I really don't care much for the Batman character, never really have.-"

A darker than the criminals rougue genius pritave eye/detective? The potential is open for anything Sherlock Holmes-ish to a noir crime drama like L. A. Confidential (don't tell me you didn't like that one?). The Bat costume could totally take a back seat to the actual story, and only add to the impact of any inevitable action scenes.

People would say it was awesome and get other people to see it by saying "It's not really even a comib book movie."

"-But I liked the first movie a lot-"

What was it you liked then if you don't like Batman?

"-the second one a little, and I never saw the later ones. But I think Bale will be just fine."

So... You don't even care? You didn't see Val Kilmer or George Clooney in the role. Both fine IMO, but weak films. Batman Forver (part 3) was a bit better than 1 or 2 though IMO.

Almost in shape good/serious looking actor could play the role. I thought Mr. Mom was the worst choice though personally. Body Armor costume and weird 'kissy' lips through his mask.

"-Of course, some of the films Azryan lists as his stinkers are quite highly thought of by a few of us here at AC."

Like which ones? And why am I wrong? I'm willing to debate it with you. I can back up what I say pretty well I think. Bring it on! hehe

"-Anyhow, I agree there's about as much chance of Hollywood making an Oscar-worthy BM flick as Keanu has of earning an Oscar for Best Actor."

I didn't say that. I mean hey, Jim Carrey almost pulled it off in the Truman Show. Keanu can't act, but he could certainly get an Oscar. Hollywood's pretty sad. hehe

[Rob Babcock]

Jeez, your post looks like Casler wrote it for you!

It's cool that you take this stuff so seriously, I guess.  I didn't realize you expected an in depth review of each film I mentioned.  I have done that for some of them (check the cinema section, some older posts).

To some of your comments:

I liked the first Batman movie, and I'm a bit perplexed that I'd need to explain why.  I'll say right off the bat that there's no point to "debating" something that's purely a matter of personal taste.  As for liking the film when I'm not a huge Bman fan, you partially answered that for yourself:  one is a book, the other a movie.  I don't care much for the way most artists draw the book, nor for the flaky, secret-Tibetan-martial arts deal Wayne has going for him.  In the movie they just ignore that- he kicks ass because, well, he's Batman, goddamn it!     It's a well established convention, whether in westerns, action movies, whatever, that for some reason the hero is able to easily defeat dozens of enemies at once.

At any rate, I liked the look of "Armor Batman" more that the comic book "Leotard Batman"; that's just my own personal preference.  I'm also a fan of Keaton, so I naturally was open to him playing the role.  I thought he was great as Wayne, but a bit less effective as Batman.

All the stock Batman villians are absurd, just like most of Spiderman & DD's enemies are rediculous.  The Joker, Dr Octopus, the Riddler, Two Face, Green Goblin- yikes!  Pure cheese.  But that's the baggage a movie will have to drag around, I guess.

I've mentioned in the past that DD was no masterpiece, and many of the flaws you point out were snickered out loudly be me every time I've seen the film.  But what are you gonna do?  Most movies are flawed- only on film in a hundred would I say is truly brilliant.  You ever hear of a guilty pleasure?  It's silly but still enjoyable.  BTW, Bullseye has to be one of the most preposterous, flatly absurd characters in the Marvel universe, and Farrell's performance was just God-aweful.  I haven't seen him in anything else, but based on that he must be in Keanu territory.

Curious, did you watch the Hulk or are you just going by what you've been told?  I made sport of it too, until I actually saw it.  I then had to admit it was a very good movie.  Watch it and see what you think.

Again, I say Marvel has hit their stride lately.  Some of those dating back a decade or two were truly terrible.  I really like LXG, myself, but I've never read the comics.  

As to remaking old story lines into movies, you may have missed my point.  I really do wish they'd ever just write an original story, but I guess they percieve that what people want is a familiar story.  Anyway, a movie and a book are very different; I could reread the book, but live action is very different.  And it would be very courageous to film a movie about a 50+ year old Batman.


As for me liking the "90's comic armor" look, everyone has a different aethetic sense and taste.  Say that out loud so it sinks in!

I liked Reign of Fire a lot.  I also have seen Bale in several movies where I thought he was very good.  Set aside your preconceptions and let him try the role before you critique his portrayal.  I despise Keanu, and I refused to watch the Matrix for years because of it.  But I have to admit the two Matrix films were actually okay, though I still don't like Reeves.  In the second film I didn't even think Keanu was too bad.

Anyway, I really don't take comic book moves as seriously as you appear to.  I'm not looking for answers to global warming or man's relationship with the universal in a Batman or DD movie.  They're just fluff, some AV eye candy.  Almost no movie is anywhere near as thought provoking or profound as a good book can be (there are exceptions, of course.).

That said, I agree with you about the Goblin outfit.  It was silly, but the character was silly in the comic.  Pumpkin bombs indeed!  The whole concept of all the technology in the flick is absurd, but is it any less so than the idea that the bite of a radioactive/genetically engineered spider could imbue one with powers?  You gotta make that leap to enjoy the comic or the movie.  Unlike Batman, Spidey has powers that lie outside of our understanding of natural laws.  Again, it's just a story.

BTW, Golum and Jar Jar were both equally annoying, IMO.

Interesting discussion, Azyran.  I can see you like your comics and movies.

[Rob Babcock]

BTW, I am a fan of "bad movies" to some degree, tho not as much as when I was younger.  I've hated many movies that the critics loved and loved a lot of flicks that the critics scorned.  Reviews are usually fairly useless to me.

[azryan]

"-Jeez, your post looks like Casler wrote it for you! "

What's that mean?

"-It's cool that you take this stuff so seriously, I guess."

Hey, that's what we're all doing on line right? Why else frequent a Cinema forum?? To post you bought some new DVD at best buy? wow... no.

"-I didn't realize you expected an in depth review of each film I mentioned."

Don't expect it. Don't feel pressured by me to, but anyone has to say some details to really say something.

"-I have done that for some of them (check the cinema section, some older posts)."

Cool. I haven't seen any of those types of posts in this section so far.

"-I liked the first Batman movie, and I'm a bit perplexed that I'd need to explain why."

Again... you don't have to, but if you don't I have no idea 'why' you did. Maybe explosions are neat to you and it had some big ones? Maybe you think 'Jack' is amazing in everything and loved him bopping around to Prince?

I'm just curious, so I ask. I certainly don't 'deserve' an answer. You said you don't really like Batman, but dug the first one, the second one much less so it seemed and skipped the rest. Just wondering what you liked from the first, and why you'd even care about a 5th one w/ Bale as the character you don't really like?

"- I'll say right off the bat that there's no point to "debating" something that's purely a matter of personal taste."

I find it interesting to do. If you don't, that's fine. Feel free.

"-I don't care much for the way most artists draw the book, nor for the flaky, secret-Tibetan-martial arts deal Wayne has going for him. "

'-deal going for him?' I don't get that line?

You sound like you're not into comicbooks 'eh? That's fine, but then I doubt you've seen all the tremendously different way Batman's been illustrated over ~60 decades.

You know The Dark Knight Returns isn't even close to what most people 'typically' think of.

Arkham Asylum's drastically different too.

"-It's a well established convention, whether in westerns, action movies, whatever, that for some reason the hero is able to easily defeat dozens of enemies at once."

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere...

We can disagree and still keep everything cool, but I think that one man army stuff is so-so at best, and needs something more really make it matter.

The first Matrix I think would be an example of a very solid story as a foundation of that superhero-ish ending.
Lord of the Rings and Gladiator you could say are along these same lines too, with great stories.

Stuff like Desperado and the Crow (both comicbooky, but only one from a comicbook) were both cool to a point in awesome style and great action, but technically weak stories.  

Why can't we have both? It makes me sad to hear people who 'settle' for just action and don't care about a story (or think the film actually had a good one).

"-At any rate, I liked the look of "Armor Batman" more that the comic book "Leotard Batman"; that's just my own personal preference."

See... my last post I tried to explain that these are NOT the only two options, and (jokingly) asked you to say it out loud so you don't miss it, and here you seem to have missed it anyway.

"-I'm also a fan of Keaton, so I naturally was open to him playing the role. I thought he was great as Wayne, but a bit less effective as Batman."

I'd agree. Some great performances in several other films.

Kilmer and Clooney in the later B-Man flicks were just as good IMO though, and both as capable actors w/ great performances in other more dramatic films.

Bale... He's got the potential too, but Wayne's not a difficult role really at all as they've been written for any of these films. Just takes a strong, good looking guy really. Dime a dozen in H-Wood.

I thought Keaton was too short and not built at all.

"-All the stock Batman villians are absurd, just like most of Spiderman & DD's enemies are rediculous. The Joker, Dr Octopus, the Riddler, Two Face, Green Goblin- yikes! Pure cheese. But that's the baggage a movie will have to drag around, I guess."

All these charaters have have very serious stories at one time or another. Now Spidey is so classically 'bright, wise-crackin', flamboyant I wouldn't attempt to make a 'dark' film.

Batman's perfectly natural 'dark'. DareDevil too, but they're both so glossy even when mostly 'night-based' films. Gritty, raw, and tone down the villians to make then realistic and deranged like they're suposed to be.
Not cartoons.. but that's how most people seem to see 'comicbooks'.

"-I've mentioned in the past that DD was no masterpiece, and many of the flaws you point out were snickered out loudly be me every time I've seen the film. But what are you gonna do?-"

Think about how one could be better, and not just accept it by lowering my standards to fit Hollywood appealing to the lowest common denominator -typically junior-high kids w/ wads part-time job dough. hehe

"-Most movies are flawed- only on film in a hundred would I say is truly brilliant.-"

Sad isn't it. And they spend MILLIONS on these productions.

"-You ever hear of a guilty pleasure?"

Yeah. Don't think much of people who have many of them. Amer. Idol, Jerry Springer, COPS, WWE, Yanni, etc... hehehe

Why like something you know to be stupid? Maybe stuff like Naked Gun, Jim Carrey, Mel Brooks stuff if you dig that, but it's meant to be comedy.

"-BTW, Bullseye has to be one of the most preposterous, flatly absurd characters in the Marvel universe, and Farrell's performance was just God-aweful. I haven't seen him in anything else, but based on that he must be in Keanu territory."

Bullseye does look even sillier in the comicbook. I can't complain about what they did in the movie -much (the forehead scar didn't make sense at all). But the Bullseye/Elektra story arc they stole from the comicbook (by Dark Knight Returns writer Frank Miller) was far better in every way. Much longer so tough to adapt to a sub-2 hour film, but they hacked it up real bad.

I'd disagree about Farrell.

The Recruit was poor IMO, but he showed talent in it. Hart's War was weak, but he was decent in that dramatic role.
His almost solo performance in Phonebooth was suprisingly solid IMO. A good flick too. A solid 7 of 10 and I was expecting it to be very bad.

"-Curious, did you watch the Hulk or are you just going by what you've been told?"

Half of both.

I didn't see it, but I also didn't claim my 'own' personal opinion on it -which is why you guessed that I didn't see it. Wasn't trying to fool anyone. Two people who I tend to very often agree with have described their takes on it and they both match eachother and the views I've heard form many others.

It's not on DVD yet, and I haven't gone to the theater in many years. Well.. only on the rarest of occations and have always been disappointed by the horrid picture, audio, and seating quality compared to my HT (or anyone else's HT that's decent).

"-I made sport of it too, until I actually saw it.-"

Just to be clear... I didn't say it sucked or made any jokes about it.

"-I then had to admit it was a very good movie. Watch it and see what you think."

Certainly will. I think Ang Lee has done a great job in the Ice Storm, and Crouching Tiger. I was hot to see it before the 'word on the street' pretty much tilted towards wshuff's exact comment on it here.

"-As to remaking old story lines into movies, you may have missed my point. I really do wish
they'd ever just write an original story, but I guess they percieve that what people want is a familiar story."

I don't recall you making that point in previous posts, but maybe I missed it.

"-Anyway, a movie and a book are very different; I could reread the book, but live action is very different. And it would be very courageous to film a movie about a 50+ year old Batman."

I can agree with that. It's not like I'd flip out and say that sucks -like a lot of stuff I'vehave been talking about. I just had a direction that's even more orignal than re-doing  a ~15 year old very famous story already known to any Batman fan.

A film version wouldn't be like 'LAME! SEEN IT!', but it 'kinda/sorta' would be to me.

"-As for me liking the "90's comic armor" look, everyone has a different aethetic sense and taste. Say that out loud so it sinks in!-"

hehe.. Hell yeah. BTW... don't take me as being such a hard ass ok. I know I often seem that way by how I type I guess. Even if I'm 'fightin' you... I'm never sittin' here w/ cartoon smoke blasting out my ears or anything. hehe

Body armor costume's just so common it's become a joke, even when in their own right a character might look kinda or even pretty cool. It's an 90's comics thing.
Damn near every new character was a dark, armored character. It was like a drawn out fad that turned into a running joke.

To non-comic fans they wouldn't catch that as much as comic fans have.

Doc Ock is the next villian in Spidey 2. I know the shots of his 'arms' look freakin' great, but again... I really pray he's not in body armour, but we'll see... Or it better look like it's believeble in the story -like not "How'd he GET that stuff though!?!?!". It should work for Doc Ock though really.

"-I liked Reign of Fire a lot. I also have seen Bale in several movies where I thought he was very good. Set aside your preconceptions and let him try the role before you critique his portrayal.-"

huh? I've kept saying I think he'd be fine in the role. That's what I think every poster here's said incl. you.
I'm more-so betting againstthe script and directing and Hollywood's 'target' audience for the next film. And that one I think's a good bet.

"-I despise Keanu, and I refused to watch the Matrix for years because of it. But I have to admit the two Matrix films were actually okay, though I still don't like Reeves. In the second film I didn't even think Keanu was too bad."

Hey! Ever see 'The Gift'? Killer film, and Keanu has a small role in it that I think he was fairly decent in. Not stellar, but well...basically and actor in that film. Good film for Oct. 31st coming up too.

"-Anyway, I really don't take comic book moves as seriously as you appear to. I'm not looking for answers to global warming or man's relationship with the universal in a Batman or DD movie.-"

oh, me neither. THeir action movies, but that doesn't mean they can't be Gladiator or L.A. Confidential quality action w/ real characters and gripping story.

"-They're just fluff, some AV eye candy.-"

Why except that though? Batman... fluff? You're 100% right, but it just 'shouldn't' be. The budget, actors, whole production are there just like any massive Oscar-quality work. Script, and directing. Both of which are critical to picking the right direction any film takes.

"-Almost no movie is anywhere near as thought provoking or profound as a good book can be (there are exceptions, of course.)."

Both true and lame. The only inherent fault a film had is it's only able to convey a short story's worth of content. A book is limitless and able to dig much deeper, but clearly there are films that really 'matter' w/ characters that you get to know enough to believe in and care about. Plus films have the added realism of being performed.

Shakespeake wasn't meant to be read, it was meant to be watched right? And he's a pretty decent writer.

"-That said, I agree with you about the Goblin outfit. It was silly, but the character was silly
in the comic.-"

He wasn't really. That story got pretty deep for a comicbook. Making characters that mattered like few comics had even done before. Stan Lee basically invented Marvel Comics and re-invented what a 'comic book' could be. Writer's like Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Alan Grant, etc... created storied that went even deeper and could hold their own to the mind of a mature adult.

"-with those Pumpkin bombs indeed!-"

But if you took it like that crazy uni-bomber dude, pipe bombs, anthrax letters, etc.. it's not unrealistic. He went nuts and actually had a Goblin costume. It could be logical to an insane man.

"-The whole concept of all the technology in the flick is absurd, but is it any less so than the idea that the bite of a radioactive/genetically engineered spider could imbue one with powers? You gotta make that leap to enjoy the comic or the movie.-"

"-Unlike Batman, Spidey has powers that lie outside of our understanding of natural laws.-"

To an extent sure, but they tried to take a stab at explaining a realistic genetic level mutation to create that unique effect on Peter Parker. "Real"? No, but not so 'no way in hell' far fetched.

It's enough to say 'Ok... now give me a REAL story where those powers (gimicks) don't drive the story, they just add that extra 'coolness' to them... and that'd mostly what that film did, and why it was as good as it was, and why say DareDevil or the last Batman weren't. Both were driven by the gimmicks... more-so the last Batman, and why it was so bad.

Think of any Sci-Fi flick.... Now TAKE AWAY the sci-fi/fictional element to it... Now try to make the story still work ANYWAY.

If the core plot is strong, it should be do-able w/o too much drastic change. If the film's crap and relies on the gimmicks, you can't do it at all.

"-BTW, Golum and Jar Jar were both equally annoying, IMO."

Heheh... take a poll here. I doubt ANYONE would agree with you on that one. I'd be curious to see though.

"-Interesting discussion, Azyran. I can see you like your comics and movies."

Just call me Ryan if you're gonna spell my handle wrong. hehe.

Even though I've been talking comic book so heavy here... I've been mostly out of that area. I was working on becoming a comicbook artist in H.S. (I'm pretty good) when the whole comicbook market fell apart. There's some cool stuff out now, but $3-$4 is TOO much for ~10 min. of reading.
Stellar artists and writers out there though now. The best stuff blows away most action movie fluff IMO.
Lots of stuff is getting bound in graphic novel form. That's the only place comic books are expanding to. They know they have to not to go under. Sorta like the DVD version to the orignal comics being the Movie Theater.

"-BTW, I am a fan of "bad movies" to some degree, tho not as much as when I was younger.-"

I think most people tend to realize to some extent at least that what they dug as kids mostly sucked. Bad films can be so bad they're funny like MT3K if you're ever seen that show, but those are usually horrid drive-in flicks, not big budget blockbusters that just suck. hehe

"-I've hated many movies that the critics loved and loved a lot of flicks that the critics scorned.-"

We should talk about some of those extreme one. There's always a reviewer who hated almost anything, and always a review who loved something. Lots of reviewers out there.
Hell I find that even when I agree w/ the overall opion of one -like If we both liked or disliked a film... we still disagree about WHY we felt that way. Oddly enough... they're always wrong. hehe

"-Reviews are usually fairly useless to me."

Yeah. It only works if you find a reviewer who you typically agree with. Damn hard to do, but probably one out there somewhere (like they say about true love). hehe.

Even if you look at say Ent. Weekly and see the opinion of several reviewers... you'll still see there's no consensus. And don't get me started about what Ebert sticks his thumbs up. hehe

[Rob Babcock]

No subtle dig, Azryan, about the John Casler joke.  Just that he's legendary for extremely long posts.

BTW, sorry about the misspelling!   I didn't notice it til you pointed it out.

[Rob Babcock]

I used to be a hardcore comic book fan.  I've got many milk crates filled w/poly bags & acid free backing boards... But about 10 years back after I got divorced I was pretty much flat broke and couldn't afford to keep collecting at the time.  Once I could, I'd pretty much lost track of the story lines, plus some of my favorite books were cancelled.  I still dig the books, but I haven't bought much for new ones over the last 5 or six years.

My favorite by far is the Silver Surfer.  I keep hearing a movie is in the works but nothing ever materializes.

 ***********************************************************

As for critics, I really like Roger Ebert.  Not that I always agree with him, or even usually agree.  Mostly I like the way he writes and thinks, and I can usually tell by his comments whether I might like it or not.  I will say that occasionally his reviews miss critical plot details that I feel may sway his opinion, and sometimes I strongly disagree with him (to the point that I wonder if we saw the same movie).  For instance, I loved The 13th Warrior, which he lambasted.  Still, I can usually see where he's coming from.


Lastly, this is the type of discussion I enjoy.  We all spend so much time focused on the equipment of HT & music sometimes that we ignore the reason we do it, ie films and music.

[TheeeChosenOne]

I can see that Azryan is very passionate about this subject and has good ideas.

He should get into the movie/comic business by writing a screenplay.

I know a guy that sold a screenplay based on Speed Racer for $1M recently.  He was a passionate Anime and Comic Book fan.

You need to find a comic book you like, and then contact the studio that has the rights (BTW, ALL comic titles have been purchased by the studios, due to their hotness right now) and see if you can adapt a screenplay.

The best Hollywood writers and Directors have all been passionate (to the point of obsession) about movies or comics.  Bryan Singer is a major X-Men fan.  This is why he can stay pretty true to the mythology of the characters when he's Directing.   Just MHO (you may dispute this).

[azryan]

Good stuff Rob.

13th Warrior,
I had heard it was horrible but didn't think so myself when I saw it. I don't think I ever agree with anything Ebert prints so I'm always taking sohts at him. hehe

I REALLY hate how his 'thumbs up!!' is on damn near every DVD that comes out. That just screams sell out to me.

And it's so often an obvious con too... It's say "THUMBS UP", so it's 'plural' right -as in both Ebert and Roper (formerly Siskel) give it a thumbs up, BUT in tiny print underneath it'll say Roger Ebert, Ebert & Roper.

So for most people reading it fast it still looks like both of them gave it the thumbs up, but it actually only says Ebert (or Roper at times), MEANING the other guy didn't like it! hehe

I hate that crap. It's the studios who do it, but the 'pro reviewers' let 'em -for $$.

Theee,

Having wanted to be a comic book artist, I've also got a couple projects for comic books that will probably never go anywhere, but one's really cool, and would adapt really well to a CG animated film. My lazy ass may never get to it though.

I ned a 'real' computer too, I could be doing the charater models myself too. Much easier to sell an idea the most fleshed out you'd got it right?

I've got a screenplay too that I've been working on off and on (mostly off in recent years hehe) that's a killer (IMO) war epic -sort of a cross between the one man army stuff (The Crow, Desperado, etc..)
-like Rob was saying... we all pretty much think is cool, or really cool, but I feel pretty much has 'been done', and can only go so far until you say 'Um... the hero REALLY would be dead by now', so my story then shifts into a Seven Samurai-ish/Sparatcus/Gladiator-ish type feel.

Real character development, etc... and then shifts into a third section for the final act. I really ain't comfortable saying too much, but I think guys like you and Rob would think it was pretty cool.

Designed too to be a fairly low budget (again greatly helping the potential sale). I don't profess to be a 'writer' in the classic sense though.

I'm long-winded and I think have a lot of clever ideas and am every bit as harsh a critic on my own work as the films I see.

I had been looking for a writer to team up with and really finish off my screenplay, but some writer's clubs I tried were horrible disasters. Just awful stuff, and they had no criticism of anyone else's work, so they were of no value to eachother. Lame. hehe

Yeah... someday I'll put some writing out there. I'm not looking for fame or fortune though, and seems like the people who do ANYTHING to get those are the ones that really make it. hehe

[TheeeChosenOne]

I'm long-winded and I think have a lot of clever ideas and am every bit as harsh a critic on my own work as the films I see.

I had been looking for a writer to team up with and really finish off my screenplay, but some writer's clubs I tried were horrible disasters. Just awful stuff, and they had no criticism of anyone else's work, so they were of no value to eachother. Lame. hehe

Yeah... someday I'll put some writing out there. I'm not looking for fame or fortune though, and seems like the people who do ANYTHING to get those are the ones that really make it. hehe

Look into:
http://mckeestory.com/

The best teacher in the business bar-none.   He has a very good book out (one of the Bibles of movie writing):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060391685/qid=1063675282/sr=2-1/002-1562298-5128045?v=glance&s=books

Mckee's class is the boot camp of writing WELL for movies, TV, etc.  It has made Oscar, etc winners of many, many, many students.

You're right that writing clubs are pretty much a waste of time as most of its members are too kooky and unrealistic about marketable ideas.

[wshuff]

This might be the best thread I've ever read at this site.  Certainly the best one that doesn't have anything to do with equipment.  Thanks guys!

Would like to say more, but have to go prepare for a ...gulp...wedding!

By the way, pet peeve:  Ridiculous is spelled with an "i."  Defeats to the purpose to call something ridiculous if you spell the word wrong.  

[azryan]

"-By the way, pet peeve: Ridiculous is spelled with an "i."

Was that me? Thank god for spell checkers! Too bad I don't use one on this site! oops. hehe

[wshuff]

Not just you.  Common thing to see on the forums.  I've seen people with great points screw it up by writing, "rediculous!!!"  Sort of steals some of the thunder.

[Rob Babcock]

Hmmm...probably me.  I actually spell very well, but there are a few words I always misspell.  Plus, I sumtimz dont pruf reed enuff b4 I post!