log in or register to remove this ad

 

The Batman Trailer

Ryujin

Adventurer
But can you truly call yourself a Batman movie director if you've never filmed a pearl necklace scattering across the pavement in slow motion?

... on the wife of a millionaire's wife, that are so cheap that there aren't even knots between the individual pearls :ROFLMAO:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ART!

Adventurer
But can you truly call yourself a Batman movie director if you've never filmed a pearl necklace scattering across the pavement in slow motion?

Boy, I'd love to see some director do something really new with the death of Bruce's parents. I have no idea what, though.
 

Tonguez

Legend
Someone put to words a thing that's been rattling around in my head.

I have no use for a "gritty" Batman movie. Because it amounts to, "What if we just let someone be a cop, but without rules - he gets to beat people up an violate their rights because 'that's what it takes', as if that was a reliable crime-reduction technique, and we will call him a hero." I am not into that. He has body armor and a tank. Cops have body armor and tanks now, Bats, we don't need you. That tiny but really good winch to haul him up a cable? Really? That makes you a superhero?

Give him all the wacky "wonderful toys" and he's a superhero. Without them, his story becomes, "We both have violent mental health issues, but somehow I'm a hero and you are a villain."

thats why Batman needs to have the orphan with murdered parents to justify his existence
otherwise he is just a psychopath

the appeal of Batman is that given the will and the resources even an orphaned child who saw his parents gunned down can chose to be a hero rather than a villain.
 

BookTenTiger

Adventurer
thats why Batman needs to have the orphan with murdered parents to justify his existence
otherwise he is just a psychopath

the appeal of Batman is that given the will and the resources even an orphaned child who saw his parents gunned down can chose to be a hero rather than a villain.

You know, if Batman just gave all his bank-robbing and purse-snatching villains a million dollars each it would probably be cheaper than all that he spends on his bat devices.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
thats why Batman needs to have the orphan with murdered parents to justify his existence
otherwise he is just a psychopath

So... that's one way to look at it. Another is that he's a psychopath... that takes in children - orphans or otherwise defenseless kids with nobody else looking out for them - and trains them to be violent psychopaths just like him. He takes children into deadly battle.

Yeah. That's real heroic.

(Don't worry - I have the same issues with Professor X. I'm even handed about it.)

the appeal of Batman is that...

...he's a badass. You left that part out. A major part of the appeal is that he's a badass.
 

Someone put to words a thing that's been rattling around in my head.

I have no use for a "gritty" Batman movie. Because it amounts to, "What if we just let someone be a cop, but without rules - he gets to beat people up an violate their rights because 'that's what it takes', as if that was a reliable crime-reduction technique, and we will call him a hero." I am not into that. He has body armor and a tank. Cops have body armor and tanks now, Bats, we don't need you. That tiny but really good winch to haul him up a cable? Really? That makes you a superhero?

Give him all the wacky "wonderful toys" and he's a superhero. Without them, his story becomes, "We both have violent mental health issues, but somehow I'm a hero and you are a villain."

This is why I'm not fond of the idea of another gritty batman reboot. We have enough vigilante cops beating up people on the news these days.

I think Nolan's trilogy on the other hand played with the lawless side of Batman in an interesting way. Although it never goes all the way in condemning Batman's vigilant justice.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
CGI is just another tool for creating special effects. I'm not against the use of CGI. I'm against lazy film making; throwing CGI at the screen in order to make a quick buck.

One of the reasons that effect heavy movies like Justice League look so bad, is because apart from the effects, there is not much else there to enjoy. There is very little vision and craftmanship on the screen, just greed.

I do enjoy a lot of the Marvel movies, because despite them also being heavy on effects, the people making those films care about making a good movie. I can ignore bad or sub-par effects, if the movie manages to draw me in. Most of the Marvel movies have pretty good effects, but there are the occasional hasty effect shots if you pay attention to that sort of thing. Avengers Endgame had some really wonky shots of the Hulk during the finale, and several action scenes in Black Panther looked really bad, like something out of a PS2 game. But we can forgive those flaws, because even if you stripped these movies of all their effects, you'd still be left with a pretty fun movie.

Nolan's Batman trilogy looks so great, because it is a perfect blend of traditional effects (miniatures and sets), and modern effects (CGI). The director cares about the effects as story telling devices, and tries his best to make them look good through his direction and through editing and proper lighting.

Speaking of Labyrinth btw, which @Zardnaar just mentioned. That movie has some computer effects and motion tracking shots that have not aged well at all. It may have been one of the first movies to attempt motion tracking (which is an impressive feat despite the final product), but it looks pretty bad. It is constantly stuttering and is very jarring.


Didn't look that good at the time either late lol.

I just assumed it was blue screen.
 

Didn't look that good at the time either late lol.

I just assumed it was blue screen.

With blue screen effects in old movies, they tend to keep the camera in one place because of this problem. It is very difficult to match the camera movements of the foreground, with that of the background, unless you use a computer to motion track the shot. The technology was clearly not ready at the time of the movie labyrinth.

The rest of labyrinth relies mostly on good old forced perspective and painted backgrounds that were filmed in camera, which tends to look a lot better.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
With blue screen effects in old movies, they tend to keep the camera in one place because of this problem. It is very difficult to match the camera movements of the foreground, with that of the background, unless you use a computer to motion track the shot. The technology was clearly not ready at the time of the movie labyrinth.

The rest of labyrinth relies mostly on good old forced perspective and painted backgrounds that were filmed in camera, which tends to look a lot better.

Yeah still fun though. Watched the hell out of that movie as a kid and the making of it.

Rewatched couple of months ago it's on Netflix iirc.
 

Yeah, that movie is a classic. So much fun. I also enjoy the '89 Batman btw (although a lot of its miniature shots don't hold up). Apparently Michael Keaton will be returning in the role of Bruce Wayne in the upcoming Flash movie, which I am really excited for. Of all the Batmans that we've had, I feel Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne. Because Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different characters in my view. Christian Bale was a pretty good Batman, but not as convincing as Keaton's Bruce Wayne. I especially like the dinner scene he has with Vicky Vale, where he confesses he's never been in that room of his house before, followed by that charming scene in the kitchen with Alfred telling stories. It perfectly captures this image of a billionaire who doesn't know what to do with all his money and his big empty house.

 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
Yeah, that movie is a classic. So much fun. I also enjoy the 90's Batman btw (although a lot of its miniature shots don't hold up). Apparently Michael Keaton will be returning in the role of Bruce Wayne in the upcoming Flash movie, which I am really excited for. Of all the Batmans that we've had, I feel Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne. Because Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different characters in my view. Christian Bale was a pretty good Batman, but not as convincing as Keaton's Bruce Wayne.

Confession here super hero comics weren't such a thing. You could get them but grew up with more British ones, Commando, War, Beano, Buster, Whizzzer and Chips.

So when I saw the Batman logo I didn't see the vat but the golden part.

Thought it was a mouth with tonsils or something.

But yeah the 1989 and Christian Bale ones are my favorite Batman movies.
 

Pattinson has a tough job ahead of him. I don't envy Robert Pattinson at all. Those are some heavy boots to fill. No matter how good/bad he plays the part, people are always going to compare him to the Batman's that have come before (and we've had some great ones).

I hope he finds a way to make the role his own, and gives his own unique twist on the two characters.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Pattinson has a tough job ahead of him. I don't envy Robert Pattinson at all. Those are some heavy boots to fill. No matter how good/bad he plays the part, people are always going to compare him to the Batman's that have come before (and we've had some great ones).

I hope he finds a way to make the role his own, and gives his own unique twist on the two characters.

Nope might be the wrong casting choice.

He's got the acting chops but yeah Twilight effect.
 



Ryujin

Adventurer
Truth be told, I'd really like to see what John Cusack could do with the role of an older Batman. He'd likely be great at playing a dilettante Bruce Wayne and he's something like 6'2", so would stack up well against the usual short Hollywood actors.

EDIT Come to think of it he'd be great casting for a reprisal of the 1960s Adam West tonge-in-cheek Batman. "Gross Point Blank" shows that.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top