Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #21
In the 1943 serial Batman, there's a plot arc wherein he does some undercover detective work, impersonating a criminal to infiltrate a gang of criminals.
batman the never ending movie.....
- Thread starter strollingbones
- Start date
In the 1943 serial Batman, there's a plot arc wherein he does some undercover detective work, impersonating a criminal to infiltrate a gang of criminals.
I prefer the 1966 version with Adam West. He played in the TV series and movie. This is the real the Batman from the comic with the WoWs!, PoPS!, and Holly Feature Film. It all tongue in check. And the only thing dark in the movie is the Bat.
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
in the early comics he was a master of disguise doing that frequently.....
Glad you mentioned that. I remember that now. I think directors of the Batman movies over the last 3 decades have been trying to create a Batman that is more broodings, dark, and often unsure of himself than he should be. I don't think this is the Batman that audiences really want to see. I remember the Superman with Christopher Reeves. He created a superhero who was warm friendly and funny. Event thought he was an alien, he embodied what people wanted to see in a hero. Now Batman can't be Superman but he can embody more humor and less brooding. We really don't care about Batman's enter demons.
Last edited:
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
well in the latest one he is pretty much a dark character....but this was supposed to be him during his early years when he was looked at as a vigilante who could care less if he hurt or killed a bad guy.....
Maybe I am being to critical of Batman. I never really liked the darkness of Batman movies. I see hero movies as being fun. Batman is just not fun.
petro
Diamond Member
I will probably watch it, but there have been so many different takes and actors I find the whole mess confusing.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #28
Since Batman is a creation of the comic industry, I have to recognize that as the most authoritative source to define him.
But I've never been into comics, and have not read the Batman comics. I'm much more of a TV/Movie kind of guy.
I did find it interesting to see that aspect of the character depicted in the 1943 serial, not having seen it in any other media.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #29
One thing I liked about the Michael Keaton version was how he depicted the duality of the character. As Bruce Wayne, he was weak, cowardly, and perhaps a bit mentally unstable. Then he put on the batsuit, and he was a totally different character.
I understand that in the comics, he was depicted similarly, but that the weak Bruce Wayne persona was an intentional act, specifically to avoid looking like the kind of guy that might also be Batman. Somewhat in the style of the Scarlet Pimpernel.
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
who ever said he was supposed to be fun?....the guy is kinda disturbed....
I like the old Superman movies. They were fun to watch. Batman is just not fun. I have seen three of them and have not really liked any of them that much.
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
whats funny about that is Superman and Batman were pretty close buddies....
Batman comics, at least up to the mid 20 century were not that dark.
The Batman TV series and movie in the 60's were a tongue in check comedy.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #35
You really need to see the 1943 serial to get a true sense of how the 1960s Batman was inspired.
The 1943 version was intended to be serious, but due to an extremely tight budget and low production quality, it came out unintentionally comical. The 1960s version was an intentional effort to be what the 1943 version unintentionally turned out to be.
whitehall
Diamond Member
Batman started out with a gay couple fighting crime. Maybe it was really a crime if Batman's young "ward" Robin was under age. It morphed into an inane sy-fy fantasy series with a dwindling number of desperate fans who probably live in their parent's basement in their 30's.
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
thats because of the Comics Code Authority in the mid 50's.....
I saw the Batman series as well as a number of others when I was in grade school in late 40's and 50's. I don't remember much about them except that they were so cheap and cheesy they were really funny even then. Cowboys chasing the Indians with planes flying in the background. Clark Kent changing into superman in the same phone booth no matter where he was and Rocket man's controls from a Norge refrigerator. And then there was Don Diego Vega, alias Zorro who spoke with a Spanish accent in one episode and English access in the next. There was good reason they called Hollywood Tinsel Town.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
My family dragged me to see this last night. The movie was supposed to start at 5:45. They didn't finish cleaning the theater and let the audience in until almost 5:55 . . . and the projector had already started running the previews at 5:45, because it's pre-programmed. I mention this only because it turned out that the previews were the only enjoyable things on the screen that night, so I was upset about having missed them.
This thing was not just boring; it was weapons-grade boredom to the level of being an assault on the viewer's cerebral cortex. The color palette was a visual monotone, and the pacing, direction, dialogue, and acting were also monotone. Except for the occasional time that someone was yelling, every line in the movie was delivered in exactly the same way. Every scene had the exact same emotion and intensity and tone as the one before and the one after. It was like going to the symphony and having every instrument in the orchestra just playing middle C over, and over . . . and over, and over . . . and over, and over.
You know how some movies are praised for their tight pacing and editing that manages to convey layers of meaning and context in just a few words and gestures? This was the opposite of that. It was like listening to a five-year-old describing an episode of his favorite television show and getting hung up on describing every trivial detail of each frame. I have never been bombarded with so much meaningless, tedious crap all at one time in my life.
I identified 7 or 8 moments which should have legitimately been the end of the movie, except they JUST KEPT TALKING, because they had so many damned subplots that each needed their own whole ending, and none of which the movie had ever bothered to make me give a damn about. I don't even know if it was possible to keep them all straight, because I didn't give enough of a shit to try.
At the end of the movie, I was left asking, "What was the point of that? Why were they even bothering to tell me about this?" Or I would have been asking that, had I not been too busy diving over people to run for the bathroom before I pissed myself.
This movie was a miserable, black hole of ennui that sucked all the joy and life out of my world for the rest of the night.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I was gonna go with "whiny".
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
California Balks At Making Child Prostitution A Crime- Started by toobfreak
- Replies: 0
-
Does Mortimer visibly stick out as the foreign and/or POC kid- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
-
