Premium Format Batman Keaton Premium Format Figure

[Josh-A-Tron]

Good Josh, you're coming around more and more.




It had to be, it was animation for a cartoon.

In Feat of Clay, it had that little claw/cutter thing that Batman used in the film to rid the city of the smylex balloons. Some of the shots are taken directly from the film.




View attachment 167964
View attachment 167965


His name was Jack Napier, he was a mob hitman (instead of killing Bruce's parents, he whacked Andrea's dad). He had a run in with Batman and he blamed him for falling into the vat of chemicals.



There is no one, true Batman. He's constantly changing with the times. They build and build from story to story, medium to medium. Originally he killed villains, fought mad doctors, vampires and werewolves, all while driving a red car. Then he went on crazy adventures with Robin in outer space fighting imps and aliens. Then the 60s show happened and was engrained in popular culture. Then comic sales were plummeting and they O' Neil came in. Then Miller, then Burton, etc. etc. Batman redefined the character in the late 80s/90s, just like the TV show had done in the 60s and the Nolan films had done in 2005-2012.

Wait wait, You think the Nolan films have redefined Batman as a character? Come on man. The Nolan films did nothing as far as defining Batman, as a matter of fact what has come after those films has gone further away from that iteration of Batman. Batman is defined by the times more than anything which is why you can not point to a single film as redefining point. It all starts in the comics, if anything, the comics define the Batman we see in other media. Which is why the Batman you're about to see(Superman vs. Batman) is just another bastardization of mixed era Batman because someone can't settle on which version they'd like to do. The truth is He's been about the same Character since 1970. His speech changes with the times, his cars might change, hell he's even gone through different cowls and symbols but since about 1970 he's relatively the same. He's a detective, a martial artist, a vigilante, he's worked alone or with a team, he's brooding and angry. He hasn't really changed much since then even with the reboots and retellings.

 

[brucecamblzchin]

I like how Josh said 'He' for Batman. He should always be capitalized.

 

[Shoo]

Not very many people outside the USA knew about "TDKR" of most other comic versions of him.

Right, because the rest of the world was a wasteland where comics were not being published.

 

[maverick]

Seems like it is not a too uncommon problem this one.
The hole in my base is quite an tight fit. And i cannot get the peg in when turning the statue in another way.
As others stated the right foot thouched the step before fixing the problem. I also managed to get the peg deeper in than before. So now it is harder to notice the space between.
I don`t think i will risk/bother making the peg hole a better fit.
no

So maybe it is too tight when turned the right way....

Ok thanks I seem to have for it in a bit further and I'm not sending it back it's a beautiful PF, I've wanted one since I first saw it just so glad I've got it now

 

[Bustajesse]

Well 1989 Batman redefined the character for me.

 

[Animal Mother.]

I was born in 82, so my first exposure was the Super Powers Batman. I still remember that my impression was at that time that he was a serious ass kicker, but not a dark and brooding character. When the Burton movie came out, it was like a light bulb went off, in that it made more sense for the character. Like it was an aspect that was hidden (mind you, I was a very young little kid, so I didnt know much about his comics or especially tdkr).

When those Super Powers cartoons were released on dvd, I could see a little where I got that initial impression. Even though West came back to do the voice at that point, Batman was played more straight laced and serious than he was on previous Super Friends serious. But still not dark yet.

 

[Tbolt]

Josh a tron, you must have been a wee lad in 89' to hold such an opinion. Let me lay it down for you as someone who was quite a bit more seasoned at that point. Millers Dark Night wasn't even the comic Batman of the day. Sure he was getting gritty, but most comic readers were pretty mixed about that mini series, and considered it like an elseworlds version. Second, nobody took comics, stories, movies seriously at the time. Only little kids could get away with wearing anything 'comic' related. If you had outgrown your underoo's, you were too old for that sort of thing. Keaton's Batman changed the landscape. Without that, and it was a BIG risk at the time to tell a comic story not aimed at the scooby doo crowd, you never get the vast array of movies and merchandise you had today. It was a phenomenon. Keaton redefined the comic genre as a medium that could be told to older audiences.

 

[franpincho]

Right, because the rest of the world was a wasteland where comics were not being published.

My bad. I should've specified that I was mostly talking about third world countries, in which an imported comic could cost as much as a week worth of food for some people.

Going to the movies, on the other hand, was cheap.

Well 1989 Batman redefined the character for me.

For me and many others too. To this day.

Josh a tron, you must have been a wee lad in 89' to hold such an opinion. Let me lay it down for you as someone who was quite a bit more seasoned at that point. Millers Dark Night wasn't even the comic Batman of the day. Sure he was getting gritty, but most comic readers were pretty mixed about that mini series, and considered it like an elseworlds version. Second, nobody took comics, stories, movies seriously at the time. Only little kids could get away with wearing anything 'comic' related. If you had outgrown your underoo's, you were too old for that sort of thing. Keaton's Batman changed the landscape. Without that, and it was a BIG risk at the time to tell a comic story not aimed at the scooby doo crowd, you never get the vast array of movies and merchandise you had today. It was a phenomenon. Keaton redefined the comic genre as a medium that could be told to older audiences.

Great post.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

Josh a tron, you must have been a wee lad in 89' to hold such an opinion. Let me lay it down for you as someone who was quite a bit more seasoned at that point. Millers Dark Night wasn't even the comic Batman of the day. Sure he was getting gritty, but most comic readers were pretty mixed about that mini series, and considered it like an elseworlds version. Second, nobody took comics, stories, movies seriously at the time. Only little kids could get away with wearing anything 'comic' related. If you had outgrown your underoo's, you were too old for that sort of thing. Keaton's Batman changed the landscape. Without that, and it was a BIG risk at the time to tell a comic story not aimed at the scooby doo crowd, you never get the vast array of movies and merchandise you had today. It was a phenomenon. Keaton redefined the comic genre as a medium that could be told to older audiences.

Actually Tbolt Millers Year One was the Batman of the time in comics. They had already re-established the character Post Crisis. Millers DK was a break down of the character, elseworlds maybe, but Year One was the new starting point. Told for an teen to adult audience.

 

[DiFabio]

Then let's not forget how radical the reaction was when the first glimpse of Batman emerged. People were shocked about the changes.

"No tights?"
"What is up with the body armor?"
"He looks like Robocop."
"Why is he carrying a gun?"

And that was just the look of him. Now it's all common place today. Why? Because '89 Batman. That aesthetic changed the character.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

Then let's not forget how radical the reaction was when the first glimpse of Batman emerged. People were shocked about the changes.

"No tights?"
"What is up with the body armor?"
"He looks like Robocop."
"Why is he carrying a gun?"

And that was just the look of him. Now it's all common place today. Why? Because '89 Batman. That aesthetic changed the character.

What are you talking about? People to this day complain about the armoring of Batman. the comics didn't change his outfit until the new 52. and it still looks more like tights than it does armor. The only place the armored look has taken any effect is in the films and now the video games(which by the way still try to make the armor look closer to his comic roots). Common place?? people were still looking at the bale outfit and asking why it wasn't black AND grey instead of just black. Common place, where are you looking.

And again, still to this day people also complain about the movie arming Batman like he was the punisher. Even in the 40's before the revision to his origin he was only carrying a side arm.

 

[DiFabio]

That "gun" ended up not even being a hand gun side arm. It was his grapple gadget. It's been in comics, shows, and movies since 1989 because of the film. And I guess the Troika Batman run never happened? How about the new Tim Drake Robin that came out of a desire to match the the aesthetic of Batman and Batman Returns (when Robin was being designed for the films but ultimately never appeared). Also, who cares if people complain about armoring Batman? I've even made the case that I'd love to see a traditional look of the character and I'm sick of the rubber suits. It still doesn't change the fact that for the past 26 years the character has been associated with black armor. Even the elements that didn't spill over directly into the comics still ended up being translated elsewhere.

None of us have even brought up the impact of something as simple as "I'm Batman", which is a line that's been ingrained into pop culture because of the film.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

That "gun" ended up not even being a hand gun side arm. It was his grapple gadget. It's been in comics, shows, and movies since 1989 because of the film. And I guess the Troika Batman run never happened? How about the new Tim Drake Robin that came out of a desire to match the the aesthetic of Batman and Batman Returns (when Robin was being designed for the films but ultimately never appeared). Also, who cares if people complain about armoring Batman? I've even made the case that I'd love to see a traditional look of the character and I'm sick of the rubber suits. It still doesn't change the fact that for the past 26 years the character has been associated with black armor.

And I've given you the grapple gun, It's not like batman didn't have gadgets before the film man. OH Troika, which lasted what Two months and then it was right back to basics. And that wasn't even for the Burton films that was for Batman Forever at the time and they tried to line that up with the film and it failed. the Tim Drake Robin outfit was used but NEVER was it armored. And the ONLY place people associate Batman with black armor is the films. Ever where else anyone turns he looks like he does in the comics. Again, this arguement isn't about how well the film was received or if it was liked, it obviosuly was.

This is about Redefining Batman, which the film NEVER did.

None of us have even brought up the impact of something as simple as "I'm Batman", which is a line that's been ingrained into pop culture because of the film.

Seriously...."I'm Batman" it's a great line in a film, it doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing.

 

[DiFabio]

And I've given you the grapple gun, It's not like batman didn't have gadgets before the film man. OH Troika, which lasted what Two months and then it was right back to basics. And that wasn't even for the Burton films that was for Batman Forever at the time and they tried to line that up with the film and it failed. the Tim Drake Robin outfit was used but NEVER was it armored. And the ONLY place people associate Batman with black armor is the films. Ever where else anyone turns he looks like he does in the comics. Again, this arguement isn't about how well the film was received or if it was liked, it obviosuly was.

This is about Redefining Batman, which the film NEVER did. Seriously...."I'm Batman" it's a great line in a film, it doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing.

Your problem is that you seem to be stuck on just the comics, it's influences and seem to have the 1970s imbedded into your brain. Batman is more than just the comics, he's more than just the movies, he's more than just the cartoons. Nobody here is saying that when Batman 1989 came out and people saw him on the screen, everything in the comics was altered to fit it. It didn't. Nobody is saying that once the film came out, the past 50 year history of the the character, prior to the film was somehow negated. It wasn't. Like I've said before, everything builds on top of each other.

The point is, Batman 1989 did redfine the character and the world he inhabits for every reason people have listed here. It was a milestone on the character's 50th birthday and changed the perception of what the general audiences saw as "Batman". Before that people DID see him as the Adam West Batman. You and I might not have, we might have seen him as our goofy Superfriends Batman, or a certain run of comics from the 70s and 80s, but to everyone else, they saw Batman as smiling fool that ran around with his ward in spandex. The first film changed that entire view. Even lame plot things had an impact for the worse in my opinion. I can't even begin to describe how frustrating it was to have to constantly explain to friends and family that the Joker didn't kill Batman's parents.

By definition,





Everything about Batman 1989 changed Batman. Even if we discount the things that spilled over in "teh comics", by definition, the film completely redefined Batman. It was different and made a new.


I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore here to be honest. I feel myself getting pulled into a circular argument that is actually sort of pointless. Going back to the beginning,

Keaton redefined the character.

Okay I couldn't help myself. I know you love the movie...its pretty obvious but "redefined the character" really....really? come on man.

What franpincho stated wasn't exactly blasphemy.

 

[BurningRage]

This is like a HT Batman thread now

 

[Bill Lehecka]

I'm kicking myself for not picking this up. It's just an awesome PF. But it just happened to come out right when I was in the middle of buying my first house.

 

[DiFabio]

I'm kicking myself for not picking this up. It's just an awesome PF. But it just happened to come out right when I was in the middle of buying my first house.

I'm sure you'll have more opportunities in the future. It's never too late, don't feel bad.

Also, A home > Batman PFs

 

[Bill Lehecka]

I'm sure you'll have more opportunities in the future. It's never too late, don't feel bad.

Also, A home > Batman PFs

I mean, I COULD pick up the regular... But I've been so indoctrinated to think that it's either EX or Fail....

Also a home can hold more Batman PFs, so there's that.... I'm trying to get custom shelves put in my house to hold my current PFs.

 

[Bustajesse]

I'm not sure why this is even an argument.

Anyways I opened up my ex last night. It is heavy. I wasn't expecting the base to weigh so much. The cape is really nice. Everything about it is great. I was a little put off by the pose originally but in person it really works. Love it and glad I got it.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

Your problem is that you seem to be stuck on just the comics, it's influences and seem to have the 1970s imbedded into your brain. Batman is more than just the comics, he's more than just the movies, he's more than just the cartoons. Nobody here is saying that when Batman 1989 came out and people saw him on the screen, everything in the comics was altered to fit it. It didn't. Nobody is saying that once the film came out, the past 50 year history of the the character, prior to the film was somehow negated. It wasn't. Like I've said before, everything builds on top of each other.

The point is, Batman 1989 did redfine the character and the world he inhabits for every reason people have listed here. It was a milestone on the character's 50th birthday and changed the perception of what the general audiences saw as "Batman". Before that people DID see him as the Adam West Batman. You and I might not have, we might have seen him as our goofy Superfriends Batman, or a certain run of comics from the 70s and 80s, but to everyone else, they saw Batman as smiling fool that ran around with his ward in spandex. The first film changed that entire view. Even lame plot things had an impact for the worse in my opinion. I can't even begin to describe how frustrating it was to have to constantly explain to friends and family that the Joker didn't kill Batman's parents.

By definition,


View attachment 168057


Everything about Batman 1989 changed Batman. Even if we discount the things that spilled over in "teh comics", by definition, the film completely redefined Batman. It was different and made a new.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore here to be honest. I feel myself getting pulled into a circular argument that is actually sort of pointless. Going back to the beginning,

What franpincho stated wasn't exactly blasphemy.

To the two parts I bolded, and then I'm letting this go because its obvious nither one of us is going to budge, it's obviously not to "Everyone else" because at the Time batman was one of the most popular characters in fiction before the film came out. And Secondly My whole point is that it didn't make him new or different, he was already Dark and Brooding, angry and a vigilante. The only thing the film did was bring that attitude of Batman that had already been done to a wider audience. That's why it's not a redifining moment, because it was already in place. To say that the film was that moment discounts and discredits what had already happened.

So thats it, I'm done.

I'm not sure why this is even an argument.

Anyways I opened up my ex last night. It is heavy. I wasn't expecting the base to weigh so much. The cape is really nice. Everything about it is great. I was a little put off by the pose originally but in person it really works. Love it and glad I got it.

Because people tend to make an argument when they are of a different opinion.