Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[VintijDroidGutzz]

''a $1050 have we?''

$1100..

 

[Frank]

Right on man!

"You can't watch a Warner Brothers movie without a Warner Brothers' ball cap!"

Sallah

I'll drink to that... with a diet coke in a batcape!

 

[Wor-Gar]

Come on... It actually was. I would take it any day over any superhero flick of the past 2 decades.

That's not giving it much of a challenge.

But seriously, I wasn't talking about how important it was to you growing up, or to anyone. I was talking purely as a well crafted movie -- like, well written, well acted, good storytelling, good camera work, etc. It really had none of those things. It rocks purely for being visionary in its design and artwork and style. In fact, it is the perfect example of style over substance.

Maybe I should head over to a Nolan thread and share it.

How does Nolan always weasel his way into these conversations? I really don't like his Batman films. I like Ledger's Joker, but not Nolan's Batman.

 

[Frank]

Comic book films in general are like 85% style/symbolism over substance to start. For what they are, Batman 89 absolutely killed it. I have to admit I'm pretty impressed if you were a kid thinking "meh, it's okay."

 

[Ropen]

I actually caught on the superhero flicks when I went to the theaters and saw Batman Returns, from what I heard my parents took me to Batman in 1989 but I couldn't remember. I honestly think this topic is the only demand for Batman Returns... We need to invade the asian hot toys forums and voice our opinion. seriously though.

 

[Wor-Gar]

I have to admit I'm pretty impressed if you were a kid thinking "meh, it's okay."

I wanted to like it, I really did. A year of hype and excitement. But after I left the theater I just wasn't blown away nor excited. In fact, I was disappointed. The film felt ad-libbed half the time and more of a patchwork of sketches rather than a story that built upon its parts; Jack goofing and having a ball with enimas and fart sounds, Keaton at half speed (accept for the "lets go crazy" bit), the odd Prince songs thrown in, some remnants of a story about Joker holding Gotham hostage with bathroom products because he wants to out Batman, Alfred let's Vicki into the Bat Cave, the Bat Wing gets taken down with a joke pistol,... and then there was Vicky Vale. It had moments. But too much other junk.

So I fed my need on 'art of' and 'makin of' books. I doubt anyone could argue that Batman is masterful filmmaking like Jaws or Raiders or even Die Hard. Burton has his "Burton" style -- I always thought he'd be a great art director -- but he's never been able to tell a good, compelling story other than Ed Wood.

 

[Frank]

Around how old were you? My preteen imagination was taken for a complete spin. I get what your saying and it's easy now to separate the various film elements but man, you must have been a bit older or one hell of a cinephile. All I needed was a handful of those fully realized depictions to attribute much more than there really was. My only qualm was that it didn't last three hours. That last shot of him looking up at the Bat Signal got me even more stoked to see this Batman in a sequel.

You brought up some other truly classic films and Indiana Jones was probably the perfect action adventure film, Jaws the perfect horror blockbuster, and Die Hard one of the best action/suspense films ever. I've always placed superhero movies on a different plain because they have important limitations to originality and something I like to call an adaptation effect. Every single one has a major conceit to a power fantasy that from the start keeps the subject matter from being as relevent as many other genres. They have to spend alot of effort to make the conceit somewhat believable (this is where looking good in a costume plays a big part) and when it works, it's 100% entertaining though it's depth and meaning are easily outstripped in films that are more "human" in scope.

It comes down to this, Batman 89 was more than the sum of its parts but not more than Batman. Burton's style was constrained by WB, Elfman was a revelation all of his own, Anton Furst's design, Nicholson's manic charisma, and Keaton's restrained and brooding Bat pushed the whole brand into new territory and it never looked back. For me there isn't any chance another movie or superhero could have everything come together as well as it did that summer. There are lots of better films out there but I didn't want to see a great original film, I went to see the (arguably) most iconic superhero of all time brought to life which is a special thing all its own.

 

[batfan08]

Batman 89 is amazingly fun. I didn't get to experience the Batmania that some of you did, but I most certainly wore out my VHS copy. Suffice it to say, that's an incredibly fun movie. Every time I watch it, I want to listen to "Partyman."

 

[sallah]

But seriously, I wasn't talking about how important it was to you growing up, or to anyone.

Ha... I see what you did there. Since I didn't say anything about how much it meant to me as a kid in my reply, I can infer from your thinly-veiled jab that the only way one might appreciate and defend this film is through the eyes of their childhood. Nope. Sorry... I would still think it was a great flick even if I saw it brand new in my mid-thirties.

I was talking purely as a well crafted movie -- like, well written, well acted, good storytelling, good camera work, etc. It really had none of those things. It rocks purely for being visionary in its design and artwork and style. In fact, it is the perfect example of style over substance.

Take everything you said and reverse it to get my feel for this film. Stating your opinion as fact won't make it true... It is still just your opinion. One I STRONGLY disagree on. In my opinion- It has strong storytelling and was well written, the camera work is superb (nothing tops that first reveal of Batman), and the acting completely sells you into this comic world.

I'm really not sure how the movie would have been the long-lasting, monster hit it was if it were all the things you just claimed. Style would only take it so far... And things like Keaton STILL being revered for his take on Batman and folks still debating whether Bale or he did a better job as the character wouldn't exist if it was poorly-acted.

How does Nolan always weasel his way into these conversations? I really don't like his Batman films. I like Ledger's Joker, but not Nolan's Batman.

It didn't have to be Nolan- I just picked that as an example. I could just as easily have said I want to tread into the Hot Toys Mandarin thread and talk about how much Iron Man 3 stunk and how wrong everyone is that likes it. Going out of your way to post in a thread devoted to a certain thing just to point out how bad it is? That is just obnoxious, and something I myself don't do.

But hey... I guess that is what the ignore button is for, isn't it?

Sallah

 

[Wor-Gar]

Ouch, Sallah, I apologize if I personally insulted you. You and I go way back; you should know better. Did you actually suggest the 'ignore' button for my three very civil posts? Come on.

OK, defending my position: I made the comment about childhood because the younger you are the greater an impact a movie will have on you. There are those that think Goonies is brilliant. As the other two posts allude, those guys were preteen or younger when they saw this movie.

Frank had a very sensible way of offering counterpoint. Your arguement really was emotional and opinionated. Which is fine, so was mine. But you really can't argue from a filmmaking standpoint that Batman stands in the same class as the others I mentioned. I'm not sure saying its a 'comic book movie' let's it off the hook. There are plenty of fantasy films that tell a better story and are better constructed than Batman but still have effects and wild costumes.

Anyway, this all started because I said I wish the film was better -- my opinion at the time -- and this has once again expoded into an opinionated arguement over a film that we all love. I'm here, you're here; we're all here for one reason -- we love the movie in one way or another.

I love Nicholson's Joker (not always pleased with his antics)... I love Keaton as Bats.... I love the design as stated, the artwork, the costumes... and I forgot the best part, which Frank reminded me of, the music.... up until then, when I heard the word Batman, I, like many, associated that music from the 60's show... and in one night at the theater Elfman rid me of that brain-lock and gave us what is probably one of the single greatest soundtracks of the 20th century.

I still can't stand Vicky Vale. Sorry.

 

[Giantqtipz]

i can stand kim basinger..

 

[haytil]

Ouch, Sallah, I apologize if I personally insulted you.

Dude, you got nothing to apologize for. There was nothing insulting or "jabbing" about your posts.

All you did was fail to toe the Sallah line. There are certain kinds of people who really only want to surround themselves with people who have the exact same opinions and views as themselves - it makes them feel validated, so they continue to ignore anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately, the internet has become a great tool for those kinds of close-minded people to insulate themselves in such a manner.

For the record, I think you're right. "Batman" is an important movie to me personally, and I think it's objectively pretty badass, but it is not "great" cinema in the vein of many other movies mentioned in this thread. Even "Batman Returns," in every respect and from a production standpoint, is a step above.

 

[sallah]

Ouch, Sallah, I apologize if I personally insulted you. You and I go way back; you should know better. Did you actually suggest the 'ignore' button for my three very civil posts? Come on.

OK, defending my position: I made the comment about childhood because the younger you are the greater an impact a movie will have on you. There are those that think Goonies is brilliant. As the other two posts allude, those guys were preteen or younger when they saw this movie.

Frank had a very sensible way of offering counterpoint. Your arguement really was emotional and opinionated. Which is fine, so was mine. But you really can't argue from a filmmaking standpoint that Batman stands in the same class as the others I mentioned. I'm not sure saying its a 'comic book movie' let's it off the hook. There are plenty of fantasy films that tell a better story and are better constructed than Batman but still have effects and wild costumes.

Anyway, this all started because I said I wish the film was better -- my opinion at the time -- and this has once again expoded into an opinionated arguement over a film that we all love. I'm here, you're here; we're all here for one reason -- we love the movie in one way or another.

I love Nicholson's Joker (not always pleased with his antics)... I love Keaton as Bats.... I love the design as stated, the artwork, the costumes... and I forgot the best part, which Frank reminded me of, the music.... up until then, when I heard the word Batman, I, like many, associated that music from the 60's show... and in one night at the theater Elfman rid me of that brain-lock and gave us what is probably one of the single greatest soundtracks of the 20th century.

I still can't stand Vicky Vale. Sorry.

First... the ignore thing was meant as a joke. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. As for me being personally insulted? No, I didn't take it as that. My response wasn't meant to be insulting to you either, as I just argued back against your statements, but not on a personal level.

Second... Saying "I really can't argue from a filmmaking standpoint that Batman stands in the same class as the others I mentioned" is again, treating your opinion as a fact. I 100% would argue it on the same standpoint as the others you mention. Again- These are OPINIONS of the film. You are talking in absolutes, as if no one should be able to appreciate it on the same level of those films across all aspects. Why? Because you don't? That is silly.

Lastly... Your posts are steeped in contradictions it seems. You state the film didn't have good camerawork... then applaud its visuals (which owe a lot to that camera work). You state it didn't have good acting... then go on about how much you love Keaton's Batman and Nicholson's Joker. Huh?

I really don't want to keep going around on this though. It isn't what the thread is for. But again- I stand by my point that going out of your way to bemoan something in a thread that devoted to it just feels like bad form.... and as a Burton fan, I do get a little tired of seeing it as it happens a lot. I am not saying you have to love something because I do... I just don't get coming over to dog stuff in threads devoted to it. It sometimes feels like the only way people can validate their likes is by tearing down the things that other people like. I am not saying you are doing that; I am just saying that dealing with that so much gets tiresome.

Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't think Wor-Gar stated anything profane or ill-tempered here. It doesn't even sound like he hates it, he digs the visuals. As far as the "opinion vs. facts" thing goes, I think at some point, we all tend to discuss our opinion like it's a hardcore fact. I've certainly done it. It gets old posting "imo", "imo" at the end of every post. We all know that it's our own opinions, even if our posts don't reflect it out of passion alone.

I also know how Wor-Gar feels. I have the same reservations about other films that are heralded as classics or greats. Off the top of my head, the best example I have is Blade Runner. Everyone seems to tote it around as this masterpiece. Me? Other than the fantastic visuals, effects, cast and tone of the film, I absolutely despise it. I think the pacing is ambien inducing and the story/plot and writing is extremely disappointing given the themes of the subject matter. The theatrical run and all of the directors cuts are just BAD to me. And Daryl Hannah? Don't get me started.

But so what? It shouldn't affect the opinion of those who love it or think it's the epitome of science fiction noir or whatever. There is no "good" or "bad" movie. You either invest yourself with what you're seeing and let it resonate with you . . . or you don't. Batman 1989? I dig it for many things, it's one of my favorites. It's by no means a perfect film, but I've never been overly disappointed by any of it. I've come to realize though, if you watch anything with a cynical eye, even the things you love, you can easily rip them a new one. Jaws? Indiana Jones and Die Hard especially? Those are some of my favorite films. If I wanted to though, I could be more critical of them and crap on them. Recently, I've done this with The Terminator in the Aliens/Robots thread out of some weird sense of retaliation for the T2 hate over there. Terminator is one my all time greats, I can't even explain the impact that it's had on me or how much I enjoy it (I registered to Sideshow to talk about it). As soon as I see people **** on T2 though, a film I also really love, I can easily find things "wrong" with Terminator.

At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is your own. Not everyone is going to love Batman. Different strokes and all that. For me? I loved it as a kid, I love it now, even with it's "imperfections". If people don't share my eyes for it, oh well. I'm sure there's something else we have a common interest in and can discuss.

 

[jye4ever]

In other words, Wor-Gar, run for it, DiFabio is coming with a Gatlin gun after yo ***.

 

[DiFabio]

Wut, no

 

[Wor-Gar]

I'm sorry Sallah, but if you're gonna dish it out then you damn well better be able to take it.

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of how this film is crafted. They teach this kind of stuff in school, there are books on the subject; I'm arguing the difference between a hamburger and a steak and your arguing that its doesn't matter because they are both yummy food. The fact is that no one says Batman is a brilliant example of well-crafted filmmaking. Perhaps in the experience it is, but certainly not as an example of exceptional craft. That doesn't mean the film is not enjoyable. It is just one of the reasons I was disappointed and had hoped for more when I first saw this movie.

Also, nothing I said was contradictory. Camera work and production design are two different things. I don't think the camera work was very good in this movie -- but that is Burton's choice and style. Now that is my opinion. Also, I don't think the acting was stellar: Nicholson and Keaton were good -- not brilliant -- but the rest were fair at best. Now this IS opinion of course again.

And I didn't go out of my way to piss on anyone here, especially not you. Why you are so demanding and hot-tempered about this is nuts. I'm not attacking you or your movie. And you are right -- this is not what THIS thread is for -- this is a Batman Returns thread and I have no idea how we all got on the first film.


EDIT: OK, while I was writing DiFabio chimed in and I have to say.... I agree with him wholeheartedly. I also feel the same way about Blade Runner -- I have a love/hate thing with that movie too. But anyway, each to his own; I fault no one for loving Batman. I fault people for not being tolerant.

 

[sallah]

I'm sorry Sallah, but if you're gonna dish it out then you damn well better be able to take it. .

Huh? Dish what out? Take what? I responded to your statements... What am I not taking?

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of how this film is crafted. They teach this kind of stuff in school, there are books on the subject; I'm arguing the difference between a hamburger and a steak and your arguing that its doesn't matter because they are both yummy food. The fact is that no one says Batman is a brilliant example of well-crafted filmmaking. Perhaps in the experience it is, but certainly not as an example of exceptional craft. That doesn't mean the film is not enjoyable. It is just one of the reasons I was disappointed and had hoped for more when I first saw this movie. .

How exactly am I doing that? Film is a visual artform, open to each person's interpretation. What you think looks beautiful and well-executed isn't that same as what I think is beautiful and well-executed. I am not saying they are both "yummy food"... I am arguing that what is well-executed and pleasing is in the eye of the beholder.

And to be honest- I have also never heard anyone call Die Hard or the others you mentioned as being completely above Batman in this regard as "brilliant examples of well-crafted filmmaking".

Also, nothing I said was contradictory. Camera work and production design are two different things. I don't think the camera work was very good in this movie -- but that is Burton's choice and style. Now that is my opinion. Also, I don't think the acting was stellar: Nicholson and Keaton were good -- not brilliant -- but the rest were fair at best. Now this IS opinion of course again. .

Production design doesn't mean a hill of beans if it isn't lit and shot well. And again- I don't understand how you can say you "love" someone's portrayal of a character while stating that their acting wasn't good? That seems pretty contradictory to me?

And I didn't go out of my way to piss on anyone here, especially not you. Why you are so demanding and hot-tempered about this is nuts. I'm not attacking you or your movie. And you are right -- this is not what THIS thread is for -- this is a Batman Returns thread and I have no idea how we all got on the first film.

Nor did I? And I don't think I am being hot-tempered or demanding in any way? You made this statement here, I responded to your statements and shared my feelings on making these kinds of posts in general... How is that demanding or hot-tempered?

EDIT: OK, while I was writing DiFabio chimed in and I have to say.... I agree with him wholeheartedly. I also feel the same way about Blade Runner -- I have a love/hate thing with that movie too. But anyway, each to his own; I fault no one for loving Batman. I fault people for not being tolerant.

I too agree with DiFab. I am not being intolerant of your view... I just get tired of having to deal with this stuff in Burton threads. If you are going to make statements like that here though (especially with statements like "I can't argue that it is better", etc)- Yeah, I am going to argue the other side of it.

Sallah

 

[Wor-Gar]

Nor did I? And I don't think I am being hot-tempered or demanding in any way? You made this statement here, I responded to your statements and shared my feelings on making these kinds of posts in general... How is that demanding or hot-tempered?

You should re-read your first long post to me last night, it was kind of nasty... ending with the ignore comment.

There truly is a factual difference between well-made films and not. I'm sure we could agree about another example that you are not so passionate and close-minded about. And your comment "Production design doesn't mean a hill of beans unless its shot right?" -- what does that even mean? You've never seen a movie with great production design but was poorly shot? Why do they give an Oscar to something that can't work without lighting and a camera? And lastly, I can give many examples of not-so-great acting from characters I love -- Mark Hamill comes to mind first.

Look, I'm not going to "win" this and I'm not trying to. But your intolerance here is frustrating. You can't devolve everything into a "that's your opinion, man" arguement. I know you love Batman. Got it. I have no problem with that. Why do you have a problem that I have my disappointments with it?



My apologies to you guys who have no interest in this lively debate. But as soon as I think I'm out, he keeps pulling me back in.

 

[sallah]

You should re-read your first long post to me last night, it was kind of nasty... ending with the ignore comment.

There truly is a factual difference between well-made films and not. I'm sure we could agree about another example that you are not so passionate and close-minded about. And your comment "Production design doesn't mean a hill of beans unless its shot right?" -- what does that even mean? You've never seen a movie with great production design but was poorly shot? Why do they give an Oscar to something that can't work without lighting and a camera? And lastly, I can give many examples of not-so-great acting from characters I love -- Mark Hamill comes to mind first.

Look, I'm not going to "win" this and I'm not trying to. But your intolerance here is frustrating. You can't devolve everything into a "that's your opinion, man" arguement. I know you love Batman. Got it. I have no problem with that. Why do you have a problem that I have my disappointments with it?



My apologies to you guys who have no interest in this lively debate. But as soon as I think I'm out, he keeps pulling me back in.

Not being intolerant. You made your points, I argued the counter... never stating that you weren't entitled to that opinion (which you actually did do by stating I couldn't argue my view of something versus yours). Simple as that. Reading it back... I honestly don't feel it was being nasty, but I apologize if it came across that way to you. That is the difference in reading something versus hearing it.

Either way... I'm not looking for a "win". I just responded to your blanket statements on the film with views of my own.

My apologies as well for eating up this thread. If you would like to discuss it further Wor-Gar, feel free to PM me.

Sallah