Hot Toys DX09 - BATMAN - Batman (Michael Keaton) - Specs & Pics

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

 

[BrooklynWolf X]

nah man, i'm still staying out of the whole bale vs keaton ledger vs nicholson fiasco.

all i want is a clearer explanation from nam. i mean, seriously, comparing nolan's bats to MICHAEL BAY movies...i mean, really?

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

nah man, i'm still staying out of the whole bale vs keaton ledger vs nicholson fiasco.

all i want is a clearer explanation from nam. i mean, seriously, comparing nolan's bats to MICHAEL BAY movies...i mean, really?

 

[thenammagazine]

i tried to stay out of this constant bickering/debate between burton fans and nolan fans. it ALWAYS ends up ugly and eventually leads to either side trolling one another. but THIS got me scratching my head.

dude, please be more specific. are you inferring that burton's movies are closer to the comic heritage/source material? it's damned evident you show NO love whatsoever for the nolan movies due to it 'being stripped of their comic heritage...or just being so popular" and just because it's so popular, you hate it.

but i am curious to hear your reasoning behind what you said or the exact meaning.

I don't hate either. I think both films ('89 Batman and Begins/TDK) are appropriate films for their time and both are highly enjoyable. There's a certain "fun" to Burton's film. He nailed the characters (well for Wayne, at least the awkward recluse). Nolan's doesn't really feel like a comic move, but more like a contemporary "Black Mask" with the Batman suit on.

Comparing Jokers goes even deeper. While chubby and short, Nicholson personified what the comic Joker is. Joker was a mutated villain whose kills were just as sick, but for lack of a better word, crazy fun. Nolan's is a bit John Gacy, stripping him of his comic origin and making him the a-typical anarchist psychotic (popular in today's movies) who wants to ____ the system and paints his face.

Burton's films were made for a time when moviegoers could get lost in the fun of a movie without over-thinking every little ____ing aspect of things. Nolan's films were dumbed down to where just about every single aspect was spoonfed to the audience, stripping Batman of 99% of the "fantasy" aspect of what makes comic book characters comic book characters, painting over what is essentially a modern day action flick, with Batman window dressings.

 

[vodoun]

Burton's films were made for a time when moviegoers could get lost in the fun of a movie without over-thinking every little ____ing aspect of things. Nolan's films were dumbed down to where just about every single aspect was spoonfed to the audience, stripping Batman of 99% of the "fantasy" aspect of what makes comic book characters comic book characters, painting over what is essentially a modern day action flick, with Batman window dressings.

That is sad.

I'm just curious about you sports fans. When you go to Basketball, Hockey, Baseball, Nascar stadiums, cars, tyres etc...do you sit in the stands an analyze the tarmac, cracks, ice, grass rather than enjoying the sports?

Movie critics scare me as much as figure collectors. No this is not a *** but it seems far too many seem to analyze the backside of everything and anything rather than just try to enjoy something.

I can picture everyone in the crowd like this. Or even here.

 

[Chubs&Doggers]

It's Burtons film and it's Burtons world. Every movie he has ever made takes place there. Just like every other director working today. Nolan included. Inception was dark knight was insomnia... Both burtons and nolans films are great. Different yes. But both are outstanding. These HT of both the 89 joker and 89 batman are epic! Not to missed.

 

[karamazov80]

I think the Nolan movies can be enjoyed without someone over-thinking things and treating it like it's fine art. If you just want to go in looking for a good, dark, Jason-Bourne-like action movie with some tension, threat, and good action set pieces, you'll get that. Same with Burton's movies which, from a stylistic perspective, could certainly be examined with a fine-toothed comb by academics, pretentious movie critics, and pretentious fans alike in the same way Nolan's films could be. Or, you could just go in looking for a fun action movie, and if you do then you won't be too disappointed. . .though Batman's lack of real athleticism in the Burton movies always annoyed me a bit, since that was such a key characteristic of the comic character.

 

[BrooklynWolf X]

I don't hate either. I think both films ('89 Batman and Begins/TDK) are appropriate films for their time and both are highly enjoyable. There's a certain "fun" to Burton's film. He nailed the characters (well for Wayne, at least the awkward recluse). Nolan's doesn't really feel like a comic move, but more like a contemporary "Black Mask" with the Batman suit on.

Comparing Jokers goes even deeper. While chubby and short, Nicholson personified what the comic Joker is. Joker was a mutated villain whose kills were just as sick, but for lack of a better word, crazy fun. Nolan's is a bit John Gacy, stripping him of his comic origin and making him the a-typical anarchist psychotic who paints his face and lacks the clowny humor of the Joker character.

Burton's films were made for a time when moviegoers could get lost in the fun of a movie without over-thinking every little ____ing aspect of things. Nolan's films were dumbed down to where just about every single aspect was spoonfed to the audience, stripping Batman of 99% of the "fantasy" aspect of what makes comic book characters comic book characters, painting over what is essentially a modern day action flick, with Batman window dressings.

thank you for clarifying.

but i still don't see how you can say 'stripped of their comic heritage'. and i STILL don't see how you can say dumbed down and worse, like a bay movie. come on dude...you're actually putting begins/tdk in the same breadth as armageddon/revenge of the fallen? being detailed and spoon fed are two different things man.

the aspect of batman that burton nailed is the mysteriousness of the character. the aspect that nolan nailed is everything else. not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out the differences. he's not as mysterious, but we really delve more into the character. basically, nolan's batman isn't just a contemporary black mask with the batman suit on. if you're talking about his comic heritage, let's not forget, burton's batman killed, nolan's didn't.

joker, come on. they both did a fantastic job. nicholson's joker, while great, echoed cesar romero's joker just a tad, whilst ledgers was a fresh take at the character. yeah, he doesn't get his skin bleached, but it doesn't make him any less of what the joker represents. insanity, anarchy, dark dark humor. there were many depictions of the joker where he wasn't as clowny as nicholson/romero. but that all falls on the writer. either way, BOTH actors offered something different to the table, and more importantly, BOTH were fun to watch in the role.

yes, burton's was more fantasy and nolan's was more real. we already got the fantastical version back in 89. and now we have this. it's cool to prefer one over the other. but c'mon man...that bay comment. just....a low blow. almost like telling an adopted kid that he was adopted.

anyway, i'm actually very sleepy, internal clock isn't where it's supposed to be. so i don't think i can continue on with this debate.

anyway, everyone shouldn't get so worked up when someone expresses his/her like for something.

 

[karamazov80]

I would suggest that Nolan's Batman is more like the comic version than Burton's, while Burton's Joker is more like the comic version than Nolan's.

 

[Avenger]

If you two had to do any "thinking" while watching Nolan's Batman films, then I feel bad for the calories you both burned doing so.

It's the type of thinking that must require a certain IQ to pick up on the nuances I guess.

We luv ya anyway Nam, but will have to disagree on this one.

 

[vodoun]

I think the Nolan movies can be enjoyed without someone over-thinking things and treating it like it's fine art.

We're on SSF though. Sadly it was tarred for me from this board and you know why.
It's another reason I'm not subscribed to the Rises thread or even looking in it.

Thank god I've watched Burton's and Begins endlessly for years before joining. Nobody could tar them.

 

[karamazov80]

I, myself, am avoiding that Rises thread like it's a flesh eating virus.

 

[thenammagazine]

It's the type of thinking that must require a certain IQ to pick up on the nuances I guess.

We luv ya anyway Nam, but will have to disagree on this one.

I agree 100%! Nolan's film was made for those with a 78 IQ, so they could enjoy their Batman, and judging by ticket sales, and Nolan fanaticism, it worked!

 

[Avenger]

I think the Nolan movies can be enjoyed without someone over-thinking things and treating it like it's fine art. If you just want to go in looking for a good, dark, Jason-Bourne-like action movie with some tension, threat, and good action set pieces, you'll get that. Same with Burton's movies which, from a stylistic perspective, could certainly be examined with a fine-toothed comb by academics, pretentious movie critics, and pretentious fans alike in the same way Nolan's films could be. Or, you could just go in looking for a fun action movie, and if you do then you won't be too disappointed. . .though Batman's lack of real athleticism in the Burton movies always annoyed me a bit, since that was such a key characteristic of the comic character.

Hmmm. I don't quite know where the angst comes from. Perhaps I've not been a part of enough of these debates. But, I will defend that the Nolan movies were more than action. That's the point I'm trying to make. The movies had some thematic, meaningful points to make and Nolan managed to do that very well. I found it so unexpected, and was thrilled when seeing TDK. I went into that one unimpressed with the new batman (batman begins) for much the reason Nam is complaining about, that they made the character too realistic to be "batman". I recall complaining to comic book fan friends of mine (I am not a comic book reader though I enjoy the movies), that batman in BB could have been any other action character and been equally the same movie. So, on that I'm not going to fight him or anyone else on. But, I'm astonished by those who won't even give Nolan the credit of not just doing a mindless action movie with TDK, but lacing his movie skillfully with some socially relevant themes that make a person think about them. If anyone missed that in the movies, I'm sorry to hear it.

 

[Avenger]

I agree 100%! Nolan's film was made for those with a 78 IQ, so they could enjoy their Batman, and judging by ticket sales, it worked!

 

[karamazov80]

But, I will defend that the Nolan movies were more than action.

I agree with you, and recognize Nam's Bay comparison as the worst type of hyperbole. But you don't have to treat the Nolan movies as more than they are on their surface--a good comic book yarn you could watch and enjoy, then move on with your life without becoming an obsessive Nolan acolyte.

 

[thenammagazine]

I agree with you, and recognize Nam's Bay comparison as the worst type of hyperbole. But you don't have to treat the Nolan movies as more than they are on their surface--a good comic book yarn you could watch and enjoy, then move on with your life without becoming an obsessive Nolan acolyte.

Hence the Bay comparison.

 

[karamazov80]

Well, based on some of the vitriolic, knee-jerk responses I've seen from supporters of the Bay-Formers movies toward their critics, I can see the similarities there for sure.

 

[Avenger]

Hence the Bay comparison.

The Bay comparison is just mean, because I find Bay to be the lowest form of director in mainstream hollywood. I think you all are confusing me with these acolytes you speak of. I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due, and it seems like some people are so down on the Nolan films they refuse to do that. I love the Burton films too, watched them this morning in fact.

 

[thenammagazine]

The Bay comparison is just mean, because I find Bay to be the lowest form of director in mainstream hollywood. I think you all are confusing me with these acolytes you speak of. I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due, and it seems like some people are so down on the Nolan films they refuse to do that. I love the Burton films too, watched them this morning in fact.

I think it has more to do with fans overhyping them more than what they are, that causes the adverse effect. I can't watch TDK without cringing over all the ____ing douchery it's caused, and nearly has me gagging when Joker says "Why so serious?" A ____ing, ****** shame, really.