SSC Batman 1/6 figure

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nope, not the Joker. Like you said, he just breaks his neck.

He kills the pink, female mutant gang leader who's holding the kid hostage. "Back off man, I'll kill the kid, believe me man I will!"

Then Batman takes the machine gun from the other mutant leader, aims it at her, and shoots her, grabbing/saving the kid. Miller leaves the kid in color as Batman is saving him and makes the blood and the mutant leader faded out in black and white.

Batman says, "I believe you". Then goes about his business.

Ohhhh you're right, I didn't even remember that, I need to read it again.
 
Yeah, I really like Brave and the Bold.

I think they had a Swap Thing episode planned.
 
Legends of the Dark Knight, following on the heels of Year One, is my definitive Batman. The only thing I have for nostaliga is '66, as I didn't read comics in the 80's or 90's, didn't watch BTAS, and I never really liked Super Friends.

I'm with DiFabio on this. There is no true Batman, except for what any one fans makes of him. I prefer black and grey, but blue and grey is cool too. Neal Adams's run is the only stuff that compares to LDK for me. I'm a big fan of the post '99 stuff. No Man's Land, Fugitive, Hush, War Games, R.I.P., etc. I can't stand Burton's or Schumacher's stuff, but I love Nolan's.

To each their own. Dogma is for dead imaginations.
 
You sound dumber every time you post. You can have nostalgia for an item from way before you were born. Someone who read the original stories as a young teen and enjoyed them 6 or 7 years ago, who may be 20 now could have nostalgia attached to them. Its a feeling related to time past, not an absolute over the time the item was created. :slap

... I've held my tongue for a while, but I've got to ask. Is there any particular reason that every time you open your mouth you feel the need to be vile, rude, and downright disrespectful?
Yes, I get that you disagree with me, need you be such an *** about it? And not just to me, but to a great many others as well?
I your real life so petty and terrible that the only way you can feel good about yourself is to tear into others?
Or we're you simply never taught manners growing up?
 
For me, Burton's original Batman is a fascinating character study of two damaged individuals who vent their horrors in opposite directions.

The stylized, stage-bound Gotham Burton and Anton Furst created is a masterpiece of expressionism-meets-art deco, by way of the Warner Bros. gangster film. This only personifies the psychology of Bruce Wayne and the Joker in a way that's not too different from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

The final shooting script may not be as well-structured or interested in realism as the Nolan films, but it isn't meant to be.

Danny Elfman's score is near operatic and tops off this fantastical world, giving it a sound as distinct and hummable as anything by John Williams.

Frankly, the reason I love the original so much is because out of any multimedia adaptation, it is by far the closest to the tone and characterization of Bob Kane and Bill Finger's earliest stories. Michael Keaton is The Bat-Man of 1939, driven by vengeance and unstoppable purpose, and not afraid to kill. He's taken directly from the pulp pages, thrown into rubber armor and committed to celluloid.

Batman Returns on the other hand, is ONLY watchable because of the beautiful atmosphere, visuals and music (the cast isn't too shabby, either.) The actual narrative (or lack thereof) is all over the map and gives its audience little to care about.

Batman is a Batman film directed by Tim Burton; Batman Returns is a Tim Burton film with semblances of Batman characters peppered throughout. I have no problem with Burton taking the material and doing his own thing. He just needs a screenplay that's good enough to make it work.
 
Biggest problem with Burton's stuff is it has not aged well. It doesn't really hold up.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I can go all day long about why the old Superman movies didn't age well, but that's not the case for Burton's Batman IMO, it really holds up perfectly, it's like watching TAS in flesh and blood, which also holds up real good.
 
Batman Returns always felt like Burton sat down with Furst's sketchbook and wrote a story around it. There's stuff in there that just ruins the mvie for me - Cats biting Selina back to life, penguin pall bearers, punching through the bottom of the Batmobile, the circus freaks having blueprints for the car...

I loved Michelle Pfiffer. She really got into the role. She saves the movie. Danny DeVito.... I'll be honest he bugs the sh-t out of me after about 5 minutes in whatever he does. I can't watch Sunny for that reason.
 
Biggest problem with Burton's stuff is it has not aged well. It doesn't really hold up.

Indeed. Both Batman movies are pretty laughable now. Nonsensical setting, poor pacing, etc... They are definitely a thing of the past.
 
That, sir, is nonsense. The setting is fantastical, not nonsensical, and the film has a brisk pace that makes it extremely rewatchable. The idea is that Gotham is supposed to exist outside of reality; it's a place where 30's mobsters drive 80's cars and listen to Prince (which, by the way, is part of the film's charm, in my opinion). I actually think it's one of the best paced Batman films, IMO.

We get right into the action, with Batman taking out two thugs, a brief introduction to Jack, a brief introduction to Bruce, and, just like that' we're at Axis Chemical, where ****'s about to go down. From there, everything's working like clockwork; mob scene, mine scene, newsroom, etcetera, etcetera, until we reach the parade, and, subsequently, the church. That film covers a hell of a lot of ground in about two hours, and it doesn't leave anything to be desired; I'd say that's an accomplishment in and of itself.
 
Back
Top