The best summer movie season ever is now over.
- Thread starter plasmid303
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Uh, you accidentally typed Jen's name there and not mine. I forgive you thoughJen is so smart, sassy, and sexy!
furystorm
Super Freak
I haven't met you yet though, so I only know that you are smart and sassy.
Jen, however, I damn well know is sexy!
Jen, however, I damn well know is sexy!
If 89's Batman is a "classic" then 2011 will definitely be remembered. CA:TFA, Thor, and X:FC are all superior movies to Burton's Batman.
Jen
KurJen - Kurgan Mod
I haven't met you yet though, so I only know that you are smart and sassy.
Jen, however, I damn well know is sexy!
As long as I'm considered sassy, then that's all I really care about
I don't consider '89 Bats classic really, but I think it's more special and memorable than these others you reference because it has something those others don't--it was really different from any superhero film that came before. There was no precedent for how to do big-time comic movies apart from Superman. With all these newer films, they are variations on an established convention for how to do comic films. I think First Class stands apart last summer because it broke with convention more than Thor or Cap, but even then, anything they did to buck trends was minor compared with what Burton Batman did.
I agree that Batman 89 was better for its time than last year's superhero films but to this day Donner's Superman is STILL the best Superman movie and still one of the best superhero movies ever whereas Batman 89 is a distant fourth just in Batman movies alone and way down the list in superhero movies overall.
Well, I think that's subjective. Personally, I agree with your ranking, but I'm sure nostalgia plays more than a small part in that. If Superman: the Movie was released today, or even in '89, exactly as it was, I suspect the response to the film wouldn't have been what it was. I mean, the plot is pretty ridiculous, they spend a LOT of time doing origin stuff, Luthor was pretty silly, etc. It being the first real successful comic movie ever has to play a big role in how folks view it.
I attended a re-release of the original Superman about 10 years ago. You could tell that it was a crowd of mostly people like me who had seen it but were most likely bringing gals who hadn't grown up with the movie.
The entire audience absolutely *guffawed* during the entire "Can you read my mind" airborne poetry (I think one chick started laughing and then they all did, and then we all joined in together
) but was otherwise behaving as a normal crowd would to any currently well received release. Even the ending when he's holding Lois and then screams at the sky still seemed to pack a punch (based on my perception of the audience reaction anyway.)
I would love for Nolan to tackle a movie solely focused on the ethical question of time travel for Superman
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,156
It's weird how Batman '89, no matter where you go, is always that sacred cow that people want to slaughter. Just chop it's ****ing head off and bury it in the dirt.
"Not that good"
"There are better Batman films"
"Eh, 23 years old"
Now it's debatable if it's a classic? Only nostalgia makes it classic for some people? What the hell happened?
Maybe I'm getting old and losing my memory but I thought the first Batman film was a cultural phenomenon. A gigantic blockbuster hit that most people loved. The hype, the lines around theaters, the buzz. Nicholson vs. Keaton, the black and gold logo poster, the Batmobile, a reinvention of the character with black armor. It was a good film, set a precedent and exceeded what it set out to do. I thought it was bigger than Superman which was also successful. Those two are like the grand daddies of comic book films.
So if Man of Steel and it's possible sequels are hits, is that going to make Superman: The Movie less of an icon and a classic? Huh? What kind of logic is that. Why wouldn't it remain a classic?
The films didn't change. What happened in 1978 or 1989 didn't change. Cinema, people and time is what changed.
I don't care what new movies (remake, reboot, reinterpret, whatever) come out and "better" what was done previously. Those late '70s and '80s films that were and still are highly regarded as classics, even if newer films are technically better and better made.
The Reeve Superman, Robocop, The Terminator, Alien/s, Predator, The Keaton Batman, Nicholson Joker, Marty McFly, Stallone, Arnold, John McClane, Vader, Luke, Han Solo, Star Wars, E.T., Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, The Thing, Snake Plissken etc. etc.
All classic films, all classic characters. If seeing those names, titles or characters don't do it for most people and that "classic"/"iconic" image of them doesn't do it, then I don't know. I mean, other than the visuals and city, I HATE Blade Runner but there's no way it's not a classic.
As for the corniness of Superman, specifically involving Lex Luthor and Otis, the film, for me still has that charm. That timeless quality. You get that vibe from Reeve's performance alone.
I don't see how film classics are debatable now, I really don't.
"Not that good"
"There are better Batman films"
"Eh, 23 years old"
Now it's debatable if it's a classic? Only nostalgia makes it classic for some people? What the hell happened?
Maybe I'm getting old and losing my memory but I thought the first Batman film was a cultural phenomenon. A gigantic blockbuster hit that most people loved. The hype, the lines around theaters, the buzz. Nicholson vs. Keaton, the black and gold logo poster, the Batmobile, a reinvention of the character with black armor. It was a good film, set a precedent and exceeded what it set out to do. I thought it was bigger than Superman which was also successful. Those two are like the grand daddies of comic book films.
So if Man of Steel and it's possible sequels are hits, is that going to make Superman: The Movie less of an icon and a classic? Huh? What kind of logic is that. Why wouldn't it remain a classic?
The films didn't change. What happened in 1978 or 1989 didn't change. Cinema, people and time is what changed.
I don't care what new movies (remake, reboot, reinterpret, whatever) come out and "better" what was done previously. Those late '70s and '80s films that were and still are highly regarded as classics, even if newer films are technically better and better made.
The Reeve Superman, Robocop, The Terminator, Alien/s, Predator, The Keaton Batman, Nicholson Joker, Marty McFly, Stallone, Arnold, John McClane, Vader, Luke, Han Solo, Star Wars, E.T., Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, The Thing, Snake Plissken etc. etc.
All classic films, all classic characters. If seeing those names, titles or characters don't do it for most people and that "classic"/"iconic" image of them doesn't do it, then I don't know. I mean, other than the visuals and city, I HATE Blade Runner but there's no way it's not a classic.
As for the corniness of Superman, specifically involving Lex Luthor and Otis, the film, for me still has that charm. That timeless quality. You get that vibe from Reeve's performance alone.
I don't see how film classics are debatable now, I really don't.
Last edited:
It's weird how Batman '89, no matter where you go, is always that sacred cow that people want to slaughter. Just chop it's ****ing head off and bury it in the dirt.
"Not that good"
"There are better Batman films"
"Eh, 23 years old"
Now it's debatable if it's a classic? Only nostalgia makes it classic for some people? What the hell happened?
Batman didn't live up to its hype even in 89. It just wasn't that spectacular. A triumph in marketing and hype sure. Iconic designs and Joker performance sure. But Superman: The Movie it wasn't and it isn't. Sure it was a "phenomenon" but those come and go. You NEVER see a modern filmmaker say "I was just trying to follow Burton's blueprint," but Donner's Superman is referenced all the time. Heck even Raimi's original Spider-Man has a higher standing with today's filmmakers than Burton's movies.
furystorm
Super Freak
I loved that original Batman film, and still do to this day. I don't watch it often, or even own it on bluray. But I do remember sitting in the front row of a sold out theater. Horrible seats, and still loving the film, and going on to see it at least eight times in theater. That was the first film I went to for repeat viewings. Right time for me I guess. I was 15...
Damn, I even went out and bought the novel adaptation and read it cover to cover in a day, after seeing that film. Loved it! Damn, I even got the Batman watch! It's around here somewhere...
Damn, I even went out and bought the novel adaptation and read it cover to cover in a day, after seeing that film. Loved it! Damn, I even got the Batman watch! It's around here somewhere...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,156
For you maybe.
I don't remember any complaints in '89 or the 90s except, "they let Vicki Vale in the batcave, Joker isn't the killer in the comics" and, "they shouldn't have killed off Jack". Superficial problems that mostly have to do with faithfulness to the comic (sounds familiar).
If you don't personally like it, well, that's your opinion and I respect it. But downplaying it's significance? Like I said, I hate Blade Runner, it's probably one of the few films from the lists in here that I can't stand (other than visually) but there's no way I'd debate that it isn't important, a classic or a phenomenon.
Maybe not modern filmmaking, but after it came out in 1989 I do remember darker films trying to copy the "Batman formula" in the 90s and failing miserably.
You mention Sam Raimi. You don't think Darkman was influenced by Batman? The Donner Superman films? The only one I recall referencing Superman was Nolan and that was about casting great supporting actors. But now? What does Snyder and Co. want to do with Man of Steel "move it away from the old Donner films". I also recall David Goyer saying in 2003 or 2004 during the time of Batman Begins how the '89 film set a bench mark and that his hope was making a Batman film that could live alongside the Burton ones.
Also, you don't think Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises have influences from the first two Batman films? That's nuts. The construction of the batsuit alone from the "black armored" rubber to the raccoon eyes were taken directly from that original suit.
I think you're downplaying '89s impact and I'm not sure why.
https://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/12/impact-of-batman.html
https://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/their-comments-on-others-work.html
Last edited:
Aren't they intrinsically debatable? Is there some standard as to what is a "classic" and what isn't?
When you say "The films didn't change. What happened in 1978 or 1989 didn't change. Cinema, people and time is what changed." I think you are bringing up a good point in that, in my view, a classic has to, among other things, stand up to the test of time. We'll have movies come along all the time that have lots of hype when released, but then fail to maintain their spark for one reason or another. I'm not saying Batman is this (even though I don't really consider it a classic film personally), but I can see the argument being made. Same with Superman. Both of those films, in my opinion, still hold a special place in movies for their historical significance. But based on their merits as films, considering all the knowledge we've had of movies up to now, and what constitutes a "good" movie created at various times, I'm not sure either stands up all that well. At least Batman can get by saying it was an artsy interpretation, so I think it has an advantage of Superman in that respect.
And don't get me wrong, I love Superman. Just trying to take off the rose-tinted glasses for the purpose of critical analysis. Surely, there are some great moments in that film (the score, the majesty of Reeve in the role) that I doubt will ever suffer due to the vagaries of time.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,156
Of course, I agree with you there. By definition in order to be a "classic" a film has to stand the test of time.
At 34 and 23 years and all these new superhero films coming out on a yearly basis, I'd say Superman and Batman have done really well. No?
Why do people want to go back and "destroy" them?
I know exactly what you're saying. We're pretty much on the same page.
You just listed some of the reasons the films HAVE stood the test of time though, like Reeve and the score.
I'll admit, if you look back and think critically some of the things just don't hold up. Special effects, Prince Music, cheese, 70s pimps talking trash on Superman's outfit, etc. etc. But there's more good than bad I think.
And let's face it, we could do that to our FAVORITE classics. Terminator, Star Wars, if you let it, you could definitely knock them off as nothing special.
DarthBakura
Super Freak
I'm inclined to agree. But at the same time, this summer was also really, really awesome.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,044
- Reaction score
- 15
It's weird how Batman '89, no matter where you go, is always that sacred cow that people want to slaughter. Just chop it's ****ing head off and bury it in the dirt.
"Not that good"
"There are better Batman films"
"Eh, 23 years old"
Now it's debatable if it's a classic? Only nostalgia makes it classic for some people? What the hell happened?
Maybe I'm getting old and losing my memory but I thought the first Batman film was a cultural phenomenon. A gigantic blockbuster hit that most people loved. The hype, the lines around theaters, the buzz. Nicholson vs. Keaton, the black and gold logo poster, the Batmobile, a reinvention of the character with black armor. It was a good film, set a precedent and exceeded what it set out to do. I thought it was bigger than Superman which was also successful. Those two are like the grand daddies of comic book films.
So if Man of Steel and it's possible sequels are hits, is that going to make Superman: The Movie less of an icon and a classic? Huh? What kind of logic is that. Why wouldn't it remain a classic?
The films didn't change. What happened in 1978 or 1989 didn't change. Cinema, people and time is what changed.
I don't care what new movies (remake, reboot, reinterpret, whatever) come out and "better" what was done previously. Those late '70s and '80s films that were and still are highly regarded as classics, even if newer films are technically better and better made.
The Reeve Superman, Robocop, The Terminator, Alien/s, Predator, The Keaton Batman, Nicholson Joker, Marty McFly, Stallone, Arnold, John McClane, Vader, Luke, Han Solo, Star Wars, E.T., Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, The Thing, Snake Plissken etc. etc.
All classic films, all classic characters. If seeing those names, titles or characters don't do it for most people and that "classic"/"iconic" image of them doesn't do it, then I don't know. I mean, other than the visuals and city, I HATE Blade Runner but there's no way it's not a classic.
As for the corniness of Superman, specifically involving Lex Luthor and Otis, the film, for me still has that charm. That timeless quality. You get that vibe from Reeve's performance alone.
I don't see how film classics are debatable now, I really don't.
Hate Blade Runner?....ouch!...Now that's nuts....that film changed some folks lives...LOL...here we go again...But yes...if some category doesnt do it for someone in regards to an older classic, then maybe nothing will...Look how many younger folks cant watch a B&W film simply because it is in B&W...nuts...you always gotta give films a chance...So many under 20 crowd do not even know who John Wayne is....or many other Hollywood Gods/Icons from the 60's and earlier
furystorm
Super Freak
Yeah, I was down with that entire post until I read that about Blade Runner...
I dunno if I agree on those. Star Wars is pretty uniformly accepted as the definition of a classic film. Terminator had a period vibe from the '80s, but was a movie that just worked on nearly every level as intended. If Terminator was released today, even with those special effects, I think it would be a huge success because it hits on universal ideas, has great dramatic performances, creates tension in all the right ways, isn't overly cheesy or melodramatic, etc. Same goes for Star Wars, or Alien, or Blade Runner. Superman and '89 Batman just don't fare as well when viewed purely as a film, and not as historically important phenomena.
*and you hate Blade Runner??? Damn.*
