Okay, so is your point that "Batman" 1989 is as poopy as "Shrek 2"? Or that TDKR is as good as "Up"? Or that the divide in quality between TDKR and Batman is = to that between "Up" & "Shrek 2"? Because I
at any of those notions.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12dcf/12dcf0e4d9c202b67b9f00d69e314e2df126dff3" alt="LOL :lol :lol"
Star Wars wasn't a legit phenomenon. It was just a clever marketing tool and promoting blitz used by George Lucas to help sell the film. Merchandising and cheap little toys is the best thing to come out of his films, oh that and CGI. You can feel the effects of it's mediocrity even today. Just walk into any retail store.
There's nothing respectable about those cheesy films today. Just nostalgic memories that the little ****ers had that they still carry in their dysfunctional adult lives. Then they try to force it on to their kids who aren't even interested.
Star Wars might have been great back in the 70s and 80s but now, it's nothing more than just a product.
Or something like that.
DiFabio. Dude. Your sarcastic analogy to SW falls flat. Trust me. I *know* how to make a SW analogy. And that's not how you do it. The day Batman appears on ANY "Top 10 All Time Movie" lists (or even top 100) then you can compare it to the phenomenon that was, and is, SW.![]()
So, Khev, was Star Wars a huge phenomenon *only* because there was a dearth of high adventure films in the late 70s?
Even Tim Burton was quoted as saying it was a "boring" movie that was more a cultural phenomenon than a good movie and of course he hated the forced inclusion of the Prince songs. Are we to believe that Nicholson had indefinite final cut? I wonder why Burton never released a director's cut without those songs. Maybe he thought it'd be too hard to sync up Jack's dancing with anything else.
Or maybe Batman Returns WAS his unofficial director's cut of 89.
I'm sorry, but I really hope there isn't a reboot with JGL. Mostly because it would have to be similar style to Nolan's since it'd be a spinoff type of film & I just want to see something different for once.
That is a completely different discussion, though. We're talking about the fact that more people went to see Batman in 1989 than TDKR in 2012. You're implying Batman was *only* successful because of the lack of superhero movies at that time, and the marketing.
Yeah, maybe it would be like George Lucas' directors cuts. The cuts that are just so loved and cherished by his fans.
Lucas was clearly satisfied with his original works in 1977, 1980 and 1983. So much so that he's still tinkering with them today.
Yeah, I addended my post to acknowledge that. Oh wait, you said it had "more" to do with the dearth of superhero movies. My bad.
Even Tim Burton was quoted as saying it was a "boring" movie that was more a cultural phenomenon than a good movie and of course he hated the forced inclusion of the Prince songs. Are we to believe that Nicholson had indefinite final cut? I wonder why Burton never released a director's cut without those songs. Maybe he thought it'd be too hard to sync up Jack's dancing with anything else.
Or maybe Batman Returns WAS his unofficial director's cut of 89.
tim burton thinks every movie is boring without his love, johnny depp.![]()
And when I say marketing and hype I don't just mean one-sheets and print ads. The Batman trailer was pretty great. The engine igniting on the back of the Batmobile, "Wait till they get a load of me," that had us chomping at the bit! I saw it three times at the theater (compared to "only" twice for TDKR) just to see those images alone.
not a reboot, but a 4th film with christian bale, michael caine and gary oldman. still haven't seen the riddler or the penguin.
So there's a walkway....that's where the similarity ends.