Rate the Batman Movies
blofeld#1
Posts: 118MI6 Agent
This includes the Batman series and The Dark Knight
1 The Dark Knight
2 Batman
3 Batman Forever
4 Batman Returns
5 Batman and Robin
6 Batman Begins
1 The Dark Knight
2 Batman
3 Batman Forever
4 Batman Returns
5 Batman and Robin
6 Batman Begins
Comments
2. The Dark Knight
3. Batman Begins
4. Batman Returns
5. Batman
6. Batman Forever
1,794,777,894,070. Batman and Robin
How could you put Batman Begins at the bottom, especially under the nearly unwatchable Batman and Robin? There's no accounting for taste, I guess. . .
2) Batman
3) Batman 60's movie
4) Batman Begins
5) The Dark Knight
6) Batman Forever
7) Batman Goes Bananas
8) Batman and Robin
2)Batman
3)Batman Forever
4)The Dark Knight
5)Batman Returns
6)Batman and Robin
*There's also the 6o's TV show and the associated films, however I don't think it's fair to rank them alongside the modern day films.
Batman Begins
Batman
Batman Forever
Batman Returns
Batman & Robin
Apart from that, (and the 1960s film), I'm Bat-ignorant. Although I have heard Bats goes Bananas. And that's comedy gold. Good call Mr. Drake.
The 1966 movie (like the show on which it was based) is a high camp affair, done completely for laughs and enormously entertaining unless you're one of the hopeless fanboys who takes the comic way too seriously.
The Tim Burton movies are freakshows with grotesque villains, thin plots and some really offbeat casting. Its no secret that Burton wasn't a fan of Batman and in order to be able to relate to the material he skewed it to his own sensibilities. They're visually striking and still the high point of the films in terms of production design but very weak on plot.
The Joel Schumacher epics are classic examples of filming by committee; crafted for maximum commercial viability and crammed full of toys and gadgets to sell to the kiddies, with Gotham turned a neon-lit pan-Asian metropolis. While Batman Forever is still an entertaininng movie (hijacked somewhat by its over the top villains) Batman & Robin is a loud, obnoxious two-hour toy commercial.
Christopher Nolan, like Burton, also doesn't strike me as much of a Batman fan. As such he too skews the characters and world they inhabit to his sensibilities, dropping the gothic nature of the comics and turning the movies into basically souped up latter day gangster movies in his attempts to make some "serious" statement. He comes the closest of any director at getting the characters right, but really drops the ball in terms of the look of the films with a Gotham City that is way too new and shiny and a Batsuit that doesn't really look much like a Batsuit.
The movies also all try to pidgeon-hole some unlikely romantic interest for Batman, which is not particularly true to the character most of the time, and it often comes across as a manufactured part of the story rather than feeling organic.
As to the actors portraying Batman: Adam West was perfect for his time; nobody does the square superhero better. Michael Keaton gives it an earnest effort but a quick look at the behind the scenes documentaries for his two movies shows just how little time he actually spent in the suit and lets face it: he makes for a stilted, awkward and downright unconvincing Bruce Wayne. Val Kilmer is actually my favorite of the "serious" Batmen; with a suit that looks closest to the comic (minus the nipples, of course), a voice that I can understand and a suitably tortured psyche. George Clooney is a complete non-entity in the role and Christian Bale takes the whole thing a little too seriously and gives a delivery that is at times hard to understand.
So while almost all the movies have positives to contribute and are entertaining in their own right (other than Batman & Robin, which is a complete write-off), none of them really hit the bullseye for me. I'm still waiting for the definitive Batman film.
I know all about waiting for a definitive film on a favorite author/character. Believe me!
Do you like the 1930s and 1940s Batman serials?
No worries Alex, my comments were not directed at you, nor am I upset by your or anyone else's opinion of a movie - we all see things differently, no crime in that. My comments were just a general assessment of the history of the Batman franchise from my admittedly somewhat jaded perspective and were aimed at no one in particular.
Regretfully, I've never seen the 30s and 40s serials, other than the occasional clip here or there. I'd like to at some point but they're never on TV and I've never found a good enough deal for them in a store to warrant a purchase. Hopefully someday....
I was wondering if anybody would pick up on that.
The Dark Knight
Batman
Batman Forever
Batman Returns
Batman & Robin - The worst big budget film ever made. Bar none
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Have you seen Bruce Timm's movie Mask of Phantasm ? I honestly think that is the best Batman film ever. Unlike all the other movies it's truely about how Bruce Wayne became Batman. His personal life shattered as a child and an adult. Yes I know most jump out and say THE DARK KNIGHT but's just too pretentious and really dosen't do much for Batman as a character.
I did see it and I own the DVD and I must confess I wasn't too impressed with it. While I am a fan of Timm's work and have no problem appreciating an animated movie just as easily as a live action one, I thought Mask of the Phantasm was a little too melodramatic for its own good.
It commits a cardinal sin by rewriting the origin mythos so that Bruce becomes Batman not because of his desire to avenge his parent's death (he'd moved past that when he was with Andrea - even going so far as to talk to the painting and confessing he doesn't feel mad anymore) but instead because his relationship with her falls apart. Also, the Phantasm was a weak villain and even the filmmakers seemed to get cold feet about her viability. They didn't have the balls to kill Andrea off, leaving her to pine away on a luxury liner at film's end. Why? Did they really think there would be a sequel? If you're going to mess around with the origin, at least have the guts to take the story to its natural and logical conclusion of Bruce being forced to renounce a woman he loved rather than just wimping out in the third act and giving us yet another Batman vs. Joker faceoff. That was a very poor storytelling decision that really came out of left field.
As far as Batman animated movies go, I always thought World's Finest was a much stronger effort, giving us a Batman and Superman who team up only grudgingly. Both heroes are in their prime and while I detest these romance subplots, making Lois the third corner of a love triangle between Superman and Bruce Wayne was at least inventive. The final act falls apart a bit, but overall I found it a more entertaining effort.
I actually think the melodrama fit because it's a comic book. That is why I enjoy the 70's comics so much. Solidly written stories that have that over the top theatricality about it's dialogue and character development. I really hate this straight faced overly grim stuff of today, it's no fun.
They really didn't do that though. They followed a logical progression of how the pain of his parents wouldn't effect him so much now as an adult. IMO, that makes sense. Bruce was still obessed with his vengence as you see he was still planning on becoming a vigilante when Andrea entered his life. However this love caused him reconsider his goal since the pain of his parents' death didn't hurt so much anymore. When Andrea left abruptly, it was a devistation that simply led him back to the path he was still walking on. So basically, Andrea was an interruption in Bruce's life.
You can argue that since Batman was marketed to kids, a downer ending like killing Beaumont wasn't in the cards. Anyway I must agree that killing her off would have been logical.
I think putting him in gives the film a bit more of a bang at the end instead of coming up with some random one-shot. I think they worked him in pretty well, especially by making him the person who killed Andrea's father.
I thought World's Finest was pretty good with a solid story but I give Phantasm more credit because I prefer the look of the dark deco and the character designs. I never liked that ugly look of the Superman series and Bruce Timm's animated work after that first Batman series.
I always hated Timm's design for Bruce back then but loved the updated style.
The look for the Superman series had to look brighter in style. It wouldn't have worked if they took the '92 approach.
Mask Of The Phantasm was too soap opera-ish for my sensibilities; Bruce Wayne should never brood to the extent that he did in that film. Good story but a tad too moody.
World's Finest happens to be one of Timm's finest animated achievements IMO followed by Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
The animation really did not improve, as a matter of fact it generally was less impressive. ON LEATHER WINGS and TWO FACE PART I looked alot better then anyting in BTAS. Also the wonky animation in the early episodes BTAS was mostly do to lousy AKOM studio.
Generally I just wish they could have done a better job with it. They should have had tight control of what was sent overseas to animate.
That updated look subtracted the organic quality of the characters, especially adding those sharp edges. The TNBA look was cold and sterile.
That art style would have perfect for something as colorful as Superman. Bruce Timm's Batman was inspried by the Fleischer Superman shorts of the 1940's.
Return of The Joker only had that good flashback, but everything else about it I found was terribly generic and forgetable and again, the ugly look. Also I really hate Terry McGennis, his personality can be summed up as "teenager".
Timm did have control over what was to be animated before it was sent overseas. The angular look was his call being head producer; he doesn't seem like the type of person to half-a## any of his work especially since he's a self=proclaimed Batman fanboy. He trusted TMZ to do a good job with the storyboards that were shipped and IMO, they did.
I hear that alot from BTAS fans complaining about TNBA's clinical look so it basically comes down to preference...what can you do? Some loved it, some didn't.
That's pretty much the point that he should be a rebellious teen. The flashback scene, I recall, gave my son and I goosebumps when we first saw it. Just real effective. B-)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Timm really isn't an animator. He is an illustrator first and foremost with a style that is friendly for animation. Also you can tell by the storyboards, that I have seen Dini's BTAS book BTW, their was clearly watering down over the final product. The acting became far less expressive and more bland.
Honestly from a design POV, BTAS had a much friendly design style for animation. Any cartoonist would tell you the same, trust me. Sharp edges are harder to animate then rounder shapes.
But that isn't a character though, that is just a trait.
Regardless of what title you want to give Timm, he was responsible for overseeing character designs, he drew storyboards with the crew and whatnot. So whatever he was called officially, he was getting paid for being in the animation department. The buck stopped with him within the confines of that area...
I've heard differently from some cartoonists but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. That being said, they seemed to have pulled it off wonderfully. I will respect that you don't agree.
You didn't like McGuiness, I get it.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I have seen Timm's storyboards and they were good since he is such an expressive comic book artist. However it clear that what ended up on screen did not capture his energy or some of the other SB artists' work.
Well you don't have to take my word for it.
Just view animated shorts of the 1940's by Warners, Disney, MGM, and Walter Lantz. The round shapes are animation friendly.
Yeah I just hate one dimensional characters. Well at least ones that have nothing aesthetically pleasing about them.
Quite naturally, when you're trying to emulate someone else's work, you'll never capture the exact passion that artist put into a panel or storyboard. Almost always your own interpretation will come out in the work inevitably altering the final piece. That's just human.
Another reason why animators cut back on detail and certain aspects of storyboard art has to do with keeping a consistent look throughout the production-especially when there are time constraints and most times a modest budget to work around. Alot of cartoons sacrifice detail for better flow...like Spectacular Spider-Man does now.
Filmation was the same way (I'm a big fan of Lou Scheimer who was the Bruce Timm of the 70s) but unfortunately, Anime has influenced American cartoons almost totally. Angular in cartoons ventures and yes, even comics, is in.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
The trick to keeping true the storyboards is "staying loose" and working with the artist of the storyboard, again something hindered by sending stuff overseas. On this subject, Cartoonist John K. had the same problem with sticking to the storyboards when the animation was sent overseas during the first season of Ren and Stimpy. That animation was generally weak during that first season so he started to set very detailed and specific insrtuctions to the Korean Studio Rough Draft and as a result the secound season's animation improved by a considerable margin.
I understand less details but shapes are another story. Being so angular is just too cumbersome to animate.
FILMATION ?????????????? JESUS !!!!!!!!!!! *Barf*
Just the way it is and has been over the last 20 years. This isn't the 40s-60s anymore although I wish we would return to those western practices to some degree. It's all about saving a buck or two.
Maybe. When you're getting paid to do the job I doubt any animators complain much...they just do it.
Yes, FILMATION. I love the realism they brought to their projects; for its time, it was inovative. Hanna-Barbera sucked outside of Johnny Quest and early Superfriends eps.
So that's another thing we don't agree on.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Today's animation system is ineffienct and deters the good quality of animation severely and I don't just mean sending the storyboards overseas, that is the tip of the frickin' iceberg. The old production system allowed for much collaboration between artists, it was just common sense.
It's true really, many great animation books like Preston Blair's manual will tell you same. Though yes animators will take whatever job he or she can get, the good money is the mainstream stuff.
FILMATION and latter day Hanna-Barbera was epitome of horrid animation. That was when character animation just became head movements and even that wasn't well animated. That is when things fell apart for the entire industry. Even worse, those were the biggest employers of animation back then so the great old timers like Layout artist Owen Fitzgerald would end up being credited on **** Punky Brewster.
We still haven't entirely gotten back from the doldrums of the late 60's to the mid 80's.
Thank goodness it does not have that awful TNBA look. The only good thing about the TNBA redesign? Batgirl. Or that god-awful The Batman design. "What are you?" "I'm Chinese Batman."
2.Batman Returns
3.Batman Forever (especially with extended scenes)
4.Batman Begins
5.Batman
6.I have a very fond spot for Batman: The Movie. Only true devilish FIENDS could possibly miss...the......true........appeal.........of....pure.......fantasy...:WAH-WAH-WAH-WAH Bring on the Dutch Tilts!!
7.Return of the Joker uncut
I couldn't get through Filmation stuff.
Extended scenes? What makes the movie better with these scenes?