Older Batman films redundant?

[Earl of the RCs]

Originally Posted by Libaax

The first Batman captured Batman better than TDK.

Sure they are dated today but Batman could zip around, even do some pounching,kicking, you got to see the cave,the mansion looking good. The story might not have too good but they captured Batman and his city. Except the generic dark look for Gotham.


The Joker looked bad but he was real funny. He pulled small sick jokes that i knew from the comics. I liked that more than the sick Heath Joker.

Heath did great work with that side but Nolan limited the joker to the sick side only. That gave me bad taste after seeing TDK.


Seeing Batman after being Batman comics fan was totally different experiance.
It might not have very good movie but it captured the things that you pictured a Bat movie should be like.

I will always respect that and remember it fondly. Not the other Bat movies though they sucked. The Pinguin one make me cringe so much.

I was 11 when the first batmanfilm came out, and it gave me a bad taste in my mouth as it didn't `capture the thins that you picture a bat movie should be like'! Batman didnt fight like batman (he was too stilted) Joker didnt act like Joker (he was too sleazy) and Gotham didnt look like Gotham! (it was too, I guess `Burtonesque!' and yes I swear on the grave of my living parents that these were the thoughts I had back then! Ive actually mellowed in my dislike of the film since then as Ive come to embrace the idea of different interpretations.

But no, the new films dont make the old one's redundant (as pointed out above thats impossible by the definition of the word and any usage otherwise is a misunderstanding of the term) or obselete or irrevelant. There will alsways be people who prefer those incarnations of the Batman. One of the truly great things about the character- and the thing that distinguishes Batman the most from Superman, even more so than his `lack of powers'- is that he is an easily reinterpretable character; he changes with the times (where as superman is pretty consistant) Batman in the golden, silver and modern age of comics, Batman in Challenge of the superfriends, the 60s tv show, Burtons Movies, the animated series, The Batman, and Batman: Brave and The Bold and maybe even Shumarchers films are all still someone's idea of Batman. Even though Nolans films suit MY ideal Batman better, I can accept that that merely a matter of taste.

No matter what Steve Englehart may say on his website, there is no `definitive batman'. He's like Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood and Dracula there'll always be room for more adaptations, as long as there's people who want to make them!

[Libaax]

Originally Posted by Earl of the RCs

I was 11 when the first batmanfilm came out, and it gave me a bad taste in my mouth as it didn't `capture the thins that you picture a bat movie should be like'! Batman didnt fight like batman (he was too stilted) Joker didnt act like Joker (he was too sleazy) and Gotham didnt look like Gotham! (it was too, I guess `Burtonesque!' and yes I swear on the grave of my living parents that these were the thoughts I had back then! Ive actually mellowed in my dislike of the film since then as Ive come to embrace the idea of different interpretations.

But no, the new films dont make the old one's redundant (as pointed out above thats impossible by the definition of the word and any usage otherwise is a misunderstanding of the term) or obselete or irrevelant. There will alsways be people who prefer those incarnations of the Batman. One of the truly great things about the character- and the thing that distinguishes Batman the most from Superman, even more so than his `lack of powers'- is that he is an easily reinterpretable character; he changes with the times (where as superman is pretty consistant) Batman in the golden, silver and modern age of comics, Batman in Challenge of the superfriends, the 60s tv show, Burtons Movies, the animated series, The Batman, and Batman: Brave and The Bold and maybe even Shumarchers films are all still someone's idea of Batman. Even though Nolans films suit MY ideal Batman better, I can accept that that merely a matter of taste.

No matter what Steve Englehart may say on his website, there is no `definitive batman'. He's like Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood and Dracula there'll always be room for more adaptations, as long as there's people who want to make them!

Original Batman is far from the Batman thats my ideal in the comics. I saw it not so long ago after TDK,Begins.

The too heavy Batman, that could barely move in those movies made Keaton's so called fighting skills look good. Plus like the comics his Bat suit was a real Bat suit and not some armour that was was alot bigger Batman himself.


Im just saying which of those movies have come close to capturing those things IMO. As you there are no definite Batman but there are somethings we can agree on as fans of the comics. Gotham in the first Batman movie for example. It was too much Burton i agree. I still prefer that over a regular,real city like TDK.

Still Batman movies are far from Spider-man for example. Spiderman himself was captured almost perfectly. TDK might have been the best superhero movie so far but Batman wasnt so important in it.

[nepenthes]

Originally Posted by daredevil1990

Using the word redundant, I meant it in the sense that will people now only purchase the newer films if given the choice between newer or older. Have the new films pushed the older incarnations aside? I know TIm Burton has a very strong fan base in his own right so there's a lot of possible buyers there but is that enough to tip the scales? I guess obselete would've been a much better way of wording it. For sake of discussion, the question has been rephrased to 'Are the older Batman films obsolete in comparison to the newer ones?'.

Thanks for the input so far though, some really good posts. I really appreciate the responses from everyone.

Are you doing film studies or what? Sorry to be rude but it seems you're taking a very simplistic view to all this. They're totally different films made under different circumstances in different periods. Batman 89 was groundbreaking as a marketing event and blockbuster film, is that all 'obsolete' just because they made another Batman movie 20 years later? What about the impact B89 had on comics, cinema and pop culture in general? What about the slide into camp farce with the Schumacher films and the subsequent revisionism with Nolans own films? The very fact that Nolans films are viewed the the prism of Burtons work means it's still very relevant.

If someone is in a store and decides to buy TDK over Batman89, what the hell does that even matter? It probably says more to the fact they've seen B89 a few times on TV already and would now like to watch the newer adaption starring a dead Oscar winner. Little things like that come into play here. The Burton movies are not 'old models' that have now depreciaited in value, which is the definition of obsolete.

If you want to do a contextual comparison between the two series there's a lot more to consider than which ones people will buy. Why don't you try drawing on all the stuff you'e learnt during your studies rather than asking for 'pure fan opinion'.

[Duy]

Originally Posted by Indigo Al

Even though I'm a big fan of the 60's TV show, I can't defend the Schumacher movies. I wish I could figure out why.

"The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious. " ~Susan Sontag on camp.

Basically, the Adam West Batman played it straight - a lot ofpeople don't even believe it was meant to be campy - while the Schumacher Batman was just so blatantly "Hey,look at how ridiculous we are."

Therein lies the difference.

[Pól Rua]

Originally Posted by daredevil1990

I can't remember if there was a thread about this, but I wanted to start a new one. Here's the situation/reason. I'm studying A level Film Studies in sixth form and I've been asked to carry out a small scale research project and then make a presentation on it. Being a comic book reader, I decided to go in that direction and finally settled on the Batman film series. Since we're now past the inital hype surrounding the box office release and the DVD release of The Dark Knight, I want to know peoples opinions now; have Christopher Nolan's films made the older Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher movies redundant?

No more than so than 'The Magnificent Seven' made 'Seven Samurai' redundant.

[Pól Rua]

Originally Posted by daredevil1990

Using the word redundant, I meant it in the sense that will people now only purchase the newer films if given the choice between newer or older.

Some folks will, yes. But no matter how similar a remake is, watching different versions of the same story is a different experience.

[mofo]

hmmm....Some background info first...

What happened with me is that I saw the 2 Burton movies when I was very young so I could never really remember them.
The 2 Schumacher movies....liked Forever and loved Batman & Robin (don't shoot me! I was a kid and found that shit funny! It still is!)

So then one day I was discovering the joy of torrents and stumbled upon my first comic book (Batman: Year One), which lead to my mass (illegal) downloading of Batman comics.
Then Batman Begins came along and I said "sweet! this movie is like the comics!"
Then I watched Batman & Batman Returns again and realized how different they were from the comics.


SO
To answer your question:
Yes, I do think the older Batman movies WILL be redundant (not yet...) due to rising levels of comic book awareness. There are some people who love the Burton or Schumacher movies more than the Nolan ones, but the "new" comic book readers will gravitate towards the latter. So, somewhere down the line, the Nolan movies would probably become the iconic representation of the Batman mythos on the big screen...

Needless to say the above is all MY OWN OPINION. I could very well be wrong so DO NOT HATE

[brocca]

Dear daredevil1990,

the new Batman films are most redundant, too!

For me the character Batman doesn't work in movies or on TV. The films come across as boring and unconvincing, silly at times. Same goes for the X-Men and Spider-Man, by the way!

These are comic book characters that should stay confined to comic books alone--within these limits the portrayal of the characters in their crudeness is very appealing. The page to page continuity draws the reader in. You recognize a system you can easily adhere to--thus in the comic books Batman becomes alive.

For me, at least, this doesn't happen in the movies,

greetings--

[RonnieThunderbolts]

Originally Posted by hangmanjury

"The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious. " ~Susan Sontag on camp.

Basically, the Adam West Batman played it straight - a lot ofpeople don't even believe it was meant to be campy - while the Schumacher Batman was just so blatantly "Hey,look at how ridiculous we are."

Therein lies the difference.

I think you've got it totally backwards. The Adam West show creators knew how silly it was, while Joel Schumacher thought he was in fact, totally awesome.

From the Adam West film "Some days you just can't rid of a bomb!" after walking into a duck with its ducklings and a group of nuns TWICE on the same pier. It was intentionally campy, just because Adam West wasn't howling doesn't mean he was playing it straight. Anyone who doesn't believe they were fully aware of how campy it was while making it hasn't seen enough of it. It is one of my all time favorite films. "Get the Bat-Shark Repellent Spray! It is with the other Bat Oceanic Sprays!" or something to that effect...

There were no self-aware tongue-in-cheek moments in the Schumacher movies. They were just bad, and as "blatant" as the bad moments were (every line from Arnold's Mr. Freeze being a horrible pun) but none of the actors showed any sort of awareness of its badness, unlike West who almost looked directly into the camera when he says "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!"

No matter how you define camp (unintentional, intentional, which aren't in the actual definitions, it was one person's interpretation of "pure" camp, with a qualification built in), having seen the entire old series and the film several times I can't see how anyone who has seen it as an adult can deny that a) it is campy as hell, and b) they knew exactly how silly it all was.

[Alan2099]

I'd say Adam West was playing it straight. It was his complete serious portrail of a silly character and storylines that made it work.

And yes, they did know it was silly. When Cesare refused to shave his mustache, they painted over it and he asked if they thought ayone would notice. They told him that for the show they were doing, it really wouldn't matter.

[Duy]

Originally Posted by RonnieThunderbolts

I think you've got it totally backwards. The Adam West show creators knew how silly it was, while Joel Schumacher thought he was in fact, totally awesome.

From the Adam West film "Some days you just can't rid of a bomb!" after walking into a duck with its ducklings and a group of nuns TWICE on the same pier. It was intentionally campy, just because Adam West wasn't howling doesn't mean he was playing it straight. Anyone who doesn't believe they were fully aware of how campy it was while making it hasn't seen enough of it. It is one of my all time favorite films. "Get the Bat-Shark Repellent Spray! It is with the other Bat Oceanic Sprays!" or something to that effect...

There were no self-aware tongue-in-cheek moments in the Schumacher movies. They were just bad, and as "blatant" as the bad moments were (every line from Arnold's Mr. Freeze being a horrible pun) but none of the actors showed any sort of awareness of its badness, unlike West who almost looked directly into the camera when he says "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!"

No matter how you define camp (unintentional, intentional, which aren't in the actual definitions, it was one person's interpretation of "pure" camp, with a qualification built in), having seen the entire old series and the film several times I can't see how anyone who has seen it as an adult can deny that a) it is campy as hell, and b) they knew exactly how silly it all was.

Yes, the camp in the Adam West series was intentional. It was, however, played absolutely straight. Honestly. There are still people who aren't so sure that it was intentional, simply because they did it so convincingly.

Schumacher on the other hand, thought he got what made it so good, which was him pretty much winking to the audience and making it blatantly obvious "Hey, look, we're being funny and silly. Notice us, notice us."

Camp calls no deliberate attention to itself. Adam West's Batman let the work speak for itself as very campy, but Schumacher's Batman pretty much jumped out and said "Hey, look at how campy we are."

That's what I mean.

Originally Posted by Alan2099

I'd say Adam West was playing it straight. It was his complete serious portrail of a silly character and storylines that made it work.

And yes, they did know it was silly. When Cesare refused to shave his mustache, they painted over it and he asked if they thought ayone would notice. They told him that for the show they were doing, it really wouldn't matter.

Yep.

[daredevil1990]

Originally Posted by nepenthes

Are you doing film studies or what? Sorry to be rude but it seems you're taking a very simplistic view to all this. They're totally different films made under different circumstances in different periods. Batman 89 was groundbreaking as a marketing event and blockbuster film, is that all 'obsolete' just because they made another Batman movie 20 years later? What about the impact B89 had on comics, cinema and pop culture in general? What about the slide into camp farce with the Schumacher films and the subsequent revisionism with Nolans own films? The very fact that Nolans films are viewed the the prism of Burtons work means it's still very relevant.

If someone is in a store and decides to buy TDK over Batman89, what the hell does that even matter? It probably says more to the fact they've seen B89 a few times on TV already and would now like to watch the newer adaption starring a dead Oscar winner. Little things like that come into play here. The Burton movies are not 'old models' that have now depreciaited in value, which is the definition of obsolete.

If you want to do a contextual comparison between the two series there's a lot more to consider than which ones people will buy. Why don't you try drawing on all the stuff you'e learnt during your studies rather than asking for 'pure fan opinion'.

Don't worry about it, I don't take it as rude, I know where you're coming from and I agree fully. I made the mistake of starting this thread after I spent most of yesterday final drafting and finishing 2 pretty important essays for english language, (don't worry the irony of using 'redundadnt' wrong isn't lost on me, haha!) . I was pretty tired and started the thread wanting to get the question out there as quick as possible to get start the responses earlier. As you can imagine my brain was a bit fried after all that drafting and editing - anyone who has written any essay that has a word limit knows the pain of ommitting hard work to accomodate - hence the poor phrasing and hasty/unprepared nature of the question. I've taken what you've all said on board and by tomorrow I'm going to post another question - a one that's more in depth. .

One thing that is important to the Film Studies A level is understanding and viewing films as commercial products. Since before going into the Film Studies course it's usually the case that people are used to thinking in the terms of artistic quality, it's more than likely I've been thinking too much the other way in terms of commercial products and neglected to ask several things which I really should've. This commercial approach was the reason I asked whether the old films would be less likely to sell than the newer ones.

I wanted 'pure fan opinion' - poor wording again on my part - because I was going to post the same question onto a film forum, I just hadn't got round to it last night. Comic book fans are passionate and more than willing to discuss what they love - as are true fans of pretty much anything. This is the main reason why I wanted fan opinion - to deomstrate this to the examiner.

Again, I appreciate everyone's responses and don't feel that they haven't achieved their purpose because I'm definately going to be using what people hav said in my work. I'm hoping the next thread I post will get responses as good as this one - perhaps not as many that force me to eat more humble pie - it leaves you full for a quite some time, haha. Seriously though, thanks everyone and I hope you're all willing to post again in the next thread.

[muerte]

how can you tell if the older films are obsolete?
trying to buy the dvd new in a store.

go to bestbuy or someplace like that and the only chance you get of getting them on dvd are those collection or archive things

out of demand=out of print=obsolete

unless you're a collector,that is

[NickGuy]

eh, In 10 more years everyone else will realize what an overly dramatic, hyped up, way too preachy movie TDK was.