Dude4's forum posts

#1 Edited by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

I was expecting to see Guardians doing a lot better than it did. For me, personally, it was the best comic film of the year.

#2 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio
@mezmero said:

@muyjingo said:

@mezmero said:

I remember both The Phantom and Shadow movies to be boring as a kid. In my mind that's a much bigger sin for a comic book movie than simply being silly or cheesy. These are comic books we're talking about. A movie can be silly and still be entertaining where as when it's boring then it's excruciating. I think you're being far too strict about the term "holding up" in regards to movies. To me it's a figure of speech that just means you can watch it again years later and find it entertaining. Plus it's all subjective to Corey's taste and nostalgia so it matters not whether or not the movie is actually good by today's standards.

Were you familiar with The Phantom as a kid? I'm originally from Australia, and growing up comics were about $7 each due to being imported (almost $11 in todays money), while The Phantom was locally printed and was available for less than a dollar. So, I could be biased but I thought it was a fairly faithul adaption that happened to be a fun, if cheesy action adventure film.

I thought The Shadow was pretty cool as a kid, re-watching it I don't think it's a great film...but I enjoyed the characters and premise as a kid. I'd put it below Batman, but I'd put The Phantom above Batman 89 any day of the week, although I'm probably alone in that regard.

The only exposure I really had to The Phantom before that movie were the cartoons, Defenders of the Earth and Phantom 2040 respectively. Admittedly maybe not the best cartoons but I thought the character was interesting. I just remember seeing the movie in the theater as a kid and finding it underwhelming. I suppose in that sense it would be the perfect "Does it hold up?" movie for me since my memories of it are less than stellar.

Speaking of Pulp Era Superhero films from the early 90's, we should do a "does it hold up" for the Rocketeer and Dick Tracy films. To me they are both better than the Shadow and Phantom movies.

#3 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

@muyjingo: To each his own, my friend.

I couldn't stand it.

#4 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

@muyjingo: Well Singer might of related to the concept of the X-Men in general but he was never a real reader of their comics. I'm totally ok with that. As long as Hollywood attaches a good director to a comic book movie it doesn't bother me if they aren't 100% familar with the source material. The only thing I care about is how good they are as directors.

Then again, there is that whole Ang Lee/Hulk fiasco that proves me wrong.

#5 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

@muyjingo:

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/singer.html

"For a guy who never liked comic books, Bryan Singer has spent a lot of time reinventing them."

#6 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

@muyjingo said:

@dude4: I think it does help illustrate Smith's point.

Burton said he never read comics, Smith said that explains Batman. Burton gave a reason for why he never read comics (until he did), which supports the notion that Batman wasn't a good comic book movie (although obviously others feel differently) because he wasn't familiar with comics.

He doesn't have dyslexia. He just had trouble following comics for a while.

Just because Burton wasn't a regular comic book reader doesn't mean that he was a poor choice to direct the movie. Bryan Singer wasn't an X-Men fan and he still came out with the two best entries in the X-Men cinematic universe.

I'd rather have someone that understood the language of film and the mediums needs direct a Batman film than the local comic shop owner that has every issue of Batman since the 50's. This also goes for Nolan's movies as well, you can say it strays from the source material here and there but overall they are good movies in their own right.

"Then again, I think Burton's a pretty talentless hack, so I'm probably biased."

He is now, but once upon a time he was a pretty good visual storyteller.

#7 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

@muyjingo: No. He said that he read the Killing Joke because he could understand it and that it influenced the movie.

He also gives a legitimate reason for not reading comic books due to his dyslexia/reading disorder.

If you go by the Kevin Smith quote it makes it sound like he never picked up a comic book to do any research into the Batman universe for the film and that he looks down upon comic readers, like he's too good to be a comic fan.

I'm sorry, I like Kevin Smith and all, but I have to call bullshit on this quote of his. I know that him and Burton have a bad relationship after the whole Death of Superman debacle but that's no excuse to take unsubstantiated pot shots at the guy.

#8 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozen:

@frozen said:

@muyjingo: I saw one clip where he rants about Burton, Burton says he has never read a comic and Kevin replies with ''well, that explains Batman (1989)'' -- hilarious. Alright, I'll respond about the links in PM.

There's two sides to every story. Here's Burton's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Burton

Burton claimed that The Killing Joke was a major influence on his film adaptation of Batman:

"I was never a giant comic book fan, but I've always loved the image of Batman and the Joker. The reason I've never been a comic book fan – and I think it started when I was a child – is because I could never tell which box I was supposed to read. I don't know if it was dyslexia or whatever, but that's why I loved The Killing Joke, because for the first time I could tell which one to read. It's my favorite. It's the first comic I've ever loved. And the success of those graphic novels made our ideas more acceptable."[12]

#9 Posted by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

The opening theme alone makes this movie worth watching.

I realize that it is a polarizing film among Bat-fans but it feels silly (and borderline trolling) to say that it was outright terrible. The set design, music and performances from Keaton/Nicholson make it a very enjoyable film experience.

#10 Edited by Dude4 (53 posts) - - Show Bio

"He also plays Bruce Wayne extremely well, both in terms of realistically changing his voice and actually portraying Wayne as visibly unhinged. He’s not ranting and raving to the stars, but he’s got a lot of tics, both subtle and not-so-subtle, that let both viewers and characters know that he’s not a mentally well man."

Spot on. This is one characteristic of Keaton's Bruce Wayne that I really wish was carried over to the other interpretations. He's a bit of an oddball and a recluse. Someone that doesn't function too well in society.