He's the goddamn Batman.

June 22, 2009 9:22 PM

Twenty years ago today, Warner Brothers took a risk and paired a director-and-actor pairing known for a quirky, moderately successful supernatural comedy and turned them loose with a high budget-take on an iconic character: Batman.

From the minimalist poster to its tone lifted from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, Burton's Batman set out to make its own way.

It marked a shift in the way Batman was portrayed and with a quarter billion dollars in ticket sales at the box office, demonstrated that the success of Superman a decade earlier had not been a total fluke. In fact, superhero movies have been the top box office draw as often as not for the last decade, a a situation almost unthinkable twenty years ago.

But how much longer will the superhero bubble last? The ten biggest opening days in movie history have been in the last seven years, and five of those movies (including the top two) were about comic book heroes. With another Wolverine movie in the works, with even B-team superheroes like The Green Lantern warming up in the bullpen, with DC prepping The Justice League for a roll-out in 2011, a year before Marvel plans to have The Avengers in theatres, when will superhero fatigue set in?

posted by ricochet biscuit (139 comments total)

Well, *somebody* in Hollywood has to come up with good ideas.
posted by HostBryan at 9:27 PM on June 22

Fatigue is actually one of my favorite superheroes. I never seem to get tired of her.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:28 PM on June 22 [6 favorites]

Fatigue is actually one of my favorite superheroes. I never seem to get tired of her.

She was great in Crisis on Infinite Futons.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:32 PM on June 22 [16 favorites]

I remember being all cock of the walk in my Batman t-shirt as I walked through the mall until that teenager by the Yogen Früz shouted "Batman is a fag!"
posted by furtive at 9:34 PM on June 22 [5 favorites]

Winona as Spock's mom did not make me feel old. This post? Does.
posted by mwhybark at 9:35 PM on June 22 [10 favorites]

Actually, Burton's Batman was in many ways different from Miller's (who was also different from Moore's). Burton's Batman was terse and a smartass ("you weigh more than a hundred and eight"); his Bruce Wayne was at once social inept and charming. Miller's Batman never shuts up, and is more bitter. Moore's Batman is more empathic and emotionally functional ("Killing Joke" opens with Batman trying to have a calm, rational conversation with the Joker).

Burton's Batman also embraces a lot of the camp of the TV show, especially in the sequel.
posted by dogwelder at 9:35 PM on June 22 [5 favorites]

I really liked Batman when it came out.

Hey, I was ten.
posted by infinitewindow at 9:36 PM on June 22

Christ, that was 20 years ago? I feel old...I think I need to Batdance to make me feel better.
posted by snwod at 9:36 PM on June 22 [4 favorites]

But how much longer will the superhero bubble last?

Probably when all the 45-year old moviegoers finally move out of their parents' basements.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:37 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

Hollywood: This town needs an enema!
posted by furtive at 9:37 PM on June 22 [5 favorites]

Is this where I link y'all down memory lane?

Little Batman is my favorite Batman... sometimes anyway. "I also ate some people."
posted by Kattullus at 9:41 PM on June 22

I think superhero fatigue will set in about the same time regular hero fatigue sets in, which is to say never, because that's not how a lot of our best storytelling works. But what might set in is sequel fatigue, sure - there's only so many paint-by-the-numbers superhero movies people are willing to see.

I think it would really be fascinating if Marvel could bring themselves to do what Tarantino proposed they do with the Bond films a few years ago - stop using them as big-budget summer explodaganzas, and start using those archetypes as a framework for upcoming writers or directors to take a low-to-mid budget and really show what they can do within the framework of the characters.

I'd love to see a young Daniel Aronofsky try his hand at A Serious House On Serious Earth, for example. I'd love to see Grayson get made, or have Richard Kelly tell me a story about the Riddler.

There are a _ton_ of fascinating stories to tell here, particularly around the fringes of the major superhero's stories, and to my mind the question is really whether Marvel is willing to risk letting somebody tell them, not whether anyone will get tired of them.
posted by mhoye at 9:44 PM on June 22 [3 favorites]

I stood in line on opening day, running up to The California as soon as 8th period let out. I remember standing there with Hans and Noah, the typography nerd seniors from my yearbook class. I was only 15 and I thought they were cool for letting me stand in the line next to them. They argued during the credits over which variation of the typeface was used. I think the argument was narrow versus condensed.
posted by damehex at 9:45 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

I think I need to Batdance to make me feel better.

You'd be really old if you'd said "The Batusi".

That's what Christopher Nolan's Batman-verse is missing - some kind of Bat dance craze!
posted by crossoverman at 9:47 PM on June 22

I'll never, ever get tired of superhero movies. I hope they make an animated movie out of Bone, make a beautiful drama about Concrete, or a CGI-heavy Scud the Disposable Assassin comedy. Get Tim Burton to read Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. Y the Last Man. MARVEL FUCKING ZOMBIES! WHY IS THERE NOT MORE COMIC BOOK MOVIES?!

*breath, breath, breath*

Ok, I'm better. Seriously though, 100 Bullets.
posted by Bageena at 9:54 PM on June 22 [3 favorites]

I think it's not superhero movies themselves that are the problem but the fact that there seems to be a general unwillingness to mess with lucrative formulas and take creative risks (which is something the comic books themselves are slightly more willing to do). The standard route seems to be to make as much hype as possible about who is being cast as the superhero and their chief foe (to divert attention from the other creative aspects), then deliver a watered down origin story that is more of a foundation for possible sequels than a complete story in its own right. The superhero movies that have been critically and commercially successful are the ones that did pay attention to plot and attempted to bring something new to the table (the first Batman movie and its Gothic Noir Gotham is a great example), but the studios don't seem to quite get this.

On a a related note, I'm starting to think that animated TV series are the future of non-print superhero media, due to the greater depth you can go into with a continued series and the creative freedom that animation allows. I mean, as much as I like superhero movies, I would have to say that they consistently fail to match the quality of series like Batman: The Animated Series, Justice League and especially The Spectacular Spiderman (which in my opinion is the best screen portrayal of a superhero to date)
posted by fearthehat at 9:55 PM on June 22 [3 favorites]

Heh, Kattullus, I now own the original ink art for this one.
posted by piratebowling at 9:59 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

I'd love to see a young Daniel Aronofsky

Hell yeah. Or maybe a young John Jarmusch or Crispin Tarantino, or perhaps even a youthful Guadalupe Del Toro!
posted by dersins at 10:02 PM on June 22 [24 favorites]

I read a sorta interesting thing a while back referring to the correlation between superhero-popularity and times-of-national crisis.. like when things are peaceful, movies are dark and paranoid, but when the shit hits the fan, you get inspiring heroes. It's not flawless, but I think there might be something there. I'm not sure if this is the piece I read or not, but it's along those lines.
posted by hypersloth at 10:02 PM on June 22

I think superhero fatigue will set in about the same time regular hero fatigue sets in, which is to say never, because that's not how a lot of our best storytelling works.

But since the comic book audience is dwindling, won't there be a time where simply going "Look! a superhero" just won't mean much to most people? Maybe if they can keep the kids watching the stuff on TV, but if they can't, they'll lose the "I care about this movie because it's about a superhero whose adventures I read as a kid (or "I read")" crowd.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 10:04 PM on June 22

We're flush with great animation posts right now, aren't we? Huzzah!

In one of the stranger twists in the world of superheroes, it was actually the Bruce Timm and Paul Dini who were working on Batman: The Animated Series who came up with, of all things... Freakazoid!

Now, THAT is a superhero who needs a feature film.
posted by hippybear at 10:07 PM on June 22 [3 favorites]

What age group is one of the largest movie going populations? 13-17 year old boys who have nothing better to do on a friday night.

What group has a really large comic book fanbase? 13-17 year old boys who have nothing better to do on a friday night.

Ever wonder why some amazing turds of a film somehow still get an audience and still get some cash (Terminator Salvation's budget was $200 million, brought in $320 million world wide according to wikipedia, and sucked pretty horribly)? The same 13-17 year olds.

Do you really think this was the actual motive to keep Terminator: Salvation PG-13: "The decision was made to rate the film PG-13 after agreeing to cut out a shot of Marcus stabbing a thug with a screwdriver, as McG felt disallowing the young audience due to that one shot was unfair." Not: Dear God, we can't get anyone else to watch this movie, but adolescent boys who love shit blowing up and who thought T:3 was worth the money will still come to this movie with all their friends, because their parents wont drive them anywhere else.

Now I am all for great movies being made (and some great movies have been made from comic books), and superheros and comic books have a really rich history to work with, let alone the fact that comic books are pretty much storyboards for the directors to hast out ideas, so I am excited that they are being brought to the screen. But I am not surprised that this is happening, but a bigger threat to the current superhero trend is going to be Hollywood finding a cheaper to produce genre with a higher rate of return. Sure, the movies may only gross double the cost, but the lateral marketing opportunities and cobranding revenue will be significantly larger for the blockbuster superhero action film (which already had the toy line and comic book series to leverage) than some standard issue action film.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:09 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Green Lantern is NOT B-team.

Hawkman is B-team.

You got your Superman/Batman as #1 and #2 (in either order, call it tied for 1st)

You got your Flash (Barry not Wally)

and then you got Green Lantern. (Hal not those pretenders)

(DC only)
then maybe Swamp Thing?
posted by Bonzai at 10:23 PM on June 22 [6 favorites]

I just watched Batman yesterday! It was a very interesting experience.

I haven't seen the whole movie through in years, and watching it again made me recognize a rather odd phenomenon. You see, when I first saw the movie, I was too young to know what the word 'enema' was. I thought the Joker was saying "This town needs an enemy!" I never got what it meant, really, but, hey, Joker's crazy so whatever. For years and years, I thought the Joker was saying "This town needs an enemy!" Even after I had learned of enemas. It just was too obvious to me that he was talking about enemies, so I kept hearing it that way. It was only yesterday, after such a long break, that I was finally able to re-hear the line without my past prejudices and understand it as it really is. Suddenly, everything made sense.

But, anyway, I have to say that 5 year-old me would be very disappointed to learn how un-badass Batman is to 25 year-old me.
posted by Ms. Saint at 10:48 PM on June 22

Ahem, where the fuck is my Wonder Woman movie already?!
posted by Asparagirl at 10:51 PM on June 22 [4 favorites]

I think Pixar's workin' on that one for ya.
posted by stevil at 11:09 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Burton's Batman also embraces a lot of the camp of the TV show

One of the reasons why I can't watch it anymore. It was fine when I was 12, but now? I hate it. As the movie goes on, you get the sense that it was really Tim Burton's big "fuck you" to comic books and their fans. The tone of the movie is just too "wacky," and the distance between Jack Nicholson's and Cesar Romero's Jokers is really not very far, the main difference being body count. I think that's why the franchise fell so far so fast; the later ones are mind-bogglingly terrible, but they aren't too far from the mindset of the first one. And that's why I love the Nolan films, despite their flaws. Heath Ledger's Joker is terrifying in a way that Jack Nicholson simply wasn't, and the other villains (Scarecrow/Crane, Two-Face/Dent) are portraits of real-life dementia (if taken to an exaggerated level).

I think it's not superhero movies themselves that are the problem but the fact that there seems to be a general unwillingness to mess with lucrative formulas and take creative risks (which is something the comic books themselves are slightly more willing to do). The standard route seems to be to make as much hype as possible about who is being cast as the superhero and their chief foe (to divert attention from the other creative aspects), then deliver a watered down origin story that is more of a foundation for possible sequels than a complete story in its own right.

Yep. That's the reason why X-Men 3 blew, why Wolverine blew, why Spider-Man 3 blew... They were about repeating a formula rather than telling a good fucking story.
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:11 PM on June 22 [6 favorites]

Now, now. Demanding a Wonder Woman film would be oppressing Warner Bros' creativity. Brothers are always going to want to make superhero films about men as a default. Expecting a film about a so-called wonder woman is just being PC. Besides, none of the other studios are making superhero films with female leads, why oppress Warner Bros? WHY? *ahem*
posted by crossoverman at 11:12 PM on June 22

I was seven when the film came out and saw it with my parents while traveling around Canada with the fair. I fell instantly and deeply in love with Michael Keaton's Batman, my first real crush. I told my friends and family that Batman was my boyfriend and made a little house for us out of a large, cardboard refrigerator box. I would sit in there for hours each day listening to the Prince soundtrack, daydreaming about my new soul mate and our adventures together.

And I've been faithful ever since. This summer, I've been teaching a course on existentialism. For three days last week, we watched and discussed The Dark Knight. Some conversations carried on for hours after the end of class. Several of my students went on to discuss the film in their final papers, and one wrote his paper on The KIlling Joke. I would love to teach an entire philosophy course on the Batman comics and films. One line of defense against superhero fatigue is the eradication of superhero/villain ignorance.
posted by inconsequentialist at 11:14 PM on June 22 [6 favorites]

Tim Burton's Batman was my favorite movie throughout my teenage years, and even now, although I know that The Dark Knight is a better movie in myriad ways, I'm not sure I can say that I enjoyed it more. I realize that I'm virtually alone in liking Michael Keaton's role (even the posters of the time gave Nicholson top billing), but like Nicholson's Joker, it wasn't good acting as much as a good fit of the actor's personality to the character (Keaton brooded well as Wayne, though in retrospect he was obviously lacking the physicality needed for Batman). Combined with one of my favorite film scores, the awesome final setting of a stupendous gothic cathedral (played by Pittsburgh's equally stupendous Cathedral of Learning), one of the most iconic film vehicles of all time, and the fact that it's the the only script in which Wayne is allowed to be largely indifferent to his romantic interest (far more believable, IMHO), and you get a film that I think can still be placed among the top handful of superhero movies.
posted by gsteff at 11:27 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

I wouldn't worry about running out of comic-book material until after Dogwelder makes an appearance.

I'm not the only one who's loving The Brave & the Bold here, am I? It has a hilarious version of Aquaman!
posted by Pronoiac at 11:35 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

I went to a lot of trouble to see BATMAN (the Burton version) the weekend it opened. I was a big Prince fan, a big fan of Frank Miller's "Dark Night", and ready to be a big Burton fan ... but it fell kinda short. Not awful - just ... ? ... Not as good as the comics.

I was 29.

Which brings us the to original TV show. I was 7 when that premiered and it did not disappoint. Not even slightly. Almost as good as Jonny Quest.
posted by philip-random at 11:42 PM on June 22

posted by dogwelder

Ha! Hahahah! Uh.

Where's Friendly Fire when you need him?
posted by Pronoiac at 11:44 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

As the movie goes on, you get the sense that it was really Tim Burton's big "fuck you" to comic books and their fans.

Not at all - everything I've read says that Burton was involved in a bunch of losing battles about most of the camp elements - the awful Prince music, for example.
posted by rodgerd at 11:49 PM on June 22

Goddamn Blazecock Pileon, every time I check out the comments on a post, there you are, bringing the High Grade Snark and making me almost shoot tea out my nose. Tip of the hat to you, sir. Tip of the hat.
posted by nímwunnan at 12:22 AM on June 23

the awful Prince music, for example.

One of my favorite songs is David Byrne's cover of "The Future". I only learned years later that "The Future" was a Prince song from the Batman soundtrack (Byrne mercifully omitted the Batman-sampled prelude).

But yeah, Batdance was incredibly awful (and my first attempt at hex-code remixing, by mucking with a Screamtracker .MOD file).
posted by benzenedream at 12:33 AM on June 23

Jesse and Cass and Tulip?

Please?

It'll never happy, but a boy can dream...

Nthing Y The Last Man and tossing in a vote for a beautifully prebuilt franchise - Powers.

For those of us that like humor with our pork chops? The Goon (barring the later Vulture and especially NO CHINATOWN (since it made me cry..))
posted by Samizdata at 12:42 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

Ummmm, Buzzard. Stupid rented fingers.
posted by Samizdata at 12:44 AM on June 23

Ok, I'm better. Seriously though, 100 Bullets.

A few years ago I had a meeting with the production company who owned the rights to 100 Bullets. I was mostly familiar with the title, and they sent me home with every last published book. I took four weeks to come up with an intricate, complex pitch that was adult, daring, and stayed true to the book.

It was also complete and total shit.

You and I are damn lucky they passed, because if they had hired me to write that sucker, you'd never let me live it down. It would've been AWFUL.
posted by incessant at 12:49 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Also, David Lynch + Doom Patrol = gold.
posted by rodgerd at 1:04 AM on June 23

Green Lantern a B-list hero?!?

*sputters indignantly in Mom's basement*

Also: if Marvel ever puts The Sentry onscreen, I will join the terrorists and fight for the collapse of the decadent West.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:07 AM on June 23

Green Lantern is NOT B-team.

Hawkman is B-team.

You got your Superman/Batman as #1 and #2 (in either order, call it tied for 1st)

You got your Flash (Barry not Wally)

and then you got Green Lantern. (Hal not those pretenders)

(DC only)
then maybe Swamp Thing?

Pft. No Wonder Woman in your top 4?
posted by rodgerd at 1:10 AM on June 23

This post needs an enema, while we're, you know, administering them.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:27 AM on June 23

Well, I thought that Burton did a pretty good job at melding together the camp Batman and the darker, Milleresque Batman. I didn't exactly like Keaton in the role, but he was surprisingly effective for all that.

And while Nolan's Batman is much more serious, even The Dark Knight has giant spots of dull in it. Also, both films have the 21st century movie disease, which is too much for too long. (The ur-example is Pirates of the Caribbean, which seems to be parts of two movies yoked together. And then they did the same thing for two more movies.) The penchant for false endings does not help. And yet I like Bale's Batman, and Caine even brings something worthwhile to Alfred after all these years of walkthroughs. And of course, Ledger's Joker was for the ages.

I think, though, that we need to accept how Burton's Batman opened up the possibilities of the superhero movie in ways not previously thinkable.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

I've been mocked about this before, and I'm sure it will happen here too: I like Batman Returns. I like Dark Knight and Batman Begins as well, but for me, Batman Returns (minus the god-awful scene where he scratches the cd, DJ-style) is the best look into Batman. Think about it: in this movie, all of the "super" folk are essentially horribly damaged and misguided. Selina Kyle has suffered a serious blow to the head, the Penguin was born disfigured and unloved, then manipulated, and Bruce Wayne, well, he's just not all there, is he? The real villain, of course, is Max Shreck, the only guy not wearing a mask.

Two parts make the movie for me. One, when Bruce Wayne tears off his hood to plead with Catwoman, and Shreck asks why Bruce Wayne is wearing the outfit, and Catwoman snarls "He is Batman" understanding, even when Bruce doesn't, that there really is no Bruce, and won't be, no matter how hard he tries. Otherwise, she might have said "Batman is Bruce Wayne."

The second is at the party, when they realize just who they are, and Selina asks, crying, "Does this mean we have to start fighting?" Just a well done scene.

And Billy Dee Williams should have been Two-Face. You know you wanted it.
posted by Ghidorah at 2:44 AM on June 23 [10 favorites]

Green Lantern is NOT B-team.

Hawkman is B-team.

You got your Superman/Batman as #1 and #2 (in either order, call it tied for 1st)

You got your Flash (Barry not Wally)

and then you got Green Lantern. (Hal not those pretenders)

(DC only)
then maybe Swamp Thing?

My Spidey senses are tingling. I think a superhero is missing from the list. Can it be that, "Nobody knows who you are?"
posted by birdwatcher at 2:44 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

Does nobody remember the superhero that I was weaned on? Captain Marvel?
Does nobody remember the crippled newsboy, Billy Batson, who stumbles one night into disused subway station to be confronted with a row of statues representing the seven deadly sins and is given the secret code word SHAZAM that will magically transform him into Captain Marvel who fights to protect civilization from those seven sins?

When are we gonna get to see him on the big screen?
posted by donfactor at 3:05 AM on June 23 [4 favorites]

The only way to do 100 Bullets justice would be to make it into a (not-so-)mini-series on HBO or equivalent cable channel.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:25 AM on June 23

I really enjoyed both of Tim Burton's Batman movies. I really loved the second one - a fine performance by Danny Devito as the Penguin and, despite the scene where the cats breathe life into her, a fun Catwoman performance and storyline. It managed to walk a fine line between appealing to fans of the TV stories and to fans of the comic book.

I don't think we would have seen the current Batman films if we hadn't had Burton's as an intermediate step. And, you know, Burton's movies are still good fun - provided you go in without expecting Heath Ledger.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:58 AM on June 23

The only way to do 100 Bullets justice would be to make it into a (not-so-)mini-series on HBO or equivalent cable channel.

And find something else to substitute for the completely mindbogglingly stupid finale that the authors barfed up when they run out of "no, there's a twist to the twist" issues. I can't remember any ohter title recently that made me more depressed and pissed off about all the missed oportunities on a story with such fantastic start and middle-game.
posted by Iosephus at 4:10 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

a bigger threat to the current superhero trend is going to be Hollywood finding a cheaper to produce genre with a higher rate of return

the economist on superhero movies and stan lee ("now in his mid-80s, has set up Purveyors of Wonder (POW!), his second firm dedicated to creating storylines for films...")
posted by kliuless at 4:19 AM on June 23

Elements of the Burton Batman films that I prefer to their equivalents in the Nolan films:

--the production design. Gotham City is a real character in Batman '89/Batman Returns--it's almost the star. A little bit Fritz Lang; a little bit Blade Runner. But I barely remember what the Gotham City of the Nolan films looks like. A little bit like Chicago; sort of brown.

--Michael Keaton as Batman. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne looks like a guy who would probably be Batman. There's no way in hell you'd pin Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne as Batman, though.

--The score. Danny Elfman was at the top of his game then.

As far as the seriousness of the Nolan Batman films: I prefer Heath Ledger's Joker to Nicholson's, but for all that I thought TDK in particular wasn't so much a serious movie, so much as it was a film that was trying hard to convince me that it was serious. I imagine it reading its own reviews to me in Bale's gravelly Batman voice, pointing out to me that it begins with a homage to Heat, a serious film I may have heard of, and that it's gravely concerned with an examination of political events of the day, such as the preservation of civil liberties. I like the Nolan movies for what they are, but I'm pretty sure I enjoyed watching the Burton films more.
posted by Prospero at 4:26 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]

Amen, Ghidorah -- Batman Returns is an awesome movie. I loved it so much more than the first one. Michelle Pfeiffer is the Heath Ledger's Joker of Catwomen, darnit.
posted by ELF Radio at 4:31 AM on June 23

Burton's Batman was dreadful. Jack Nicholson's still got chunks of the horrid sets lodged in his colon from all the scenery-chewing he did.
posted by Scoo at 4:31 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

The only way to do NNNNNN justice would be to make it into a (not-so-)mini-series on HBO or equivalent cable channel.

With N = to any of a dozen different titles or story arcs. As many times as I've seen this exact sentiment, I have to wonder why the powers that be have never tried one.
posted by anti social order at 4:38 AM on June 23

I remember showing up to the Maryland Renaissance Faire back during Bat-summer with a bunch of ten-something friends. Of course, we were all wearing our Bat-shirts. Some even had the Bat-knockoff Bat-shirts, the ones with the extra webbing on the bat-butt, but despite that, we were a gang, a Bat-gang.

Then the RenFest workers started to make fun of our Bat-shirts, shaking their heads and taunting us for what we were wearing.

As the ten year old me listened to folks years older than I, all dressed in vaguely matching archaic garb, making fun our Bat-shirts, I for the first time learned irony.

Bat-irony.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:47 AM on June 23 [8 favorites]

Does nobody remember the superhero that I was weaned on? Captain Marvel?
Does nobody remember the crippled newsboy, Billy Batson, who stumbles one night into disused subway station to be confronted with a row of statues representing the seven deadly sins and is given the secret code word SHAZAM that will magically transform him into Captain Marvel who fights to protect civilization from those seven sins?

Good Lord, someone out there still likes Capt. Marvel? He was over-earnest cheesy crap even when he was outselling Superman!

Thank God, no, these days no one remembers him. A lamer excuse for a superhero I never did see in all my days. The Big Red Cheese, indeed. No wonder Gomer Pyle was his biggest fan.

When are we gonna get to see him on the big screen?

Capt. Cheese had a Republic Pictures serial back in the '40s. It's best for all concerned that we just leave it at that.
posted by magstheaxe at 4:48 AM on June 23

Miller's Batman never shuts up, and is more bitter.

...and is a walking, talking advocate for fascism.

I recently rewatched the Burton Batman and was severely disappointed. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid and had forgotten how goddamn cartoony it was- like, maybe only half a step up from Adam West.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:50 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

The only way to do 100 Bullets justice would be to make it into a (not-so-)mini-series on HBO or equivalent cable channel.

That was going to be the plan for Preacher until HBO got new execs. :(
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:51 AM on June 23

with even B-team superheroes like The Green Lantern

Yeah, you're really letting Wolverine off the hook here. Despite being a popular character (claws! mysterious background! badass!) he is ridiculously overrated and B-team at best.
posted by graventy at 5:03 AM on June 23

Green Lantern is NOT B-team.

I have to agree. Green Lantern is a badass. As is Martian Manhunter, and Huntress, Green Arrow and Black Canary. But I can't stand how Black Canary always looks like a Jazzercise instructor.
posted by Medieval Maven at 5:15 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

It's always funny to me when people complain about comic book movies being "cartoony."

This ain't homer, people, it's ok to keep some camp in it.

I really don't want to have a sissyfight about it, but I promise you that Tim Burton's batman is better [in both the ways Prospero described and others] than any and all modern emo versions. The cartoony-ness is what makes it effective. It remains, after many rewatchings, one of the few superhero movies that is honorable to its source and successful in moving beyond the genre.

And Nicholson is utterly the best joker. The scene in the Art Museum alone is worth a thousand Marilyn Manson imitations.

crap I'm in for it now dont hit post dont hit post aaaaarrr
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:22 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]

But since the comic book audience is dwindling...

It's been dwindling since the early '40s.

Yet, everyone knows who Peter Parker is, or what Clark Kent does for a living... and here's the freaky part... they probably knew it before going to see the movie, or hearing any hype about the movie.

Comics readership is in a perpetual decline, yet everyone, at some time or other, seems to have read some, and liked it enough to go see a movie about their favorite characters. I mean, there just aren't enough basement-nerds out there to float a billion dollar Bat-franchise.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:27 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

Zeitgeist

The Burton 'Batman' was perfect for its time. It combined the Adam West campiness with Millers' 'Dark Knight' psychonoir, which let the audience experience a decaying society without getting all serious. Bales' 'Dark Knight' is way too plausible, leaving the audience to really consider whether a rich vigilante could be the best option for humanity. As comic as 'Batman' was, it tapped a mythical vein, Persephone descending to Hades as Batman tried to save the girl. The reality-base of Bales' version had me thinking about reckless driving and consequences, which took me out of the scene.

Btb, Captain Marvel was my father's favorite comic. It was for kids, at the time when Captain America was happily slaughtering Nazi's and Tojo had buck teeth. It fit the zeitgeist just fine. Terminator 2 is the overextension of the early 21st century zeitgeist, full of torture and endtimes, and no sense of humor or self-awareness.

IMO, Hollywood blew it placing 'Watchmen' as a manifestation of the current zeitgeist. Sienkiewicz's 'Elektra, Assassin'
posted by dragonsi55 at 5:30 AM on June 23

I've hated all the Batman movies (speaking as a comix fan). The first ones were too campy, and then Nolan pulls off a classic case of over-correction and goes all dreary and "serious." I actually fell asleep during the first one. I laughed at much of the second one, given how idiotic the plot was and how incredibly over-rated Ledger's performance was ("Look! I'm manic and crazy and stuff!").

So my hate knoweth no bounds when it comes to the Batman franchise. I'll stick with the original TV series which was, at the very least, pretty damn entertaining.

But hey, Marvel > DC nine times out of ten. (Yes, I went there.)
posted by bardic at 5:32 AM on June 23

whoops.

... 'Elektra, Assassin' would've been more courageous. And its a love story.
posted by dragonsi55 at 5:32 AM on June 23

I think I was 9, almost 10 when I saw that movie in a small town theater. The movie was notable not because it was especially good (though I thought it was), but because it was the first one I was allowed to attend by myself. My mom dropped me off, waved at the box office guy and I was in.

I got the greatest seat ever, right up front (I can't do that anymore -- I'm not sure why it was so great back then -- but it was). 2 minutes before showtime, I smelled a waft of horrible B.O. and look up as the creepiest middle-aged guy ever plops down next to me and starts chatting me up. My Wonder Years' monologue went ballistic at that point and screamed at me to run between panicked breaths. The dead kid from Stand By Me was probably running through my head at this point, because that was already my favorite movie. I got up and speed-walked away.

So, yeah, I saw that movie in the far back corner of an over-crowded theater, sitting next to a couple of bewildered older ladies, with so much adrenaline running through me that the entire film is vividly etched into my memory.
posted by empyrean at 5:45 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

I liked to play Batman and Robin when I was a child due to the re-runs of the original series' on TV. I really enjoyed 'The Dark Knight Returns' comic. I liked Tim Burton's films because they were interesting, entertaining and unpredictable. Michael Keaton made a good Batman IMHO.

I find Christian Bale to be no fun to watch as Batman, just really frowny and boring. Like the recent films, which are indeed TOO LONG. I actually couldn't be bothered to watch the whole *skip to the end*.

Goes off to dance with the devil in the pale moonlight.
posted by asok at 6:06 AM on June 23

Last year I took a look at Rotten Tomato ratings of comic book movies from the past decade (self-link).
posted by Plutor at 6:10 AM on June 23

I remember being all cock of the walk in my Batman t-shirt as I walked through the mall until that teenager by the Yogen Früz shouted "Batman is a fag!"

I remember hearing high school debates about whether the Adam West Batman or the Michael Keaton Batman was "faggier." In fact, I even once read some cultural studies essay about how Tim Burton's Batman was intrinsically homophobic, because it represented a violent "de-gaying" of the more camp/Warhol pop art aspects of Batman. In fact, I have hard time telling which debate or essay was sillier.
posted by jonp72 at 6:18 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

"But how much longer will the superhero bubble last?"

Probably for just a few years after this "sci-fi" fad blows over.
posted by Eideteker at 6:23 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

... 'Elektra, Assassin' would've been more courageous. And its a love story.
Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner will burn for their ridiculous portrayals of two of my favorite comic characters. Feh.
posted by DWRoelands at 6:43 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Thor FTW.
posted by Sailormom at 7:08 AM on June 23

hippybear: "In one of the stranger twists in the world of superheroes, it was actually the Bruce Timm and Paul Dini who were working on Batman: The Animated Series who came up with, of all things... Freakazoid!

Now, THAT is a superhero who needs a feature film."

Dear god that'd be awesome. Hell, Toby Danger and Lord Bravery could hold down movies of their own.

It's sort of weird actually that I remember those shorts so well... they only got the chance to make one Toby Danger cartoon and two Lord Bravery shorts. They removed the focus on B characters in the second season meaning those two brilliant concepts, as well as The Huntsman ("DARN the luck"), were left hanging.

While we're talking about awesome things that will never ever happen, how about an Earthworm Jim movie?
posted by JHarris at 7:13 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

asok: "I find Christian Bale to be no fun to watch as Batman, just really frowny and boring. Like the recent films, which are indeed TOO LONG. I actually couldn't be bothered to watch the whole *skip to the end."

Dear god you are SO RIGHT. We went in to see Dark Knight in the theater, I was ready to enjoy it, a concession worker was enthusing about it before we went in, I sat down, and....

...ugh. The move like ended like twice before it was supposed to. They had to much to squeeze in there, what with having two major villains and complete plots focusing on both of them, that it just felt badly paced. I actually apologized to the concessions guy afterward for not liking it, it nearly put to me sleep before the end.
posted by JHarris at 7:17 AM on June 23

Well, I thought that Burton did a pretty good job at melding together the camp Batman and the darker, Milleresque Batman. I didn't exactly like Keaton in the role, but he was surprisingly effective for all that.

dhartung: right there with ya. Because the Burton Batman happened in the last few years pre-Internet, there is little record of it online -- I would have linked if I had found a good source -- but I recall an awful sense of doom among comic fans at the notion that the guy from Mr. Mom was going to play Bruce Wayne. Of course you had to hang around comic book shops to hear that kind of talk. The casting is what made it work, when the more conventional wisdom would have been to put some square-jawed actor known for drama like Val Kilmer in the role. Ahem.

And in a related note, I disagree with scoo's assessment that Jack Nicholson's still got chunks of the horrid sets lodged in his colon from all the scenery-chewing he did. Or rather, I'd say that criticism is missing the point. Of course the Joker is a larger-than-life character, and the entire movie is somewhat operatic in scope. But excepting the much later About Schmidt, it is the only time in the last several decades that Nicholson-the-actor hasn't been larger than the character he was playing and could actually disappear into the role even a little.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:22 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]

I'm still waiting for the David Lynch version of Little Dot.
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:24 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]

I read a sorta interesting thing a while back referring to the correlation between superhero-popularity and times-of-national crisis.

Seriously, I think it's nothing more than (1) reasonably cheap CGI letting people do the effects without looking like ass, and (2) X-men and Spiderman made gobs of money.

Also, the Burton Batman movies were, like everything Burton did except Ed Wood, a miserable spray of horrible twee awfulness.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:29 AM on June 23 [4 favorites]

Does nobody remember the superhero that I was weaned on? Captain Marvel?

There was going to be an adaptation called Shazam: Jon August explains how it died sometime last year.
posted by gladly at 7:39 AM on June 23

"Freakazoid! Now, THAT is a superhero who needs a feature film."

Okay, but not until Robert Rodriguez finally gets around to making a Madman movie.
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:39 AM on June 23

I worked at the Hoyts Cinema 6 when Batman came out, and I remember talking to the other knuckleheads there, gravely, about what an important and well-made movie it was. Ha! What a load of horseshit. Have you seen that P.O.S. since then?

Freaking Dream A Little Dream holds up better than Burton's Batman. And they only got worse. Batman versus Starlight Express On Ice, what was that one called? But at least nobody ACTED like those other ones were anything other than long, expensive, boring, Happy Meal commercials..
posted by dirtdirt at 7:43 AM on June 23

I just realized why I like Burton's batman the best-- The Joker is appealing not because we want to kill people and be psychos but because of how beautiful destruction is. It's the difference between Eminem and Insane Clown Posse. Also because Michael Keaton wants to get nuts.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:50 AM on June 23

I remember what a big deal "Batman" was when it came out, the long lines, the hype, the overblown breathlessness surrounding it. Then there was the Prince soundtrack, which was probably the last time that a truly, unmitigatedly batshit bizarre soundtrack ever got made for a big-box-office movie and hit #1. Looking back, though, the appeal of Keaton as Batman is lost on me, the scenery-chewing of Nicholson is pure camp, and there seems to me to be absolutely no justification for the casting of Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale.
posted by blucevalo at 7:53 AM on June 23

The only way to do justice to Basho's pond-splash-frog poem would be an HBO-produced miniseries.
posted by everichon at 7:54 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]

I'm not the only one who's loving The Brave & the Bold here, am I? It has a hilarious version of Aquaman!

I think that Deadwood and The Brave and the Bold are the best things ever to have been on TV. However, I'm not sure at all they're good in that order.

I've had superhero fatigue since like 2003, though, and think they need to chuck this shit and start making movies for grownups again (right after someone makes a movie from my superhero comic, of course).
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:55 AM on June 23

One of my issues with the Dark Knight? It wasn't set in Gotham. Everytime they showed anything to do with the skyline (or, say, Lower Wacker Drive), I thought, "hey, it's Chicago! I haven't been there in a long time. I should probably visit."

The lack of continuity between the quite Gothamy Batman Begins, and the Windy City Caped Crusader was a bit offputting (disclaimer: I liked Dark Knight so much I willingly dropped 4000 yen on the bluray, and it's purty). I think I had the strongest aversion to suspending my disbelief of my movie going life when they mentioned "bridge and tunnel" crowd, causing everyone to pile on to the ferries.

"Bridge? You mean the Skyline? Why would they go to Indiana after work? Ferries? South Haven is a pretty far commute by boat!"
posted by Ghidorah at 8:09 AM on June 23

Is it Ghostbusters 2?
posted by Brocktoon at 8:12 AM on June 23 [3 favorites]

Also, David Lynch + Doom Patrol = gold.

I've been reading Doom Patrol and thinking "If this were filmed it would be either wonderful or horrible." It's a really fascinating mix of absurdity and gravitas that would be so difficult to capture appropriately.
posted by owtytrof at 8:14 AM on June 23

JHarris: Dear god that'd be awesome. Hell, Toby Danger and Lord Bravery could hold down movies of their own.

It's sort of weird actually that I remember those shorts so well... they only got the chance to make one Toby Danger cartoon and two Lord Bravery shorts. They removed the focus on B characters in the second season meaning those two brilliant concepts, as well as The Huntsman ("DARN the luck"), were left hanging.

In case you didn't know, you no longer have to rely on memory.
posted by hippybear at 8:35 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

The only two good songs on the Prince Batman soundtrack are the "The Future" and "Electric Chair".
posted by vibrotronica at 8:42 AM on June 23

It's a bit fascinating to realize that Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight are both huge box-office record smashers. I mean... $300 Million domestic box office? In 1989? Completely unheard of at that point. I remember that summer SO clearly... The marketing blitz leading up to the film... The complete lack of escape from the BatLogo... I didn't like the film, per se, but I loved so much ABOUT the film. The soundtracks (both of them), the wonderful Gothic Art Deco design of Gotham, even Bassinger as Vicki Vale, with that Veronica Lake echo resounding all over the place...

I do think Batman Returns was a better film in so many ways. DeVito's Penguin was disgusting and ultimately full of pathos. They even almost got Catwoman right.

Let's not talk about Batman Forever. I've spent far too many hours on my shrink's couch talking about that already. ;)
posted by hippybear at 8:53 AM on June 23

You know what, so long as there are talented and caring directors who want to put their own work and reputation at stake (even if the risk is relatively small, as with Favreau's Iron Man, or Raimi's first Spider-Man), then there will always be good comic book movies that will outlast the inevitable fatigue. The stories are perfect for serialization, obviously, but they're also perfect as iconic, mythic representations of our personal struggles. I don't have to go into why, it's a well-trodden and understood argument. The key, though, is directors with a personal vision making the stories they want to see. Because what hollywood is doing, and will continue to do, is ride the wave, cranking out the movies they think will sell. And that's what will cause the fatigue. Wolverine? Not that great of a movie. Not horrible, I guess, but not that great. the third X-Men? Not that great. they're probably only going to get worse.

and what's most discouraging is that most of these films ARE the work of directors with some measure of vision for the project making the film that they want to see. Ang Lee and Ed Norton, bless them, really tried. The Hulk movies just weren't very good, though. And Raimi's 3rd venture into Peter Parker's world was flat out terrible.

But we still get movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man out of it. And that makes it worth it. Japan eventually suffered from Zatoichi fatigue, dozens of movies into it, but even then Beat Takeshi was able to resurrect the franchise for a pretty damn good movie. The good stories always come back.
posted by shmegegge at 8:54 AM on June 23

Pft. No Wonder Woman in your top 4?

Here's the thing about Wonder Woman. I love the concept of WW. I loved watching Lynda Carter in that outfit. However, barring only George Perez's run, I've never really gotten into WW.

But yeah, she should have been on that list. I'll put Lantern at 5 and WW at 3, moving Flash to 4.

Why must I compulsively list things?
posted by Bonzai at 9:00 AM on June 23

It's all worthless 'till they make a Hitman (Tommy Monaghan) movie with and appearance by Section 8. Seriously.
posted by djrock3k at 9:01 AM on June 23

Amen, Ghidorah -- Batman Returns is an awesome movie.

I guess, if you dug deep enough, you'd find two MeFites who could agree that the latest Indiana Jones is somehow a triumph. My reaction to Batman Returns the only time I've seen it (on opening weekend) was to ridicule it so loudly that I was asked to either shut up or leave the theater.

It's an awful movie in almost every way ... except for the usual Burton triumphs in art direction and overall "look".

But don't get me started on comic book movies. I do tend to hate them as a rule, not so much for the overt awfulness (though there is a lot of that) as for what they're ongoing popularity has done to movies in general over the past 20 years (ie: one big loud blockbuster after an another that has no ambitions beyond separating the audience from its cash).

The only comic book film that's ever truly done it for me is Buckaroo Banzai ... and, of course, that wasn't even a comic.

Of course, V For Vendetta was actually pretty cool, and I haven't seen Watchmen yet ... and, there is the original Batman.
posted by philip-random at 9:20 AM on June 23

Thank God that Preacher never got made. I love those books, but I'm not sure that I want to see them onscreen. But I agree that what the world really needs is The Goon, in stunning squidtacular Zombie-vision.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:35 AM on June 23

Bageena : Get Tim Burton to read Johnny the Homicidal Maniac.

Sure, just for the chance to see Johnny Depp point and scream, "You see it changes color when it dries! It never stays! I Have to keep the wall wet!"
posted by quin at 9:41 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]

They really should make a LXG movie.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:50 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

But don't get me started on comic book movies. I do tend to hate them as a rule, not so much for the overt awfulness (though there is a lot of that) as for what they're ongoing popularity has done to movies in general over the past 20 years (ie: one big loud blockbuster after an another that has no ambitions beyond separating the audience from its cash)

You know what I hate? The term "comic book movie." Comics don't equal superheroes any more than novels equal Harlequin romances. I understand your beef with superhero movies, but Ghost World was very much a comic book movie and was neither overtly awful nor a big loud cash-separating blockbuster.
posted by COBRA! at 10:02 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Sure, just for the chance to see Johnny Depp point and scream, "You see it changes color when it dries! It never stays! I Have to keep the wall wet!"

We can get Robert Pattison to play Mmy! And have his scene happen with no special effects work at all!
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:24 AM on June 23

I imagine [The Dark Knight] reading its own reviews to me in Bale's gravelly Batman voice, pointing out to me that it begins with a homage to Heat, a serious film I may have heard of, and that it's gravely concerned with an examination of political events of the day, such as the preservation of civil liberties.

Heh. Right on.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:32 AM on June 23

Get Tim Burton to read Johnny the Homicidal Maniac.

That would be the first comic he's ever read, by his own admission.

I still liked the movie.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 10:42 AM on June 23

A recent viewing of both the Burton Batman movies had me strongly favoring Batman Returns. The scene where The penguin's lifeless corpse is carried into the sewer by his penguin minions is just unbelievably touching.

A recent re-reading of The Dark Knight Returns shows it to be a much lesser entry in the annals of comic history than it's made out to be. I love Frank Miller's art, but he can't write his way out of a paper bag, and he takes himself awfully seriously.
posted by orville sash at 10:50 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

not_that_epiphanius: That would be the first comic he's ever read, by his own admission.

I don't think this is any longer true. The cover to my copy of The Killing Joke has a blurb from Tim Burton saying something to the effect of 'This is the first comic I ever loved.' Mind you, I mostly can't stand Tim Burton, and I don't believe he has any respect for comics in general, but he has read at least one.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:55 AM on June 23

not_that_epiphanius: "Get Tim Burton to read Johnny the Homicidal Maniac.

That would be the first comic he's ever read, by his own admission.

I still liked the movie."

your link does not say anything about JTHM.
posted by shmegegge at 11:02 AM on June 23

someone out there still likes Capt. Marvel? He was over-earnest cheesy crap

well, there's marvelman :P kimota!

but even those depths have already been plumbed... and that's where the novelty wears off and the fatigue sets in, as lee sez, "there is now nothing you can imagine that cannot be shown," where industry takes over from art, after exploring all the intricacies of a genre/franchise; i mean, the incredibles was gerat* (and 'up'!), but for medium-to-medium rendering of comic books on screen, i'd like to see, say for e.g., more a history of violence or persepolis ...at least for now -- less hero and more comix,** i guess :P

like i was struck by how comic book-like children of men was in a 'graphic novel', uh, cinematic sense*** (video-gamey too in an FPS way) but wasn't weighed down at all by the (tired) conventions a.o.scott talks about, i.e. a fresh look at a post-apocalyptic SF dystopia (of decadent fascist thugs and refugee camps) rendered in stunning neo-noir realism -- a fully realised world unconstrained by the boundaries of genre, yet still working within (some of) them, cf. pan's labyrinth [there's something about the 'new wave' of mexican directors :]

anyway, i guess the not-very-original point is there's a certain amount of inevitable comics/movies overlap because they're visual (and 'textual') story-telling mediums -- one just costs less and might, therefore, be considered a 'rapid-prototyping' venue -- but whether it's superheroes or gangsters (or westerns, vampires, picaresque adventure, etc.) or whatever 'formula' that makes one compulsively readable/watchable, and therefore marketable/commercial, churning out 'product' regardless risks cheapening the work and leaving it soulless -- an exercise in making expensive knock-offs, where an audience appreciates and prefers (and would pay for) well thought out craftsmanship, i'd hope!

---
*sort of like how aeon flux was to cartoons or FLCL to anime...
**or SF/fantasy epics! (vance is waiting to be mined ;)
***i'm thinking geoff darrow, moebius or otomo
posted by kliuless at 11:02 AM on June 23

or, on preview, what shmegegge said :P

superheroes do represent a kind of modern mythology (who said aliens replaced angels/demons?) and with movies ascendant as a cultural form, it makes sense to see so many making it to the screen (back in the day, people painted pictures of jesus & mary all the time, and *gasp* some were more popular than others!)

so with modern mythmakers -- say like PKD and cormac mccarthy (maybe vonnegut is due for a run again?) -- there's a tendency to 'translate' (invites interpretation) their work to film (unless of course they're already native to the medium, cf. kubrick, spielberg, scorsese, etc.)

...but what happens when the medium of the masses shifts again?
posted by kliuless at 11:09 AM on June 23

vance is waiting to be mined

You will find no bigger fan of Vance than me, but a movie based on a Vance book would be radically different from anything else out there, and "radically different" are not two words that get potential producers reaching for the chequebook.

Vance novels typically have straightforward plotting and lush, delirious dialogue. This is the polar opposite of your typical Hollywood movie, which these days has plots adhering to Robert McKee's tiresome focus-group-friendly formulas, with beats, reversals and a neat resolution but dialogue written at a second-grade level.

And who could deliver Vancian dialogue? Well, maybe David Mamet's stable of actors. Ricky Jay could play a hetman, or a maugifer or something of the sort.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:16 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Thank God, no, these days no one remembers him. A lamer excuse for a superhero I never did see in all my days. The Big Red Cheese, indeed. No wonder Gomer Pyle was his biggest fan.

Mr. Mind, is that you?

xoxo

Dr. Sivana
posted by benzenedream at 11:46 AM on June 23

Hm, a Dying Earth movie could be awesome.
posted by JHarris at 1:05 PM on June 23

Well, I thought that Burton did a pretty good job at melding together the camp Batman and the darker, Milleresque Batman.

I think that might be a false dichotomy -- Miller himself brings in a lot of Adam West Batman. Quote from the introduction to Miller's Dark Knight:

"Paradoxically, all the goofy stuff, the on-the-face-of-it preposterous stuff, nudges its way back in. The Batcave just isn't complete without that fifty-foot penny. When Commissioner Gordon wants to summon his favorite outlaw, he doesn't do it discreetly like anyody with a lick of sense would. Nah. He lights up the whole sky with the Bat Signal. Given a hundred more pages of DARK KNIGHT to write and draw, I might well have brought giant typewriters and the Bat-Mite into the mix."

Keep in mind also that campy is hard to do. Batman and Robin (quite possibly the worst movie ever made, somehow always worse than you remember) was trying to be campy but ended up being unspeakably stupid. Miller's The Dark Knight Strikes Again actually does bring in the Bat-Mite, but it is the worst comic book -- the worst thing I've ever seen. It's not even funny-bad.

Say what you will about Batman (1966), but it's not boring.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:07 PM on June 23

Reading the wording of the post brought to mind another Hollywood risk that blew my mind, namely handing hundreds of millions of dollars to Peter Jackson to make Lord of the Rings. I still wonder, had they seen Meet the Feebles and Bad Taste? Also, Jackson must have had a great pitch. Same with Burton, I suppose. Probably some dynamite sketches. Maybe just: "and Nicholson as the Joker."
posted by Bookhouse at 1:22 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Say what you will about Batman (1966), but it's not boring.

No, it's actually quite entertaining. And the plot is pretty good, too, if you overlook the preposterousness of the whole scheme. But the "united villains against Our Hero" plot was pretty new then, and I remember being QUITE tense when I was younger wondering if they were going to find a way out of this mess.

Not to mention, one of the best twists on a "save the day" ending EVER.
posted by hippybear at 1:22 PM on June 23

Reading the wording of the post brought to mind another Hollywood risk that blew my mind, namely handing hundreds of millions of dollars to Peter Jackson to make Lord of the Rings. I still wonder, had they seen Meet the Feebles and Bad Taste?

From what I understand, Jackson did a huge amount of work before he was even given permission, and went so far as to create a very simple storyboard-based voiced-over animatic to even prove the concept of his film would work. All this was likely part of his presentation.

I agree with you. I love Meet The Feebles (although I watched it the first time on mushrooms and was a bit scarred by that experience), but I would never have used that as a springboard to greenlight LOTR by the same director. Never in a million years.
posted by hippybear at 1:24 PM on June 23

Of course the Joker is a larger-than-life character, and the entire movie is somewhat operatic in scope.

Actually, this is one of the problems I had with 1989 Batman when I rewatched it the other day: it just wasn't epic enough.

Who is The Joker? He's just some jackass mobster who got double-crossed by his boss for sleeping with some pretty lady. That's his back story. He's just some wiseguy, that's it. What is Batman's origin story? His parents were killed.... by The Joker!!!! How did The Joker get to become so messed up? He was dropped into acid... by Batman!!!! Isn't that convenient. It's just happenstance that the same petty crook who killed Batman's parents happens to be disfigured in a botched mob hit, when Batman is present.

There's no poetry in that. It's too simple an explanation for what is supposed to be an epic battle of operatic scope between Batman and The Joker. The writers were clearly trying to make it seem epic (Batman faces off against his archenemy, and in so doing, also confronts the murderer of his parents!), but it was forced, and it just replaced psychological complexity with cheap tricks.
posted by Ms. Saint at 1:42 PM on June 23 [2 favorites]

Honestly, you know what continues to disappoint me most of all about ALL the Batman movies? It is that, at its core, Bruce Wayne becomes Batman in order to revenge the death of his parents, which he saw murdered before him when he was a child. So... why not portray within his character that any and all Bad Guys he's fighting BECOME the murders of his parents in his mind? I wanted SO desperately to see some kind of manifestation of Wayne's psychosis (because that's what it is), in a way which made it clear to the audience that he is not doing all this crime-fighting in the name of "Truth Justice and the 'Merican Way". But that he's really a deeply unbalanced person who has expanded his own personal crusade for revenge to include any and all he fights against. He may have the resources and training to go out there and "be the Batman", but inside he's still that kid watching his folks bleed to death on the sidewalk.
posted by hippybear at 2:40 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Say what you will about Batman (1966), but it's not boring.

Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
posted by shmegegge at 2:40 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]

Well, let me clarify: it put itself across as operatic because of the ubiquity of its presence twenty years ago. That gave it a semblance of scope that is not quite there in the movie itself. Somebody once observed that it was the first time that the movie took up less cultural space than the marketing.

In that way, it was the dawn of the new era of marketing movies, where it was no longer just about the movie itself. Batman itself holds up as an okay movie (if a little of its time), but within ten years you had massive campaigns like Godzilla, where the movie itself was an embarrasment, and less than ten years after that you had Snakes on a Plane, where the movie was entirely irrelevant (actually, releasing the movie probably hurt the brand).

Now it is a given that marketing and the movies they purport to promote barely even write to each other anymore. Moviegoers now just accept that when they go to the movies today, there may be utterly inexplicable promotions going on (a poster featuring a closeup of Johnny Depp and another identically framed one of Jennifer Connelly and the words "Summer 2010" beneath them) designed to create a buzz. I am not a marketing guy, but I really think that the poster in the FPP with partly visible bat symbol and the date beneath it is the starting gun for that type of teaser-based approach to selling the film.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:41 PM on June 23

less than ten years after that you had Snakes on a Plane, where the movie was entirely irrelevant (actually, releasing the movie probably hurt the brand).

Truer words were never posted.
posted by hippybear at 3:09 PM on June 23

In that way, it was the dawn of the new era of marketing movies, where it was no longer just about the movie itself. Batman itself holds up as an okay movie (if a little of its time), but within ten years you had massive campaigns like Godzilla, where the movie itself was an embarrasment

Batman: 1989
Howard the Duck: 1986
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:31 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]

I remember going to some movie with my mom when I was seven and seeing the mentioned movie poster at the theater. Neither of us had any idea what movie it was for, but my mom guessed that the logo was Bugs Bunny and two Gumbies looking down a well.
posted by Evilspork at 5:09 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]

In spite of all its flaws, the 1989 Batman has one advantage over the recent films; it didn't spend most of the movie showing us the origin of the character.

It bugs me a bit that most of the recent crop of superhero films have to do an extended origin story; its like they go to desperate lengths to show the audience that its reasonable for our hero to done a costume. Granted Batman, Spiderman and Iron Man's heroics are wrapped up with their origins, but I find myself wanting more movies like Incredibles that start en media res and deal with other aspects of being a superhero than the origin.
posted by happyroach at 11:44 PM on June 23 [2 favorites]

he's really a deeply unbalanced person who has expanded his own personal crusade for revenge to include any and all he fights against.

Or else, he's a hero. A sufficiently balanced guy who doesn't want anyone else to suffer like he did.

That's the beauty of Batman. Thematically and visually, so many interpretations.
posted by Superfrankenstein at 11:54 PM on June 23

In spite of all its flaws, the 1989 Batman has one advantage over the recent films; it didn't spend most of the movie showing us the origin of the character.

I watched the thing on DVD again yesterday, and it struck me that this sets it apart from essentially every superhero movie ever made (or at least the first in every series). I doubt sixty seconds total is invested in the origin story. On the other hand, I have seen Hugh Jackman thrash around in that fucking tank in three different movies now.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:46 AM on June 24

On the other hand, I have seen Hugh Jackman thrash around in that fucking tank in three different movies now.

To be fair, the comics themselves seem to have Logan thrashing around in that tank quite a bit, too.
posted by hippybear at 9:40 AM on June 24

ricochet biscuit: "this sets it apart from essentially every superhero movie ever made (or at least the first in every series)"

I can think of several off the top of my head that don't dwell on origins:

Mystery Men
Hellboy
Superman Returns (might be the best recent counter-example)
V for Vendetta
Watchmen (haven't seen the movie, but the book presents the origin stories very piecemeal)
posted by Plutor at 10:39 AM on June 24

Well, Superman DID have WAY too much origin story. Superman Returns is, by all rights, a sequel to that movie. Origin story would be redundant.

Hellboy also had origin story, I think just about the whole first 10-20 minutes? It's been a while since I watched it. That's not really dwelling, I guess.
posted by hippybear at 12:00 PM on June 24

Mystery Men is a comedy that spoofs superhero movies, Hellboy had a good ten-to-fifteen-minute stretch in it devoted to the origin story, Superman Returns is for all practical purposes a sequel to Superman II (whose own predecessor, for all its virtues, made the origin story about a quarter of the movie), and Watchmen, as with the book, devotes a fair bit of time to the origins of Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach. I will give you V for Vendetta, though.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:25 PM on June 24

Or on non-preview, what hippybear said.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:25 PM on June 24

happyroach: In spite of all its flaws, the 1989 Batman has one advantage over the recent films; it didn't spend most of the movie showing us the origin of the character.

To be fair, for a certain reading of Batman (my preferred one), Batman's origin story is integral to every Batman story. I mean, Peter Parker got bitten by a radioactive spider, now he has powers, sure, whatever. But the whole raison d'etre of Batman is that he saw his parents murdered by some anonymous hood and so now he puts on a rubber suit and lies to everyone he meets and beats the shit out of people that remind him of that anonymous hood because he can't get over it. Batman's a crazy motherfucker and, unlike the majority of superhero origins, his origin wasn't merely a catalyst for the beginning of his superhero career, but rather informs every one of his superhero actions.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:41 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]

I do think Batman Returns was a better film in so many ways. DeVito's Penguin was disgusting and ultimately full of pathos. They even almost got Catwoman right.

Whether or not it's better it is most certainly a more genuinely Tim Burton movie.
posted by rodgerd at 5:15 PM on June 24

I find it puzzling that in these threads we always refer to books that came out 20 years ago - Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Killing Joke, Sienkiewicz' Elektra and Daredevil books... Captain Marvel aside, while these books are the very ones I too esteem most highly within their genre, is it true that these are the *best* and that the last 20 years since in the funny book underwear pervert biz is all derivative? Or are we demographically governed as forty-year-olds by our twenty-year-old impressions of these works, as is demonstrably the case for most with respect to our pop music tastes?

And IIRCC a Captain Marvel franchise is unlikely as DC won a knockoff lawsuit against His Redness' creators, like, in the forties, and ended up with ownership of the franchise and only trot him out when it won't undercut the Blue Tee Shirt franchise. Although I do seem to have a vague recollection of a live-action Saturday morning kids' serial in the seventies with Billy and the Captain and all.
posted by mwhybark at 11:41 PM on June 26

The Punisher, like Batman, has a very succinct origin story. All of the films (and most of the comics) cover it, but rarely dwell on it for too long. His wife and kids were killed by criminals so now he kills criminals. Easy enough. Then again, his superpowers are sociopathy and moral objectivism. And endless inner monologues warjournal entries.

Also, mwhybark, I think it's extremely difficult to create iconic superhero characters that can penetrate the mainstream consciousness. I don't read superhero comics as it's a genre that never did it for me (with a few notable exceptions), yet I know most of the characters mentioned in this thread. We could bring up people like Holden or Miss Misery from Sleeper, but good look getting people to instantly recognise the reference. It's a general 'problem' with modern entertainment: there is such a wide variety of media, that creating something truly iconic and recognisable is practically impossible. Most of the comics that are huge now won't be around in 40 years time. Batman has been available in different incarnations for multiple generations of comic book readers.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:31 AM on June 27

I find it puzzling that in these threads we always refer to books that came out 20 years ago - Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Killing Joke, Sienkiewicz' Elektra and Daredevil books... Captain Marvel aside, while these books are the very ones I too esteem most highly within their genre, is it true that these are the *best* and that the last 20 years since in the funny book underwear pervert biz is all derivative? Or are we demographically governed as forty-year-olds by our twenty-year-old impressions of these works, as is demonstrably the case for most with respect to our pop music tastes?


I think it's mostly that enough time has past for the cultural dust to settle, allowing everyone to agree what the classics are from that era. I can think of a lot of really, really good shit that came out in the past ten years, but that's recent enough that there's still not really a consensus.

And then you've got the 90s.
posted by COBRA! at 7:37 AM on June 27

Transmetropolitan was fairly recent, and it's very much of its time.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:31 AM on June 27

Thanks for picking up on my maundering, y'all.

When these books came out, we - and I include myself here - all recognized them as amazing works, and the fact that they all came out in a two-year (give or take) period is really stunning. At the time, if you asked a comics cognoscenti for the best of 1966 to 1969, roughly twenty years prior, the first thing that would have come up was Crumb and other undergrounds (Shelton, Pekar, many more), and then eventually someone would realize that high-period Marvel coincided with that era as well.

Although it had not come up until, um, now in this thread, Fantagraphics, RAW, and Dave Sim were also attaining their eighties peaks at this same time. It's impossible to imagine Miller's Dark Knight or Moore's amazing stuff without also considering the Fanta material (especially the Hernandezes).

I guess the thing that puzzles me is that I knew the books that come up time and again in these threads were classics the day I picked them up in the store, and so did a lot of other people. It appears that perhaps this knowledge has proved accurate with the passage of time.

Where are the newer classics? As I said, the books that come up again and again here were classics the day they hit print. There was no settling of dust. I, personally, read a LOT less comics than I once did. So, where are the pieces (Chris Ware to the side, yo, maybe Millionaire, but his strip work is strip work and his books work is not up to the standard of the four-panels) that are clearly a new new old thing, that reframe the medium and open new audiences? Are there any? Is it really Achewood and Cat Rackham? I realize this is a sidetrack. Please forgive me.
posted by mwhybark at 9:25 PM on June 27

I really enjoyed Kingdom Come which is definitely a bit younger than 20 years. And, it also got me a bit more interested in Captain Marvel. That particular part of the plot renewed my interest in that character.
posted by Samizdata at 12:19 PM on June 28

I only recently read The Dark Knight Returns and thought it was a pretty naked apologia for fascism and an assault on liberalism and what the hard right would consider "weakness". Of course, I'm also familiar with Sin City and 300 at this point, not to mention Miller's efforts to make a comic where Batman beats up Osama bin Ladin on the premise that Americans need to see their heroes do that sort of thing, and I'm not sure if I would've read it that way twenty years ago.

Now, that said, I could see pretty easily why it's so well thought-of; things that comics routinely do today simply weren't done till around that time. Whatever I may think of the messages being communicated, that it was about something was pretty neat at the time, I'm sure.

Of course, I was seven then, so I shouldn't have read it twenty years ago. ;)
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:30 PM on June 28

Where are the newer classics? As I said, the books that come up again and again here were classics the day they hit print.

Hmm, Ex Machina and Planetary struck me as being great concept and execution from day 1, but give it ten years to see if they hold up.

It could also be that there is no new generations of comic readers, and so stuff intended to hook a new audience fails when presented to the musty fans who are mostly into nostalgia - or is obviously going to find better purchase in TV, manga, etc. Alan Moore has ranted on this subject several times.
posted by benzenedream at 12:38 AM on June 30