Comic Book Fans: Is Tim Burton's Batman Accurate?
Good point Jory. Hell, even Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were accurate adaptations of the 60's Batman. Nolan's Batman films are adaptations of the late 80's and 90's Batman.,
Anyway, to the OP, I'm not defending everything about the Burton films, BUT I will say that Keaton's Batman was intimidating and mysterious.....moreso than Bale's.
all right then, in the original comics, superman wasn't able to fly at all. then, he was depicted as being able to fly. i would get pretty pissed off if the movie depicted superman as not being able to fly even though the recent comics say otherwise. (BTW, Tim Burton WAS going to do that with the planned film, "Superman Lives". He didn't want superman to fly as it would be "too boy scoutish" also, he casted nicholas cage as superman
anothr example is with sabretooth, aka victor creed, wolverine's enemy. in the original comics featuring him, he was just a serial killer. no claws, mutant healing, none of that. now, sabretooth has powers. i would be pretty pissed off if in the moie he was depicted as just a serial killer
And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own personal favorite version of a character. But one interpretation being more popular than another doesn't make it any more "correct." And complaining about something simply because it's not faithful to the source material is pretty lazy. If you don't like Batman killing his enemies, fine, but it would be better to explain why you don't like him doing that instead of simply pointing out that he doesn't do it in the comics.
did you read what i posted at all?! i never said nolan's version was more correct because it was more popular!
what Markmagnum said is an excelent explanation:
You certainly implied it with your speech about how you would be pissed if all the most popular aspects of the comics were not represented faithfully in a film adaptation. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. But it's beside the point. The point is that no interpretation is more legitimate than any other, and we shouldn't complain about anything in a comic book movie simply because it's not like the comics. And you're right, Markmagnum explained his views nicely. If you agree with him, that's explanation enough for me. Again, if I misinterpreted you in any way, I apologize.
You certainly implied it with your speech about how you would be pissed if all the most popular aspects of the comics were not represented faithfully in a film adaptation. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. But it's beside the point. The point is that no interpretation is more legitimate than any other, and we shouldn't complain about anything in a comic book movie simply because it's not like the comics. And you're right, Markmagnum explained his views nicely. If you agree with him, that's explanation enough for me. Again, if I misinterpreted you in any way, I apologize.
you know what? fine. you have every right to like michael keaton's batman better. but, this thread is about accuracy to the comics. and nolan wins at that. BTW, the comics from the '40's to the late '60's has no continuity to the mainstream comics anymore
I like the Burton films and still rewatch them from time to time. But different strokes for different folks.
_________________
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe: Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion; I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time; like tears in rain. Time to die." Roy Batty
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
actually accurate autism asessments? |
02 Feb 2024, 12:48 pm |
Any Amaranthe Fans? |
09 Apr 2024, 6:38 pm |
George RR Martin Calls out Anti-Fans |
10 Feb 2024, 10:33 am |
Fans are flocking to bars that show only women's sports |
27 Mar 2024, 7:31 pm |