• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Review: Batman '89

I'd forgotten Wayons was in the planning to be Robin, that's a nice touch

(I sadistically now want a Batman & Robin '98 doing Joel Schumacher tales that never were)
 
unknown.png
 
Thande said:
Can you imagine what the internet would do nowadays if they cast a black guy as Harvey Dent.

I know he was only a cameo in the OTL Burton film(s?) to build on later so it's not really a fair comparison, but still, score one for 1989.
Click to expand...

Billy Dee Williams also played two face in the Lego Batman movie, and the lego character was visibaly black, so score that same one for 2017.
 
Gary Oswald said:
Billy Dee Williams also played two face in the Lego Batman movie, and the lego character was visibaly black, so score that same one for 2017.
Click to expand...
Wasn't aware of that - I keep meaning to watch that because I know a lot of fans have said the medium helped it recapture some of the Adam West charm that's usually lost from modern Batman interpretations.
 
Thande said:
Wasn't aware of that - I keep meaning to watch that because I know a lot of fans have said the medium helped it recapture some of the Adam West charm that's usually lost from modern Batman interpretations.
Click to expand...

I watched it with my nephews, its mindless but fun. Some good voice cast whos who moments too.

Theres some current political irony in Eddie Izzard playing Voldemort.
 
Thande said:
Can you imagine what the internet would do nowadays if they cast a black guy as Harvey Dent.

I know he was only a cameo in the OTL Burton film(s?) to build on later so it's not really a fair comparison, but still, score one for 1989.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about the Marvel Ultimate version of Nick Fury, which thanks to the MCU is probably the more recognised version of the character now, but had they tried to introduce that version in 2022 instead of the woke heyday of *checks notes* 2001 large swathes of the Internet would be in uproar.
 
RyanF said:
I feel the same way about the Marvel Ultimate version of Nick Fury, which thanks to the MCU is probably the more recognised version of the character now, but had they tried to introduce that version in 2022 instead of the woke heyday of *checks notes* 2001 large swathes of the Internet would be in uproar.
Click to expand...
The irony of it is (as I understand it - only having seen bits of the Ultimate comics) - like most people in Ultimate, Samuel L. Jackson Fury is a complete wanker who deliberately starts wars and destroys planets out of some Machiavellian scheme, whereas the MCU Samuel L. Jackson Fury is more like the original in character. I do like how they've brought across ideas like that, Miles Morales (not into the MCU but into Spiderverse and the games, and indeed the original comics) and so on while ditching the whole 'everyone's a wanker because it's the early 2000s and we're edgy' stuff.

I will say one thing that surprised me was that (the Peter Parker original of) Spider-Man having biological web-shooters didn't stick around. I think the Ultimate comics did it first and then it appeared in the Tobey Maguire films in 2001; at the time, having read a few comics and seen the Saturday morning cartoon, I thought "Yes. That's an objectively good change, which makes way more sense from the origin of his powers than him coincidentally developing a special web solution and shooters because he's a teen science genius". I believe they retconned or changed it in the original comics as well to avoid confusing new viewers from the films, and then...it was just undone? I know Spider-Man writers have this cabal of people who refuse to let any changes to the status quo stick, but was anyone really that upset about it being changed?
 
Thande said:
The irony of it is (as I understand it - only having seen bits of the Ultimate comics) - like most people in Ultimate, Samuel L. Jackson Fury is a complete wanker who deliberately starts wars and destroys planets out of some Machiavellian scheme, whereas the MCU Samuel L. Jackson Fury is more like the original in character. I do like how they've brought across ideas like that, Miles Morales (not into the MCU but into Spiderverse and the games, and indeed the original comics) and so on while ditching the whole 'everyone's a wanker because it's the early 2000s and we're edgy' stuff.
Click to expand...

The thing with that is the 'everyone's a wanker thing' wasn't omiprescent in the Ultimate comics anyway

Essentially there were two main writers of the Ultimate comics, Bendis who did Spiderman, Fantastic Four and Team Up was very much writing likeable funny characters without any baggage and much younger and Miller, who did the x-men and avengers was writing everyone as massive arseholes.

So you simultaneously had Peter Parker and Sue Storm as the most likeable rootable for heroes in the market and Iron Man and Professor X as just the worst people to ever exist. It was a weirdly unbalanced brand.
 
Thande said:
I will say one thing that surprised me was that (the Peter Parker original of) Spider-Man having biological web-shooters didn't stick around. I think the Ultimate comics did it first and then it appeared in the Tobey Maguire films in 2001; at the time, having read a few comics and seen the Saturday morning cartoon, I thought "Yes. That's an objectively good change, which makes way more sense from the origin of his powers than him coincidentally developing a special web solution and shooters because he's a teen science genius". I believe they retconned or changed it in the original comics as well to avoid confusing new viewers from the films, and then...it was just undone? I know Spider-Man writers have this cabal of people who refuse to let any changes to the status quo stick, but was anyone really that upset about it being changed?
Click to expand...

I think the Webb films made the change back, and I can see it no doubt motivated by "We're being true to the original comics." Can't speak to the comics, but that's when the films changed.
 
Gary Oswald said:
The thing with that is the 'everyone's a wanker thing' wasn't omiprescent in the Ultimate comics anyway

Essentially there were two main writers of the Ultimate comics, Bendis who did Spiderman, Fantastic Four and Team Up was very much writing likeable funny characters without any baggage and much younger and Miller, who did the x-men and avengers was writing everyone as massive arseholes.

So you simultaneously had Peter Parker and Sue Storm as the most likeable rootable for heroes in the market and Iron Man and Professor X as just the worst people to ever exist. It was a weirdly unbalanced brand.
Click to expand...

I did like when Peter and Kitty Pryde were dating, that was cute.
 
The Ultimates were deliberately meant to be easier to do as films, which is why Ultimate Fury got very quickly altered to look more like Samuel L Jackson. But not as openly a complete arse (and I'm still unsure why Millar, coming back, went "he deliberately provokes the Red Skull to get his job back and once slept with all his wife's friends & let her find out")
 
I think we also have to recall how “weird” Burton’s Batman used to be. It was a look no one was expecting and for all the Dark Knight Returns ideas in the comics Batman’s big move was forming the Outsiders or dealing with the Joker, the ambassador for Iran, killing Jason Todd.

Whole thing is that Burton showed a very unique version of Batman. And that become increasingly THE look for the Dark Knight.
 
varyar said:
I did like when Peter and Kitty Pryde were dating, that was cute.
Click to expand...

One thing that always head fucks me is that since you have multiple versions in mutliple runs out at the same time Peter Parker and Kitty are simultaneously in their thirties/to middle aged and an inspiration to a young generation of students and also pimply teens struggling to find any semblance of balance in their lives and fangirling out over 'real' heroes deigning to notice them.



Since their two most popular versions are young teenagers and contenders for two of the most respected heroes on earth.



I think my favourite bit about into the Spider Verse and the later maguire films was that they allowed Peter to actually be a grown ass man instead of endlessly repeating his journey through highschool over and over again, I'm not a comics buff but hasn't Peter been a fully fledged adult since like the 1970s in the comics?
 
Death's Companion said:
I'm not a comics buff but hasn't Peter been a fully fledged adult since like the 1970s in the comics?
Click to expand...

Checked my timeline: he graduated college in 1978, went into a postgrad, and then the writers went "eh" about that and had him leave studies in 1983. He twice had "I'm going back to college!" periods that didn't last.

All those years spending Aunt May's money on going to college all so he could be a freelancer selling photos of himself.
 
Charles EP M. said:
Checked my timeline: he graduated college in 1978, went into a postgrad, and then the writers went "eh" about that and had him leave studies in 1983. He twice had "I'm going back to college!" periods that didn't last.

All those years spending Aunt May's money on going to college all so he could be a freelancer selling photos of himself.
Click to expand...

Naturally, I can't find it now, but a year or so ago, there was a fan thing floating around where ambiguous semi-villain Emma Frost c. 1990 discovers how brilliant Peter is when he's fighting Doc Ock near one of her offices and begins bankrolling him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top