One of the best things about this film is that it was one of the first superhero films to actually take the genre, and itself, seriously. It wasn't camp like so many of the superhero based films before it.
Batmen Begins took it even further.
It definitely started an enjoyable trend that has continued to this day.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
I wouldn't call the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies or the Michael Keaton Batman movies to be campy. Schumacher's embarrassments and the ill-advised third and fourth Superman movies, yes, but not those.
shareI'm not trying to put your view of said films down or anything, but the first two Superman films and the Michael Keaton Batman films were quite campy for sure, though not as much as the films further in those series. The way people react to things, deliberately speeding the film up during things to make it look comical...I can't even begin to list everything about these films that make them camp, as it would take much too long to do so, nor would I be able to as I haven't seen them in a while.
They may have seemed much more serious at the time, as things that came before them were even worse with the camp style, but for all intents and purposes, they were very camp in themselves. They deliberately made some scenes to be utterly ridiculous just so it would give the viewers a laugh. The didn't want to make them to be too serious as the viewing public might have rejected them. They would have never been able to take a film like X-Men, or the new Batman films, or the new Superman film, and play them back in those days. People would have hated them. It simply isn't a style that would have worked in those times. So they made the films they did in the style that they knew people would enjoy...seriousness with a grain of salt, some comedy, and many camp aspects. The later films in those series completely veered off of the road into absolute ridiculousness, which is why they were awful. The former ones were successful, but camp nonetheless.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
I'm not trying to question your grasp on the concept of "camp", but you're the first person in the 20+ years Tim Burton has been making movies to describe his style as "camp".
shareI never said Tim Burton's style was camp, I said the films were. And not the entire film, of course, just certain aspects of them. BTW, read some reviews of the films from many of the known reviewers, plus follow up reviews from years later. I'm hardly the first person in 20+ years to refer to those films with the word camp.
Also, the Joker from the first film is one of the most camp characters in the history of cinema. Could he be anymore outrageous? And while the Penguin himself is not exactly camp, his surrounding certainly are. The rubber duckies? The boat thing that he rode in? And just the utterly ridiculous aspects of some of the humor in the first two films of both series. As camp as can be.
And, in addition, I'm not speaking in any way of the gay aspects of camp. None of the films were that type of camp, although I still wonder about the Penguin (a joke).
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
I never said Tim Burton's style was camp, I said the films were.Now, Adam West's television Batman was camp. Would anyone put Burton's efforts into the same category? share
Oh god, nowhere near that. That show was VERY camp. Hilarious, too.
Why aren't cookies called bakies?
Well, I suggest 'camp' is not the word to describe Burton's movie. If it is, the word has no real meaning. Even with the word 'very' or some other modifier in front of it.
shareWell, then I would suggest you continue to not call it so. I will continue to say it has camp aspects.
Why aren't cookies called bakies?
Who would guess anyone would define both the television show and Burton's Batman in the same category?
I'm reading some of the movie's reviews; overly violent, adult, too dark...
...An eerie, haunting spectacle, Batman succeeds as dark entertainment...
Hence the word ASPECTS. This does not mean that the entire film is camp, nor does it mean that everything that camp entails describes any and/or all parts of the film. Again...the word ASPECTS. Sheesh!
Why aren't cookies called bakies?
What ASPECTS of Batman (1989) would you consider "campy?" At most (and off of the top of my head) I'd say the Joker's shooting down of the Batwing.
share^You have to understand that people in the 1970s didn't take the concept of superheroes seriously. It was seen as dumb kids stuff with hokey dialogue. Back in the day, people read comic books as kids and watched cartoons and TV shows (or listened to old radio serials if you grew up way back then) about superheroes, then they grew up, got married had a job and put that crap behind them. It was seen as kids stuff. When America faced the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and skyrocketing inflation, it was a joke that a dude in a cape and underwear would run around and solve these problems, superpowers or not.
Hell even in the 90s it was considered kids stuff, though admittedly it was much better received by the over 30 and over 40 adult public in the 90s compared to the 1970s and early 80s. So the Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner movies have to be given a lot of respect and their just due for breaking the ground in 1978 by making the first official serious take on the superhero genre. I know it has it's dumb stuff with Lex Luthor and Otis, but you have to remember what Donner and company were fighting back then. The public at that time just were not accommodating the superhero genre. Again, even in the 80s and 90s, it was not that accommodating, though people started to slowly take the concept in a more serious light. But I still couldn't imagine a movie called "The Age of Ultron" coming out in either 1985 or 1995. People would have laughed.
When Bryan Singer made X-Men in 2000, he was greatly inspired by Richard Donner and the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. The Michael Keaton Batman movies have their place too, as the first films to take Batman in a more serious way, I just don't think Tim Burton was the right director for it. Though I'm not sure who in 1989 could have done any better.
I think you are misunderstanding and taking it that I am saying that those films were a joke or awful. They weren't, and I actually consider Superman II a fantastic film, even more so the Richard Donner cut.
All I was saying is that the newer films are more serious in tone. I understand why they wouldn't have worked back then, and why the films that came out back then did.
But, again, I'm not saying that they weren't enjoyable and didn't fit the time.
Why aren't cookies called bakies?
I understand that's how you see it, that's fine. People are influenced by what they grew up with. If you really weren't around in either the 1970s, 80s and 90s, then you don't remember how the idea of superheroes in movies were seen. The point of my post was to give you a backdrop of context of the times, to let you know that people just did not take the concept seriously. They didn't take it at all seriously in the 1970s and before, it got better in the 90s, but it was still was not like today. For years superhero movies were seen as nothing but toy movies to sell happy meals to the kiddies. The adult audience over the age of 13 was largely ignored.
So the Donner/Reeve movie in 1978 was revolutionary, and it should be acknowleged as the first attempt at doing a serious superhero movie. Not the 2000 X-Men movie. Although the villains like Lex and Otis were handled in a goofy way, the character of Superman was treated seriously. Donner and Reeve made people believe Superman actually existed.
Bryan Singer was influenced by Richard Donner and his use of "verisimilitude" in Superman when he was making X-Men in 2000.
I guarantee you, all the modern superhero filmmakers were influenced by Superman 1978, and to a lesser degree Batman 1989. So the movie was made in 1978 with Donner and Reeve, but the kiddie attitude towards superheroes persisted and it basically took a generation (20 years) for a new batch of filmmakers to arrive to finally realize that there will be an audience to take superheroes seriously. Afterall, they remembered Superman 1978, they knew it could work, you just had to do it. But first the audience has to know that the filmmakers themselves aren't laughing at the character behind the camera, if the audience feels the directors and writers are approaching the material seriously, then they will believe in the characters no matter how crazy the concept is.
I was born in '72.
Why aren't cookies called bakies?
Well you're a good 4 years older then me, so we're the same generation and you understand how superhero movies couldn't escape the Adam West/George Reeves camp factor right up until around 2000. At first I thought perhaps you were younger then me. I still feel Superman 1978 was the first bonafide creation of a serious superhero film, at least in regards to the main character. And it was amazing they were able to get as far as they did considering the mentality they were up against.
shareI don't think the first two Superman movies were campy. They weren't as dark as many modern superhero movies, but there wasn't any more camp than there is in X-men. They were definitely "family" movies.
The Burton Batman movies definitely had some camp (especially watching them now), but they were also quite a bit darker with more adult themes than Superman. It's not like the Adam West Batman where it was full on camp, but there's a level of surreality in there that makes it not seem as "real" as more modern movies.
X-men was more geared towards adults, but with much less camp. It's one of the first to have that particular combination. It's around X-men and Spider-man that the filmmakers started thinking of the movies as "movies about superheroes" rather than "superhero movies," or live action cartoons.
Although I still feel that the first two Superman films were campy as well, I fully agree with the remainder of what you said. And watching that original Batman series is a trip, for sure. Nothing BUT camp. LOL.
And for sure, the superhero films since the first X-Men film have definitely had a darker, more serious tone than earlier films.
In the end, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I liked the original Superman films, and the Richard Donner cut of Superman 2 is even better than the theatrical version, in my opinion. I also liked the Tim Burton Batman films. They surely had elements in them that made them darker than anything before them, and I remember there being some complaints about the seriousness of them. Can you imagine if they had released "The Dark Knight" back then? Good lord, it probably would have resulted in riots and boycotts (not really)! The Dark Knight is still, for me, the darkest of the superhero films released, even darker than the third film, but which most likely is the reason why it is my favorite. They don't pull any punches when it comes to someone being evil.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
Although I still feel that the first two Superman films were campy as well, I fully agree with the remainder of what you saidI think it's just minor semantics we're dealing with. I wouldn't necessarily call it "camp" in the Superman films, but I also don't know what else to call it. It's more fantastical and less "real" than the more recent films. share
Actually, that may very well be a better way to describe those two films instead of describing them as camp, as I did.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
So you were both wrong and retarded not knowing what "camp" even means. Thank you for acknowledging it but not so for creating an unnecessary thread just for other people to prove you wrong.
shareWhat a wonderfully intelligent post. Precisely how many hours did it take you to formulate that thought?
Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in my Armpit One Midsummer Morning - by Grunthos the Flatulent
Batman Returns definitely had elements of camp...anyone who argues against that is blind.
shareI think Spider-Man is the one that actually took the superhero genre seriously. X-Men is kind a comic book movie, not particularly the "superhero" movie.
X-Men are about mutants, while having super-abilities, the movie does not focus on them using superpowers to become heroes, as opposed to Superman saving lives, Batman protecting the city, etc. It was mutants vs mutants vs humans. Like Aliens vs Predator vs humans, nobody is the hero. Thus it's was not "truly" a superhero movie IMO.
If it was not based on a comic, it might be classified as a sci-fi movie.
[deleted]
I didn't know that, but I can certainly see it. Thanks for the info.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
[deleted]
I have yet to see Skyfall, but I know that it is regarded as one of the best Bond films yet, and one of the best in a VERY long time, going back to the Sean Connery era.
I did see Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, and I definitely noticed a much more realistic tone, as well as being more serious than previous Bond films.
I used to be a HUGE Bond film fan when I was a kid, but sort of lost interest after the second Timothy Dalton film was released. I saw a couple of the Pierce Brosnan ones and wasn't all that impressed.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
[deleted]
Consider this about Brosnan's films. We had Connery fighting the Cold War and make believe bad guys. We had Moore do the same thing, but looked horrible doing so. Dalton comes along and gives some heft to the role. He's got an edge about him.
When Goldeneye comes out, we no longer had the Cold War and we are several years away from 9/11. It was lighter times. Obviously there were bad guys, but just how bad were they?
I think they made the right choice with Craig as Bond, but I also see that he's simply playing Dalton's Bond - just 20 years later.
[deleted]
As for Brosnan he just looked too much like a tailors dummy to me, never credible in the action.
[deleted]
^And Bryan Singer has cited that he was inspired greatly by Richard Donner's use of "verisimilitude" when he did Superman 1978. I know Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor and his sidekick Otis were dumb villians, but Donner and Reeve made you believe that Superman was a real person that existed. You believed the character existed.
So if Batman Begins/Dark Knight was birthed from X-Men and X-Men from Superman 1978....again we circle back to Superman 1978 being the godfather of all "serious superheroes".
I always found first 2 X-Men parts the smartest & the most serious Superhero films. I love their dark tone & atmosphere. I just can't stand modern-day comic book movies
share