Seriously... it sucks
Don't kid yourselves. It sucks. Seriously.
share[deleted]
Beautiful language. You learn those big grown-up words yesterday in 8th-grade gym class?
shareDon't take it personally, he was probably just annoyed at your incredibly wrongheaded and incomplete critique.
Now, I've seen "Batman: Dead End", so I know it's a darned good little short film and the creators did a heck of a good job creating mood, redefining characters, presenting an action-packed story on a shoestring budget, and creating a Batman and Joker who were more compelling in 6 minutes than the theatrical film ones have managed to be in two movie serials, one 1960s film and four 1980s/90s films.
And if you're going to claim it "sucks", you've got to say why you feel this way. So go ahead, explain what sucked about it. You'll be wrong, but give it a try.
You can find this in my user comments... but here it is copied and pasted.
Um...
I consider myself one of the biggest nerds of all time. But I'm sorry... this film sucks.
I don't deny that it was, on a TECHNICAL level, a well done short film. I don't deny the producers put a lot of work and love into it. But I'm sorry, this is NOT a GOOD Batman film.
Its better than Batman & Robin, probably the greatest cinematic abortion to ever hit the screen, but its still not that great.
Let's take a look at the flaws (note: I won't attack the bad acting, as that couldn't be helped due to the low budget of the short-film.)
1. The suit. I know everyone thinks its better to have him where the spandex suit because its more true to the comics. Wrong. Batman does not where spandex (at least, not JUST spandex anyway). There are several references in the several issues where Batman mentions/talks about/or references his body armor. Usually in the form of "body armor took the brunt of that blow..." or something like that. Batman is a grade-A bad ass. But, he's not a dumb ass. He will have whatever on him necesserary to protect him, while at the same time allowing him mobility to run around rooftops and such. I'm sorry, but the costume from the WArner Brothers films makes MUCH more sense than a flimsy peice of spandex... without the nipples of course.
2. The bad guys. It started with promise, with The Joker escaping Arkham. Great. But then... A FRIGGIN' ALIEN!? PREDATORS?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Don't feed me that crap about Batman having faced them in the comics. Bull. Batman faced them in CROSSOVERS, which is we all know, is never an acknowledged part of a hero's official cannon. Batman also met Spider-Man, and The Hulk, and Captain America. But you don't see him referencing those characters in the DC Universe do you? No, because technically, it NEVER happened. My point is, if they were trying to impress studio execs into making a Batman film, use actual characters accessible to Batman. The Joker, Two-Face, Ra's Al Ghul... Anyone but friggin' Aliens and Predator. Because chances are, that's what you'll get if/when the next Batman film comes out... an established Batman villain.
I am, however, not without a soul. Like I said, all of the people involved with this film, I applaud them for doing something that I'm sure they had fun doing. I did like certain aspects. First, the cape. The cape looked PERFECT. The cinematography. PERFECT. Exactly what a Batman film should look like. And the opening was very intriguing. Showing Batman putting on the costume even though he's beat to hell... THAT'S Batman.
Anyway, in all, a nice effort, but I would have been more impressed without the hokey suit and the friggin' aliens and predators.
AJ
Well it was way better than 'The Death of Batman.'
shareI think it sucks too, but not because of those reasons listed above. Unlike you, I choose to attack the bad acting. If you can't afford good actors, the best thing to do (if you actually want to entertain your audience), would be to:
(a)Not make the movie at all (my favorite)
or
(b)Make the movie, but make it so silly that people will know it's a joke and not get pissed off when they see their favorite comic book character displayed in such a low-budget, crappy manner.
Batman is a character that should be portrayed by someone who is going to try to "become the character" and get inside his head before playing him. Bruce Wayne's parents were shot in front of his eyes when he was a young child, and since then his life hasn't really gotten much better. This man is dark and extremely pissed off most of the time, and when he isn't pissed off, he's brooding. Seeing some lame low-budget actor playing him is enough to turn my Batman-loving stomach. The Joker was crappy too, but don't get me started on that.
Like other people have said, there are good things about the movie (the costumes, makeup, the Alien cameo). But come on, nobody can say that the guy that played the Joker in Dead End lives up to the standards set by Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson before him and mean it. Deep inside yourself, if you say that the guy that played Boner in Growing Pains actually pulls off being the Joker and DOESN'T seem like he's overacting (and that's hard to do with the Joker), you've gotta know you're lying. Just admit it, and the truth shall set you free.
Also, the movie stopped being interesting the moment I realized it wasn't going to be a joke. If you're going to make a movie that's this ridiculous, you're obligated as entertainers to let the audience in on the joke.
In summation: I hated this movie because I love Batman. And this movie doesn't.
Number one, Clark Bartram not only LOOKED the part (as was the whining of many of you zit-faced, little pricks, upon the confirmation of Keaton's role as Batman), but he WAS pissed-off throughout the whole film, and I thought that, in the eight minutes that he was given, he pulled off the Dark Knight's persona perfectly, and was anything but lame. Secondly, you dump on Andrew Keonig for his "overacting", but, preceding that statement, you make a reference to Cesar Romero. Let me let you in on a little secret: Because he had much more of an emotional investment in his role as a romantic leading man, Cesar Romero refused to shave his mustache for the part of the Joker, thus, make-up artists had to cake on the white-face paint over that area. Now, does that sound like an actor who is trying to "become the character"? Cesar Romero had NO dedication to his role as the Joker. Then, you have the balls to call this film a joke, even AFTER your reference to the live-action series, which was more of a joke than any Bat-related medium to this day. And you call yourself a Bat-fan. . . you make me sick.
"I'm not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me."
"What are you?"
". . .I'm Batman."
You're absolutely correct! I too loved the film. The essence of the Batman was captured in within that short video. Clark Bartram, in my opinion, is more of the Batman persona then any other actor I've seen.
I loved the film.
Great job!
PKW
[deleted]
I just have to say. Clark put his heart and soul into Batman. He trained for weeks to get the part just right. He read every batman comic and graphic novel he could get his hands on to find the heart of batman.He and Kurt also spent weeks with the stunt coreographers getting Predator fight sequences just right.
He worked night after night on a freezing cold, wet outdoor set without so much as a single complaint, in fact he was kind of proud of some of the bumps and bruises he received.
When Clark walked on set, everyone knew he WAS Batman.
Andrew allowed himself to be lifted up, knocked down and smacked around to make the battle between The Joker and Batman convincing. He only had a stunt double for two shots that were considered too dangerous by the stunt coordinators.
He also dove into the role completely with the hopes of being the Joker fans wanted to see. We all think he succeeded in a big way. Like Clark, he read batman comics, watched the animated series, etc.
Everyone involved in making this movie was dedicated to making the best Batman they could. How do I know? I was there.
You feel you have the credentials to critique the actors and shooting style? Have you ever had an acting lesson? Our cast were all professionals.
Have you ever studied Cinematography? Our Cinematographer sure has.
Have you ever worked on a Film or TV show? Virtually everyone on this production has.
Who are you to criticize this film as if you know anything?
Now go, make your own film, put your own hard earned money and time into it. Post it and let's see how well it stands up against Batman Dead End. Either that, or just shut up, open another bag of chips and stuff your face while thinking in your tiny little mind of how much better your movie would have been if you'd actually gotten off your butt and made one.
Joke indeed.
[deleted]
TheRealPaulRay, if you can't take constructive criticism as a filmmaker, then get out. Hiding behind "ooohhh but have you ever made a film?" is a pile of bulls**t. These people have a right to express their opinions.
That lil rant aside, I personally found this to be pretty enjoyable. The atmosphere was spot on, the acting was pretty good (for a short) and the dialogue, however little there was, was brilliant. I don't care about costume really, its low on my priorities when looking at a film, but the joker looked great.
I'm not a monster...I'm just ahead of the curve
Buddy... I think you forgot something: comics heroes are not real. Batman:Dead End does not need to follow the rules of the "real life". I dont care if this new Batman doesnt wear the ultraprotected realistic Keaton outfit...(which one I adore), because this short film is about "fantasy". I saw this lil film yesterday for the fist time and I was completly amazed about the "Alex Ross's look". Come on, dont be a fool and enjoy this little jewel. That its all about... entertainment.
shareI disagree totally with anyone who doesnt like this ADULT version of Batman. I was watching it and the first thing that came to mind was... "This is Frank Miller's Batman brought to life!" A Batman that needs to look like he has a body and not just a muscle suit!
Sure the acting was sub-par... at least on Batman's part. But hey, how many lines did he have anyway? The Joker on the other hand was GREAT! Better and more true to the character then big Jack's version. And the addition of Preditor and Aliens was GREAT! It feels like a teaser for the new upcoming movies!
Overall... I'm very happy! 8 minutes I wont soon forget... and people wont soon stop talking about.
I really liked this film up until the introduction of the Alien. I believe that this film lives true to the comics, and is simple enough to be beautiful. I just think it could've been as good without Alien and Predator involved.
shareWow, seeing all these "If you think it sucks/is good then you're an idiot" posts really exposes those involved for the self-absorbed, pretentious shits that they are.
It's pretty ironic that anyone would try to look cool by arguing over the internet.
Remember, arguing over the internet is like running in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
first you say it sucks, then to defend yourself for saying it sucks you say it sucks, despite it being excellent.. get a clue.
second, who cares if you are a nerd, you must not know your comics.
Originally Batman's armor WAS his gauntlets and his cape. More than that, he depended on the whole motif of the Bat to inspire fear, which is why he adopted it. <a href="http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Batman">"...because criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot"</a>
remember, that in his essence, Batman is just a MAN. He's a man who was driven to be an avenger and protector of men/women from criminals. He trained himself to the pinnacle of a man's best, so he wasn't afraid of physical harm for the most part.
THAT is the Batman this was based on. About aliens and predator not being part of the continuity, uhm wrong again. Superman too has faced the aliens and met Spiderman too, and HAS mentioned it in later books. some extra-continuity stories are out that dont, but these stand, just like the Batman/Spawn stands, the War of the Worlds stands. Do the cross overs count? yes...
Does the Crisis count? yes...
so, know your role...
[deleted]
Anyone who doesn't know the difference between the words "wear" and "where" is a moron. It's a 10 minute short of someone showing his directing abilities. You are a poster showing the world what an idiot you are.
share"1. The suit. I know everyone thinks its better to have him where the spandex suit because its more true to the comics. Wrong. Batman does not where spandex (at least, not JUST spandex anyway). There are several references in the several issues where Batman mentions/talks about/or references his body armor. Usually in the form of "body armor took the brunt of that blow..." or something like that. Batman is a grade-A bad ass. But, he's not a dumb ass. He will have whatever on him necesserary to protect him, while at the same time allowing him mobility to run around rooftops and such. I'm sorry, but the costume from the WArner Brothers films makes MUCH more sense than a flimsy peice of spandex... without the nipples of course. "
I remember also off the top of my head where Batman references how he has different costumes made out of different materials... something to the effect of "Kevlar when I'll be hitting heavy firepower, silk for crusing the night" or something like that. One could have a fabric suit over top of body armor also, as he did in The Dark Knight Returns, where the Bat symbol on his chest was blown off and you see the armor underneath his shirt. You are clearly not one of the biggest nerds of all time.
"2. The bad guys. It started with promise, with The Joker escaping Arkham. Great. But then... A FRIGGIN' ALIEN!? PREDATORS?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Don't feed me that crap about Batman having faced them in the comics. Bull. Batman faced them in CROSSOVERS, which is we all know, is never an acknowledged part of a hero's official cannon. Batman also met Spider-Man, and The Hulk, and Captain America. But you don't see him referencing those characters in the DC Universe do you? No, because technically, it NEVER happened. My point is, if they were trying to impress studio execs into making a Batman film, use actual characters accessible to Batman. The Joker, Two-Face, Ra's Al Ghul... Anyone but friggin' Aliens and Predator. Because chances are, that's what you'll get if/when the next Batman film comes out... an established Batman villain."
As a fan, I always wondered why indepedent filmmakers who make shorts featuring comic book characters use their conventional villains instead of showing something we'll we probably never see in movie theaters like, oh, I don't know, Batman fighting Aliens and Predators. I don't see how the hell you can take this as a fault that an indepedent filmmaker did something a Warner Brothers sanctioned filmmaker could never do. If a director makes a truly impressive short, I don't think any film exec would say "Well, we WOULD hire you to direct this film, but you used characters that are out of continuity from the regular DC Universe, so no." Try thinking before you post something next time.