first of all sorry for my bad english....
i was wondering....if bat nolan films are considered the best among all the rest , one thing about the tim burton that they hardly will beat is there art desing production
first one was anton furst and BR was done by bo welsh that took what furst did in the first and continued on its way , i 'm not talking about the "batuit or batcrafts" only (although i personally prefer the first batmobile)
i'm alking about all gotham city,
the one on BR looks a lot more criminal insane EVIL city , with its dark artistic look statues and buildings stilished with german and french art deco and nuoveau , the nolan one have just no personality , it just the copy and paste of orinary streets, building and places of an ordinary U.S cities ,
i also dont want to talk bad of the new batsuit , i can see its well done in every detail , but i looks like the one batman should wear if had to fight cyborgs on the moon , i mean its too hitech wear thats all!!
yet i have to admit that nolan movies have better drama and story
i would like to discuss this as its a key aspect in my opinion regarding the movie that i did find only few words about it on the web
i was saying best among burtons ones because they totally gained quasi twice what the total of the 2 batman89+BF did
regardless of what is new or old (678.000.000 $ : 1294.000.000 $)
i know about creating the gritty dark gotham in first two and not in the others , but i was not talking about that , my question was
why not mixing some art design with the new movies too? just that
sorry if i was not clear in the beggining of the topic
Definitely one of my gripes too.
I don't expect the set design to be copied when a realistic approach is employed, but I would like to have seen a few gargoyles - something for Batman to crouch on! :)
I feel the art design, architecture, costumes in the Burton films blow the Nolan ones away.
Quote from: raleagh on Thu, 11 Sep 2008, 22:46
Definitely one of my gripes too.
I don't expect the set design to be copied when a realistic approach is employed, but I would like to have seen a few gargoyles - something for Batman to crouch on! :)
I can agree totally with that, because the whole movie I was waiting for it, but we didnt get it. Even the part where bats is on top of the one building listening to the mic in his cowl, he could have been on a gargoyle crouching or something, I mean his cape wasnt even blowing in the wind in that part.
fascism times architectures , as well as deco and nuoveau (including gargoyls too of course ;) )
no realistic approach would get effectd from those i think?
another point why do you think most of the people dont pay attension about these aspects of the bat movie?althou they are so easy to notice
can't figure that out really...
I love the design of Burton's Gotham, but for Nolan I like the real world city. Both different worlds with different aims.
they are both 100% perfect for their separate interpretations of the city, both worked well and felt real to me, except some really bad shots in BR where you can tell its a set and theres a cheesy background behind them.
This is one've the biggest flaws in Nolan's Batman. Gotham City is supposed to look like Hell taking over New York City. It's obvious to tell that BB & TDK take place in somewhere that's not NYC (well, for me, that is). Plus, there's too many daylight scenes.
Well, I like Burton's design of Gotham City, but I LOVE Nolan's Gotham. You can clearly see in some scenes in BB and TDK the dark aspect of the city. Also, it gives a feel of a big place, a real city.
89B & BR Gotham are great, but for me BB & TDK Gotham are the perfect Gotham in the the big screen. ;D
I still say Burton's Gotham, but I think we both could agree that we dislike a neon Gotham City.
The Neon Gotham is amazing, I liked it quite a bit.
Yeah I didn't mind it as much in Forever because I think they added just the right amount of flamboyancy. I think they overdid it in B&R, though that is simply stating the obvious.