Messages

The term " doesn know what it wants to be" is in refference to tone and direction, not genre. Pushing the envelope in genre mixing is always welcome in cinema. But when a film tries to do too much without finding a consistant tone or self awareness it becomes somewhat disjointed.

Take " Donnie Darko" for instance, it tried to mix, sci fi, satire, horror, fantasy, comedy and drama all into one film, which is fine, but every attempt at each genre was a tonal shift in the story and film, making it a mixed bag of what the veiwer is supposed to feel or what the film is trying to say. Making the lead character a Dues ex machina in every scene doesnt help either.


Batman Forever is an oddball of the batman films, its a very entertaining movie in its own right, but its more interesting to have seen what could have been. its a straight narrow shot down the middle, of being " meh" and being " good".  For me the only thing that bothers me, is linking two face as Riddlers meat puppet, when he should have stayed Robins subplot, it wouldve been much more interesting to see Batman/Bruce being on the race to recover his identity which Riddler stole/discovered, instead we get "holy rusted metal" on a giant green rubix cube island. Wish in one hand i suppose.

Update:

Seth Graham Smith has winked/hinted at starting the first draft, in a recent tweet.



http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/64546/its-showtime-seth-grahame-smith-and-beetlejuice-2

Good idea and nice job. the music cues up quite nicely with most of the edit. Only untill the giant Bat shows up, the music drastically changed tempo and key. If you'd be bold enough to cut down the end of scene, the "giant bat" bit was just cheesy and poorly directed. perhaps make it more implied of what he sees, a quick glimpse of the Bat-puppet (where we see the back of it ) and then fade to black.

If only it be possible to replace Val Kilmer with Michael Keaton, than we'd be on to something!   

Kilmer is so flat in this movie!

"i kinda like this one..."

From Beetlejuice (film) WIKI page:

In June 2010, Michael Keaton announced his interest in returning for a Beetlejuice sequel.[37][38] On September 8, 2011, IGN reported that Seth Grahame-Smith, author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, is currently working on a new Beetlejuice movie.[39] On October 27, 2011, Smith revealed more information about the project, stating that the film is a sequel to Beetlejuice that takes place 26 years after the original film.

http://perezhilton.com/2012-01-14-tim-burton-interest-directing-beetlejuice-2#.TzMmYMWJeZc

Just another internet rumor? or is any of this concrete ?

If it's true, then i don't have to express mine my excitement. If Tim Burton's on board most likely back in the directing chair, i couldn't see any harm done (ie. some flat studio-made sequal/remake ).

wow, that's nostalgia right there. I loved hearing Scandalous blaring from the speakers.

This my first topic here. I am a fan of all the Bat-Films ( well...most of them ), I'm a huge fan of the comics/graphic novels as well (Hush and No Man's Land are my favs), and i wanted to put my two cents in on the Burton/Nolan War that's been going on ever since Begins was released.

Firstly, i have NOTHING against the Nolan films, i think they're good movies, and i can not wait for the new one. but come on, there NOT perfect, as everyone seems to deem them to be. Now as WELL DONE as they are, I really enjoy the in depth story-telling, that Nolan aims for , but the films as a whole just don't seem to "feel" Batman to me.

It also seems the Burton films are being completely shunned nowadays. As if no one liked them to begin with, they're almost becoming under-rated and under appreciated.

I just don't like the sudden bashing, just because its a popular target.

Now theres pros and cons to both. We all know the Burton films live in their own cannon (unless you count the BTAS which is kind of a animated sequel), which is fine, literature is re-interpreted all the time in different media, while the Nolan films are much more loyal to the original source material such as "Batman not killing" and so forth. Nolan goes for a real-world universe to make the character believable, Burton makes his own Gotham City to make the character believable. Looking back though, all the characters in the Nolan films all talk the same (aside from Ledger's quirky voice-work), it's as if each one is giving a monotone speech in every scene ("i was meant to inspire good", "you die a hero" "this city deserves a class of criminal" etc.) Burton actually took time to stop and get to know the characters, it's little scenes like in Batman 89, where Bruce and Vicki enjoy hearing Alfred tell stories about raising him, you don't have that bittersweet character work in the Nolan films, even though it doesnt do much for the story, it really makes the characters feel genuine and real. same with the 'it's supposed to be cold" scene, little things here and there make the characters believable  in this stylistic universe. It seems Nolan spends too much time trying to create these complex and intricate plots to really give us a chance to connect with any of the characters. Even though its a more realistic setting, the dialogue and character work is so straight and direct, the characters seem almost phony.

The best way to say it is that to me, the Burton films are REAL people in a fake setting, and the Nolan films are FAKE people in a real setting.

That's just my two cents, what do you guys think?

i think the question should be "Would it have been better if Burton and Keaton and Sam Hamm returned?"