Batman 89 will go down as the bigger classic than TDK

[spliz]

I'm talking about the hype behind those movies and the driving force to go see them was the casting of the villans not Batman. No one went to go see any of those movies to see Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney. They went to see how the villans were portrayed. Like I said, obviously there are stans who were heated with Batman's casting, but that wasn't the majority. No one I know cared about who played Batman. We were all just hyped to see the movie and the new villans. I'm not a stan, so I cant speak for people that protested Keaton being replaced. Also I was a kid/teen in the 90's so I didn't give a shyt. The villans are what creates the hype around any Batman movie. Hell any super hero movie. Without a good casting for the villan the movie will suck, doesnt matter who plays the hero.

Son Ur oversimplifying things... @MartyMcFly Broke it down for u tho...lol

 

[Chris Cool]

For filmmakers yeah but pop culture landscape? Nah. You gotta put everything in context breh: Batman was the first comic book flick since Superman and released in 89, right during the end of the cold war and in times of war, people always look to "heroes" plus you had the biggest actor on the planet playing the villain, a villain damn near the whole world was familiar with? That's huge. Jack Nicholson doing a comic book movie? That was unheard of at the time and no one thought it was possible, which also made it an event movie.

The movie was the 2nd highest grossing movie ever, heath ledger won a damn oscar. How is that not a huge cultural impact. Yaw reaching . Dark knight had hella competition, shyt was like 1/5 hero movies that summer and the shyt crushed the buildings.

 

[Uncle_Ruckus]

I'd argue that's still the thing for the day tho breh. It's always been like that with superhero flicks. We're making a superman movie, who do we cast as the villain? Gene Hackman, one of the biggest stars on the planet. And for his dad? Marlon fukkin Brando, meaning we can just cast this guy who does soap operas as superman.

Then when superman 2 comes out, you build your movie off the star power your main guy has now earned which is exactly what happened in batman returns. I'd argue Danny and Michelle were on equal footing with Michael Keaton in 92, maybe a little lower because he was Batman and was in the biggest movie of all time. At that point, you build your movie off of that but Burton himself has always been more interested in the villains so that's where he puts the focus of his story and I'm almost sure the studio wanted to make sure Batman Forever actually had focus on Batman. But once again, same scenario: We've got Val Kilmer, not that big of a star so let's balance that out with Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones.

Not until the x men movie or maybe even spider-man do you see casts of relatively unknown or at least kinda famous actors being put in these movies in all parts because the filmmakers were more willing to trust the material and trust that the film is good, not rely on stars to put butts in seats. Now you do an x men movie and Hugh Jackman and Jennifer Lawrence are the biggest stars in it and they're both homegrown

Well said breh.

 

[MartyMcFly]

The movie was the 2nd highest grossing movie ever, heath ledger won a damn oscar. How is that not a huge cultural impact. Yaw reaching . Dark knight had hella competition, shyt was like 1/5 hero movies that summer and the shyt crushed the buildings.

Breh again, context. Did anyone say Dark Knight didn't have a huge impact and wasn't a gigantic film?? No. But I'm saying and others are saying that Batman is probably the bigger film for what it did for that character at the time, changing the ways in which movies are marketed and completely blowing expectations out of the water, especially when analysts were expecting it to fail. It was a huge gamble and it paid off big time. Again, there was freaking batman cereal with marshmallows in it because of that movie and how big it was. People got bat symbols etched in their heads man. At a time where there was limited advertisement in Times Square because it was still a dump, the bat symbol was at the center of times square. The movie was that huge and a lot of that has to do with the media landscape.

 

[Master Teacher]

89 was the summer of Batman for all ages, not just kids. Teens fukked with it, 20somethings fukked with it, 30somethings on a less stannish level, but it was still something people had to see. Higher than 30s took their kids. Batman was all encompassing, only Star Wars movies can fukk with B89's blanketing of pop culture.

@Master Teacher , you are not a writer. Writing on a message board does not make you a writer. Stop lying, we weren't born yesterday. I respect your hatred for TDK, but c'mon, you're acting like the TLR losers who claim they have 6 certs, make 6 figures, and date 6 dimes.

Shut the fukk up, explain to me what an executive summary is, just because you are a bum doesn't mean anyone else is

the fact you act like being a writer is such a super natural feat leads me to believe you are even a bigger moron than I thought

also I do hate anything, I merely pointed out glaring errors that exists, hatred is irrational, and everything I said was true

 

[Chris Cool]

Breh again, context. Did anyone say Dark Knight did.n't have a huge impact and wasn't a gigantic film?? No. But I'm saying and others are saying that Batman is probably the bigger film for what it did for that character at the time, changing the ways in which movies are marketed and completely blowing expectations out of the water, especially when analysts were expecting it to fail. It was a huge gamble and it paid off big time. Again, there was freaking batman cereal with marshmallows in it because of that movie and how big it was. People got bat symbols etched in their heads man. At a time where there was limited advertisement in Times Square because it was still a dump, the bat symbol was at the center of times square. The movie was that huge and a lot of that has to do with the media landscape.

I could say the same thing about the dark knight. Batman was a joke prior, now he's probably the most popular super hero around.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I could say the same thing about the dark knight. Batman was a joke prior, now he's probably the most popular super hero around.

Disagree breh

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

I don't agree that Heath Ledger s death didn't help TDK box office. It would've done great regardless but the whole mystique of that film was greatly helped by his death. No doubt.

 

[Lakers Offseason]

Heath Ledger was a better Joker.

Keaton was a better Bruce.

I like the way Batman the character was being portrayed more in the Tim Burton films. It resonated more with me when I read Batman comic books growing up.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Idk what sales have to do with a movie being a classic movie

it is not the be all and end all but it can be part of the equation. a great movie is a great movie but if nobody has ever seen it then it's hard to call it a "classic", which is usually something that is widely acknowledged and recognized by the masses.

now i would hesitate to call a movie like avatar a classic in spite of the fact that broke box office records because, quite frankly, it just kind of came and went. it's reputation as a cultural phenomenon hasn't really lasted beyond it's initial box office run. no classic characters, no classic moments... just a really cool movie with cool 3D effects that caused a stir for a few short months. yea i know they're pumping out some sequels in the next few years but i have a feeling those are going to fall way, WAYYY short of the mark set by the original.

meanwhile avengers, which made over 100 million dollars less, pretty much birthed a modern myth and launched marvel superheroes atop the pop culture pedestal. it is practically star wars for an entire new generation of kids. it's a CLASSIC.

batman 89 is a classic.

 

[The Order 1886]

it is not the be all and end all but it can be part of the equation. a great movie is a great movie but if nobody has ever seen it then it's hard to call it a "classic", which is usually something that is widely acknowledged and recognized by the masses.

now i would hesitate to call a movie like avatar a classic in spite of the fact that broke box office records because, quite frankly, it just kind of came and went. it's reputation as a cultural phenomenon hasn't really lasted beyond it's initial box office run. no classic characters, no classic moments... just a really cool movie with cool 3D effects that caused a stir for a few short months. yea i know they're pumping out some sequels in the next few years but i have a feeling those are going to fall way, WAYYY short of the mark set by the original.

meanwhile avengers, which made over 100 million dollars less, pretty much birthed a modern myth and launched marvel superheroes atop the pop culture pedestal. it is practically star wars for an entire new generation of kids. it's a CLASSIC.

batman 89 is a classic.

Going by pure definition a classic movie has nothing to do with box office performance or popularity for that matter.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Going by pure definition a classic movie has nothing to do with box office performance or popularity for that matter.

well then enlighten me and name a classic movie that isn't popular.

 

[The Order 1886]

well then enlighten me and name a classic movie that isn't popular.

Where did I say a classic movie CAN'T be popular? My argument is that popularity/sales doesn't matter when applying that label to a film.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Where did I say a classic movie CAN'T be popular? My argument is that popularity/sales doesn't matter when applying that label to a film.

so i ask again, name me one classic movie that isn't popular.

 

[The Order 1886]

so i ask again, name me one classic movie that isn't popular.

This is not proving your point, the definition backs my argument