So why hasn't DC been able to come up w/ a better Batman movie than pic related after all these years?

So why hasn't DC been able to come up w/ a better Batman movie than pic related after all these years?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=04Rpb1rPf-4
purpleplanetmedia.com/eye/inte/pdini.php
youtu.be/VzmoE9SKlDg?t=7m18s
youtu.be/-4Q-MS_oFkw?t=1m29s
youtube.com/watch?v=TjAFbEP0wK4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>always hear about how it's the best Batman film
>finally get around to watching it
>villain's identity pretty obvious
>depth only relative to cartoons (basically if you're 10)

I don't understand why it is so highly regarded. It's pretty meh.

I think it's a better Bruce Wayne AND Batman story than any of the live action movies. Nolan's especially. In hindsight I think Bale was a bad choice. Keaton is the one that struck the right balance in live action.

They did.

It;s called The Dark Knight Returns.

The animated version? Meh, it was alright.

It was perfect.

To each his own. I personally can't stand Frank Miller's writing.

The 5 minute segment from BTAS: Legends of the Dark Knight, that had ironside as TDKR Batman, was better than both pt. I & II movies

What didn't you like about the writing?

>i rate movies based on the quality of their twists

opinion discarded. of course it was obvious, and pointing it out doesn't earn you a gold star

youtube.com/watch?v=04Rpb1rPf-4

The flashback to Batman and Joker's final meeting in Return of the Joker alone tops all of Phantasm.

Justice League Doom was close, Owl Man was just awesome, and that tales of the dark knight or whatever it was called was awesome, the one that starts with the skateboard kids telling the story of their encounter. And the future retelling of old wayne making a army of vigilantes.

1. 9/10 1989 Batman
2. 8/10 2005 Batman Begins
3. 8/10 1993 Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
4. 8/10 2008 The Dark Knight
5. 7/10 1992 Batman Returns
6. 6/10 2012 The Dark Knight Rises
7. 6/10 2016 Batman: The Killing Joke
8. 6/10 2017 The Lego Batman Movie
9. 6/10 1995 Batman Forever
10. 3/10 1997 Batman & Robin
11. 3/10 1966 Batman

>comparing straight-to-dvd films with theatrical releases like Mask of the Phantasm
It's apples and oranges. Entirely different target demos and production budgets.

I like under the red hood better.

"Early in production, Warner Bros. decided to release Phantasm as a theatrical release, rather than straight to video. That left less than a year for production time (most animated features take well over two years from finished story to final release). Due to this decision, the animators went over the scenes in order to accommodate the widescreen theatrical aspect ratio.[9] The studio cooperated well, granting the filmmakers a large amount of creative control."

purpleplanetmedia.com/eye/inte/pdini.php

That's exactly what I just said.

meaning that it is essentially still a straight to vhs release

That's not at all what it means, and a terrible perspective to garner from those facts.

The very next paragraph after what you linked reads: Warner Bros. also increased the production budget to $6 million,[8] which gave the filmmakers opportunities for more elaborate set pieces. The opening title sequence featured a flight through an entirely computer-generated Gotham City.

Just because it only had one year to get made instead of two doesn't mean that it wasn't a theatrical release with a theatrical budget aimed at a theatrical audience.

...

>implying that the technologies of 1993 rival that of a movie that came out 19 years later when said technologies are vastly cheaper and more advanced

>implying that visual aesthetics are the sole determinant as to what makes a movie better than the other

I didn't imply either of those things. I actually stated (twice) that the target demographic has a large effect on the make of a film.

If you were to release a film straight to home-video or to a wide audience in theatres, you'd make very different decisions. People don't flock to buy DVDs in the same way that they do to the theatre. Many more people will have seen Mask of the Phantasm than, say, Under the Red Hood, because they saw MotP because it was on, and out, and heavily advertised, whereas something like UtRH has to be sought out by more dedicated fans of the character and/or comics.

Creative decisions must reflect this. References can be more subtle, because the (we'll call it a "Batman IQ") of the audience is going to be a lot higher than your average cinema-goer out in the world on a Friday night at the movies. Assumptions can be made about the knowledge of the audience in a way that theatrical releases can't duplicate. Expositional differences are one of just many problems that need to be addressed when adapting source-material.

And yes, on top of the target audience and budget (and you're implying budget only determines the quality of the visuals when it also determines the quality of the writing, voice-talent, music, and all other aspects of film, not just the quality of the animation), you also have to acknowledge the simple fact that the theatrical release, by definition, makes it a theatrically-released film. It's a very silly thing to argue that it's "essentially still a straight to vhs release" when... you know... it isn't.

>1966 Batman that low
Found the redditor

oh no

I hope Batman Beyond gets a reboot, that was a great series, loved the tone of it and the baddie Ink and the sound guy were interesting.

>Many more people will have seen Mask of the Phantasm...

Citation needed, Mask of the Phantasm was a commercial failure. Not to mention that the comic industry as well as the fan base is much bigger than it was in the 90s when marvel and DC were on the verge of collapse.

>And yes, on top of the target audience and budget...

Lmao, YOU were one implying it with:

>The very next paragraph after what you linked reads: Warner Bros. also INCREASED the PRODUCTION BUDGET to $6 million,[8] which gave the filmmakers opportunities for more ELABORATE SET PIECES. The OPENING TITLE SEQUENCE featured a flight through an entirely COMPUTER-GENERATED GOTHAM CITY.

All I'm saying is you seem to think that w/ it being a theatrical release that MOTP has a leg up over TDKR when the former is just simply a better movie.

I simply cannot enjoy the animated batman movies because the quality of animation is so fucking bad.

I have seen childrens' shows in the 80s with better animation.

Why the fuck do they keep using the same flat and boring style over and over again?

Hey douche bags, I'm totally the batmen guy.

>>Many more people will have seen Mask of the Phantasm...
>Citation needed
That's actually entirely fair. What I mean to say is that the general rule is that more people see theatrical films than straight-to-home-video.

>Lmao, YOU were one implying it with:
>>The very next paragraph after what you linked reads: Warner Bros. also INCREASED the PRODUCTION BUDGET to $6 million,[8] which gave the filmmakers opportunities for more ELABORATE SET PIECES. The OPENING TITLE SEQUENCE featured a flight through an entirely COMPUTER-GENERATED GOTHAM CITY.
Okay, so maybe I should've cut it off and just said "Warner Bros. also INCREASED the PRODUCTION BUDGET to $6 million". The reason I posted the entire paragraph is so that I wouldn't be accused of taking the statement out of context. My point still stands - they didn't just throw the extra money at animation and ignore every other aspect of the film.

>All I'm saying is you seem to think that w/ it being a theatrical release that MOTP has a leg up over TDKR when the former is just simply a better movie.
I'm not saying that it being released in theatres has a direct impact on quality, I'm saying that it has an indirect impact on quality because of the extra considerations that are put into place in that situation, such as budget and target-audience.

What I'm saying is that if The Dark Knight Returns were released theatrically, then it would've been a different movie than what we got. As for better or worse, I wouldn't have a problem with anyone saying that either is their favourite. What I've said is that it's apples and oranges. I wouldn't go so far as to consider straight-to-dvd a different medium from theatrical releases, but I do think it's fairly futile to compare them.

>What I'm saying is that if The Dark Knight Returns were released theatrically...

I could make the equivalent statement that if MOTP was made in 2012 it would have been completely different film, although true, its completely irrelevant/inconsequential

>they didn't just throw the extra money at animation and ignore every other aspect of the film.

obviously, but that's not what you were implying

>but I do think it's fairly futile to compare them.

>both movies are about Batman
>futile to compare them

I'm sorry, user. To me it just sounds like you are making excuses for TDKR, but to each their own I guess

>>they didn't just throw the extra money at animation and ignore every other aspect of the film.
>obviously, but that's not what you were implying
Yes, it was. I'm sorry if you inferred it incorrectly. I explained why I pasted the entire paragraph instead of just the relevant half-sentence, I don't know why you're ignoring me.

>To me it just sounds like you are making excuses for TDKR
If this is still the conclusion you're drawing after I've explicitly stated that it isn't the case multiple times, there's no hope for you. I haven't once said that I prefer either film over the other, but if it makes you feel better I absolutely prefer MotP. Again, I'd just put it on an entirely different list.

I'm sorry but the mystery in Batman comics/games/movies usually fucking suck.

See: Talia Al Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises

It's about everything outside of that that makes them good - and Phantasm is beautiful

>>both movies are about Batman
>>futile to compare them
different user but isnt that like saying arkham city is a better batman story than mark of the phantasm? anons just saying he ranks it with the live action ones, sounds like a compliment to me

>saying I somehow inferred incorrectly based off of what are now calling an incomplete argument as a means of damage control

Lol okay, bro

>gets BTFOd after shilling relentlessly for the lesser film then, for the sake of argument, claims he likes the superior

Good try, user

*blocks your path*

youtu.be/VzmoE9SKlDg?t=7m18s

>>saying I somehow inferred incorrectly based off of what are now calling an incomplete argument as a means of damage control
>Lol okay, bro
It wasn't an incomplete argument; if anything, it was an overcomplete argument as I gave you more information than was necessary.

>>gets BTFOd after shilling relentlessly for the lesser film then, for the sake of argument, claims he likes the superior
>Good try, user
I don't think that's what's happened here. And I'm not saying it for the sake of argument. This post up here was actually me, I just didn't bring it up during our little chat because it wasn't the point I was arguing - As you can see, those are all theatrical-releases, with nary a straight-to-video to be seen. I've been saying this entire time that I consider them to be two separate lists, and I hope you can see that now. I have not been "shilling" for TDKR, I in fact began this conversation here , where I stated that straight-to-dvd films have no place in a discussion comparing other Batman films to MotP.

Nothing matches the justice league animated films. Especially the really bad ones that were supposed to continue from the dark knight trilogy.

No, both forms of media, video games and movies alike, tell stories. The degree of separation between them shares a great distance, so it would be weird, but since you are comparing stories, they are both comparable.

Arguing that one animated movie can't be compared to another just because one was given a theatrical release is such a minuscule differentiation that it's totally irrelevant, to the same degree as if I were to argue: y movie came out 19 years later, so it's unfair to compare it to film x

Because that's not a better Batman movie, it's essentially a Batman Returns rehash with a Catwoman "twist" ending, and it drew flies at the theaters versus the Burtonverse Batman at the time.

*bows in the presence of kino*

He's autistic.

I agree with this. I still can't see what's the fucking point of seeing a 1:1 animated version of a comic book.

>different user but isnt that like saying arkham city is a better batman story than mark of the phantasm?
I mean, kinda, but they are different media and as I said I probably wouldn't actually call a straight-to-dvd film a different medium from a theatrical release. It does follow the same train of thought, though.

>anons just saying he ranks it with the live action ones, sounds like a compliment to me
Yes, you've just understood in one post what I've been trying to explain to him for several. It's not necessarily supposed to be a compliment, but yeah, it certainly stands on its feet as an excellent Batman film that doesn't rely on knowledge of the source-material to be enjoyable. It's a film meant for a wider audience, and it's a really good one. Under the Red Hood and The Dark Knight Returns are both also great, but in their own straight-to-dvd way and shouldn't be compared to the theatrical ones.

>As you can see, those are all theatrical-releases, with Nary a straight-to-video to be seen.

>still includes straight-to-video releases
>ranks them w/ theatrical movies

Lmao, you are a complete and utter hypocrite. You just put straight-to-video movies in a ranking order, comparing them to theatrical releases. If anything you just BTFOd yourself.

All of those films received theatrical releases. Which ones do you believe did not?

>>villain's identity pretty obvious

Do you mean the Joker one or the Phantom one? Because when the MotP came out Joker wasnt forced down everyones throat as a must in a batman story quite as often as he is now. He was still the main villain but it isnt like now where he has to be in everything.

Apples to Oranges, what? The question was a better Batman movie, those movies listed aren't Batman movies now? A few of them are even animated.

Yeah, that's fair. I've been arguing with another user about this all thread as well.
I just personally don't think it's fair to compare theatrically-released films against straight-to-dvd ones, that's all. It has nothing to do with whether they're animated or not. But you're right, I might be in the minority on that point.

Killing Joke was made as straight-to-video movie that was GIVEN a limited theatrical run, and is and was not a theatrical film in the vein as MOTP, as you have been arguing.

I see what you mean, but that's not what was specified in the OP. Now if he asked specifically about theatrical releases then you would have a case. You can't just start making your rules up.

What you should do is ask a parallel question, like "what about theatrical releases".

Oh, okay. I honestly didn't realise that. It was on here (Australia) for several weeks, just like any other theatrical release. I saw it twice at the cinema across the road a couple of weeks apart.

Phantasm is the best example of Batman's origin story. It definitely has issues, but was an extension of what is considered one of the best animated series of all time.

you sound like you're splitting hairs and clutching at straws

...

youtu.be/-4Q-MS_oFkw?t=1m29s

none of the Live action Batmans have a scene as good as this.

Easily the best score of any of the Batman films and close to one of my favorite film scores of all time.

Except I'm not, my whole point is that if a movie is about and has the mother fucking Batman in it, it can be compared and it just so happens that MOTP is the best movie that fits this criteria. Its that fucking simple.

yeah but you're saying he's clutching by differentiating between theatrical and home video and then saying there's a difference between wide and limited theatrical

>ranking batman 66 last

These niggas know what's up

A limited release is still a theatrical release, user.

>Batman Begins
>as good as Phantasm and The Dark Knight

...

No you tard, the other user was arguing that you cannot compare a movie that was made for a theatrical release (MOTP) to a straight-to-DVD Movie (TDKR) when The Killing Joke is a fucking straight-to-DVD movie!

Yeah, it was definitely my favourite of Nolan's. Reinvented the character, had an excellent score (most of the best bits in the TDK score were in BB first), Neeson was great. It also actually focussed on Batman (and especially Bruce Wayne) way more than TDK did. My only real issue with it was the microwave generator not killing everyone it passed over, as it should've.

I think his point is that it's a little hypocritical to be chastising me for the "minuscule differentiation" between straight-to-dvd and theatrical and then to say that there's a more-than-minuscule differentiation between a wide release and a limited one. Which is fair.
Also, you sure seem to like calling people names.

>Mask of the Phantasm = Theatrical Movie made for Theatrical Release

>The Dark Knight Returns = Straight-to-DVD movie for Straight-to-DVD release

>The Killing Joke = Straight-to-DVD movie for Straight-to-DVD release that was given a theatrical run due to popular demand

I can't believe I share a board w/ some of you

>Mask of the Phantasm = Theatrical Movie made for Theatrical Release
Yes. That's MY point. Remember how this all started with you saying that "it is essentially still a straight to vhs release"?

>The Killing Joke = Theatrical movie madefor Straight-to-DVD release
FTFY

Exactly! MY arguement that regardless of how it was released it doesn't matter.

YOUR illogical argument is that you can't compare a theatrical release to straight-to-DVD release, but then all of the sudden compare The Killing Joke to other live action films, which makes you a hypocrite because it is a straight-to-DVD movie!

Objectively wrong, watch the featurette. They talk about the budget constructions, and make excuses for the whit animation because it is not a theatrical film.

>whit

Why the***

>which makes you a hypocrite because it is a straight-to-DVD movie!
I explained that this was an accident and even outlined exactly how I came to that conclusion (it having been released for several weeks at the cinema across the road from me). It's not hypocritical if it's an accident, user, and I've amended my views since then accordingly.
Notice how when I'm wrong about something, I acknowledge it and move on? Try it.

>I explained that this was an accident and even outlined exactly how I came to that conclusion (it having been released for several weeks at the cinema across the road from me). It's not hypocritical if it's an accident, user, and I've amended my views since then accordingly.

Sure it was an accident, what a convenient coincidence!

>Notice how when I'm wrong about something, I acknowledge it and move on? Try it.

Nice Ad Hominem, user. This fallacy is usually reserved for those who aren't left w/ an argument, which you clearly are w/o.

>Sure it was an accident, what a convenient coincidence!
Well, it's the only straight-to-dvd film in the list, so what's the alternative? That I giggled and snuck it in there hoping that nobody would notice, while only rating it 6/10? Or that it's the only straight-to-dvd Batman film that I've seen and so the only one I put in the list? That wouldn't make much sense considering you're saying that I've been shilling The Dark Knight Returns, which isn't on the list.

>you can't compare a theatrical film to a str8 to home video because of the differences in quality
>can't tell that Killing Joke was a home video

Samefag less, your filenames are obvious.

It was meant to be a continuation, of the other post, but since I'm guessing this is you and you figured it out

See as to why you are an idiot:

So you refuse to believe it's an accident, finally believe it's an accident and all you have to say is that I'm an idiot, this after whining about Ad hominem attacks.
This isn't the first time you've called people names in this thread either, user. I think you have a problem.

>So you refuse to believe it was an accident

Because if it was you would have taken the L already and would have stopped hitting me up w/ (You)s

>this after whining about Ad Hominem attacks

They are not ad hominems when you are the one refuting arguments, they are called insults.

>I think you have a problem

The same can be said for you.

Wait, so you do still think that I knew it was straight-to-dvd and still put it in the list anyway? To what end?

>They are not ad hominems
If "you are wrong" is an Ad hominem, then "you're an idiot" is.

>Wait, so you do still think that I knew it was straight-to-dvd and still put it in the list anyway? To what end?

At this point my theory is that you are a limp wristed beta who gets BTFOd irl daily and can't stand the thought of getting BTFOd on Sup Forums, his safe space, so he keeps trying to save face with each reply

>If "you are wrong" is an Ad hominem, then "you're an idiot" is.

"You are wrong" wasn't the implied Ad Hominem the first time you used the fallacy. I can use idiot as an Ad Hominem, if that's what you want to call it, because I already refuted all of your other arguments. So therefor, I can bring up a whole other argument by saying how you are an idiot for lying, desperately trying to save face for the sake of argument.

9/10 for getting me to reply for this long, I'll let you have the last word, I'm going to fucking sleep.

Oh, no.

Why do you pedantic comic book types come to tv when you're such a shoe in for reddit. I'm not even talking shit you would just be among friends there.

Cry Kino desu

youtube.com/watch?v=TjAFbEP0wK4

Not the guy you're replying to but I've been on Sup Forums since before I really even knew about Reddit. I might get along with some of the normies but Sup Forums is home.

>World's Greatest Detective
>World's Most Obvious Mystery

Yeah, that's not an objective problem at all.