Messages

True. It's probably fairer for me to say that there are times when home video art is efficient and time when it's pretty terrible. The prequel covers weren't so bad. The original films DVDs were the culprits I was thinking of and upon reflection, it all comes down to the quality of work, not the intention. Recently, Universal re-issued the first three Jurassic Park films with cover art that reflected the look Jurassic World's marketing. It's all about uniformity in the brand, but the execution was odd. Especially on the first film, which featured a weird choice in how Grant and the T-Rex are posed.

With what you're saying, I've always found the artwork that best pops from shelf are the simplistic ones. Recently, there's been a trend of re-issuing films with just a single character's face and the title. The better examples include the Star Wars steelbooks and a number of Disney/Pixar films. This is why the poster for Batman (and likewise, Ghostbusters and Jurassic Park) worked so well. It was simple, used effective iconography that stood out amongst other images and immediately caught the onlooker's attention while also perfectly encapsulating what the film was about.

Either way, I'm splitting hairs. I want the artwork, new or old, to be good. But the presentation and preservation of the film itself is what matters most. I'm excited these films are coming to 4K.

Man, I hope they don't use that cover.

DVD covers usually didn't look horrid, but still begged the question why they even tried to remake something that worked. Yet something about the BluRay generation just brings out the worst of the trend.

I feel like DVD is when film art plummeted. For example, the photoshopped Star Wars covers ignoring the brilliant theatrical posters while trying to recreate the feel of those better images with a sloppy cast assembly culled from production stills. All of which to simulate uniformity, which had already been present in Struzan's work for the series.

Although, I seem to recall a few instances when even the VHS switched out great art for an awful cover. For example, Last Action Hero had an adventurous one sheet, with Schwarzenegger flying out of the big screen, holding on to a helicopter. The VHS was just a boring still of Arnold holding a gun. This is also when they started to drop all of the great James Bond posters for poorly photoshopped stills of the various Bonds photoshopped in front of pivotal scenes and environments.

I love the wide overhead shot of the Batmobile speeding down the curved street. It has a German Expressionistic vibe which I dig.

Keaton did do a new interview for the 25th Anniversary "Diamond Luxe" Blu-ray, but as stated above that new documentary "Batman: The Birth of the Modern Blockbuster" was not very kind to the film in terms of its legacy. They basically made it about how it shaped the modern blockbuster but acted like the film wasn't of higher quality. It was a pretty disappointing release.

I've heard about that. It sounded abysmal. When I finally chose to upgrade to upgrade it to Blu Ray, I chose the steelbook edition over the Diamond Luxe.

Please give us a release with the ORIGINAL poster on the cover, and the original font for the title. This film has one of the greatest movie posters ever made and it's disheartening to see it get replaced by a photoshopped copy.

I second this. Those "edgier" photoshopped covers are ugly as all get out. It just blows my mind how bad cover art is for classic films. 

I would like to see the deleted scenes and a new interview with Michael Keaton. Those were the only things I felt were missing from earlier releases. I love the documentary that exists already.

However, I doubt we'll get anything new. We'll probably get a new 4K transfer with only the movie on that disc and the already-existing disc for standard Blu Ray. They'll throw in a Digital Copy and will probably recycle the cover art we've been getting.

As a more general comment, the helicopter crash is shot and scored in a manner similar to the disaster films which were popular in the 70's. Bending spoons a bit, you could argue that Donner interjecting Superman's rescue of the helicopter as a bit of a repudiation of the disaster film genre by interrupting the disaster with 1940'sesque swashbuckling heroism.

I can see that. The film was released was a few years after the disaster fad arguably hit its peak with The Towering Inferno. Like Irwin Allen's disaster films, Superman featured a wide assortment of big name actors to glam up the marque, including aging names in supporting roles. John Williams had also scored  three major disaster films prior to Superman: The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, and Earthquake. 

Coincidentally, two of Superman's villains starred in disaster flicks: Gene Hackman (The Poseidon Adventure) and Robert Vaughn (The Towering Inferno). 

For anyone who's interested, we have an entire thread dedicated to Batman's alternate escape from Axis Chemicals:

https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1467.msg24345#msg24345

Unfortunately there are some formatting issues which arose during the site upgrade of 2011. But the thread's there in case anyone wants to use it.

I wish the deleted scenes would see the light of day. Hopefully, the 30th anniversary will bring us something special. But somehow I doubt the (probably) impending 4K Blu Ray reissue will include anything new.

From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

This is how I remember it. I honestly can't say I remember seeing a single person complaining about Batman killing the bad guys until, I don't know, maybe a decade or so later.

Personally, it never bugged me. I actually want to see the main villain die. It helps bring closure to the story (something I long for that in franchise films these days), can lead to operatic finales like the one in Batman Returns, and if done right, it can be feel rewarding to the audience. The bad guy got what he deserved.

Hammer Studios get a lot of love and respect from film historians, but I feel like Amicus is generally overlooked. It's a shame. They made some really fun and imaginative films in the science fiction and horror genres.

I sometimes suspect that many people mistake Amicus films for Hammer movies. It seems like everything that stars Lee, Cushing, and Vincent Price is often labeled as such. At least, that's the impression I get.

I've seen similar criticisms over the first film, in which we keep seeing the same street. But I've always been amazed by the architecture and design in Burton's films. They never took me out of the movie and I never once noticed how, for example, the Monarch Theatre keeps showing up in B89 until it was pointed out.