Messages

Why, having trouble deciding?

If you work on something for so long it consumes you. You want it to be perfect.
In the end you have to let go and move on, which can be painful.
Though, we all would want to go back and improve it.

That's basically what I said, yes.

Most of the time, though, this is a question of will to actually commit to it a second time.

Committing to f***ing up a good film is not okay.

Therefore, I strongly support people such as George Lucas and Ridley Scott (and the many other directors that dare to recut) for working on their projects again.

I know you do. And that's why I wish for your career to never take off the ground.  Not until you do understand the integrity of classic movies. We need young directors out there to stop kissing LucA$$. Unfortunately you don't have the bravery for that, and instead want to endorse a cop-out among men.

And just for the record (in case you're trying to make me look like a basher):
Batman Returns is IMO, one the most visually beautiful motion pictures of our time and one of the most amazing movies in history. This movie as well as BATMAN hold a very special place in my heart.

That's not getting you anywhere.

The problem with special effects movies is that the effects easily look dated. It doesn't really make much difference if a movie is nearly twenty years old or three. Effects date easily.

Oooh REALLY? 

Nobody's denying that.

The intention of the film maker and the effects people is to sell something as real. Classic movies such as 30's King Kong work well for what they are because they have a certain vintage charm going for them.
BATMAN is still a very modern looking film and outdated effects in a film that otherwise looks very new stand out as sore thumbs.

Yet you admit those dated effects are 'vintage charm' for King Kong.

Updating CG for today will only look outdated again tomorrow ... there's no stopping point once you use the excuse of "We have to update it for modern times!!  "

Once that vicious cycle starts, it becomes more difficult for our offspring to someday watch B89 and see it for what it was: A Batman film that took the technology of the late 20th century and forged something GREAT!

Go look up 'integrity' in the dictionary and apply it to this scenario. 

I'm just asking for the following:
Blending the matte-painting better, removing support strings that aren't supposed there, updating the end of the shadow of Batman shot walking off (even Keaton said Burton wasn't happy with it back in 89 in an interview from a couple of years ago).
Think Ridley Scott's Blade Runner: The Final Cut.

My family has a lot of professional artists. The walls of my house are covered in framed sketches, also oil and water color paintings. I could log onto E-bay right now and easily start selling them for profit. That's how breath-taking some of them are (intricately detailed wildlife, forests, cottages, just so you have an idea).

I've spoken with them about the individual pieces of art. They have one thing in common when it comes to critiquing their own work . . . . . They are NEVER totally satisfied.

You see, if an artist has any self-respect or worth, they'll always be striving for improvement. With every stage in a painting, they ask themselves "How can I improve this? That?" That's the mark of a good artist. Once finished, once they sign their name and give the painting up after finding themselves pseudo-satisfied, they go back to thinking it could've been improved.

Burton signed B89 and gave it up, so to speak. I know Burton has that mark of a REAL artist, in that he isn't pleased with everything in retrospect.

I wouldn't give back a painting to my relative if they asked me to let them start changing things when it was already finished.

Why?

I love it the way it is.

I think you do want to get off topic. Don't worry... we will.

Reread my post and you'll find that NO, I didn't bash film restoration. I singled out one instance of it that went WAY WRONG!

There's nothing to misunderstand about film restoration. Not for me anyway. Original negatives of films dating back decades ago, generations even, start to decay (that's what exposure to dust and tainted oxygen do unfortuntely). I'm not talking Hollywood blockbusters that are only twenty years old. I'm talking about the KING KONG ERA! The 30's!

So, restorations are performed for preservation. Now the versions we do have on DVD of those classic films are probably crisp because of the hard work put into them. Because hell, even when fresh out of the editing room and onto the public theater reels BACK THEN they were grainy. The grain never added to the experience, so with modern tech the experienc is enhanced for us newcomers into the world (and grandpappy and grandma too, who'd go "Now that's a clear picture show!"  )

How old are you? Maybe Batman 1989 is thought of as old to you. But for the timeline of cinema it's not. I pop in my B89 DVD. It has the hazy feel of noir, there's little (IF ANY) grainy crap to distract me from the story, and there's nothing that needs inserted or restored. It's MODERN. It NEVER suffered from the setbacks of what the aforementioned primordial films did.

Now, George Lucas was justified somewhat for CLEANING UP THE QUALITY of the picture in the 1997 VHS and later 2004 DVD releases of the original trilogy. Even before that (in 1995 I believe), there was a VHS edition. That was acceptable. The restoration of the trilogy was acceptable.

Okay, "Batman", can you tell me what wasn't acceptable? I know you can't.

It's when George Lucas gave a bad name to the very PURPOSE of crisp picture quality. He seems to think it's interchangable with inserting NEW PROPS with endless computer generated CRAP!!

He was innovative back in 1977, and he's innovative for this, too. We sick a bunch of dorks on B89, they're likely to follow in Lucas' now PISS POOR shoes and start tweaking what does NOT need to be tweaked.

Hope YOU understand now, and hope YOU "got the point".

They need to keep B89/BR as they are without further editing or restoration. I don't want them pulling a George Lucas on us.

don't blame you.

I'm not even going to rank them. To me, they're all equally unwatchable.

Superman 3
Superman 4
Superman Returns
Catwoman
DareDevil
Elektra
Fantastic Four
FF 2
The Hulk
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Movies done by the same director have similarities in style, that goes without saying. I think you're blueprinting them out like that is stretching it too far.

That was a Spoiler Free review for sure.

There's really nothing here I can disagree on. Some would complain about bringing Nolan's take into judgment, but with MOTP in today's Batman world, it's damn near necessary. It was an origin film, no question. But it was an origin film that followed the technique of Burton whether deliberatey or not (though we know B:TAS is one big homage to B89 and BR). With Batman, that's the origin that is acceptable. You worded it well: Big, dramatic, but also subtle. MOTP really shines as a Batman film, and the A+ is deserved.

1. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
2. Batman
3. Batman Begins
4. Spawn
5. Batman Returns
6. X-Men 3
7. Superman
8. Spider-Man 2
9. Spider-Man 3
10. Spider-Man