Oh hell no. Awesome 80's movies like Krull and Beastmaster and The Thing and Clash of the Titans (last 2 examples prove my point) should be left alone, you will just end up with a vastly inferior and disappointing product.
I was just thinking the other day I can't wait to show my 4 year old son Krull. I loved loved that movie as a kid
Who cares? Don't see it if you don't want to. It doesn't destroy anything already made. It's just a movie/
There is this movie, Brewester's Millions made in the 80's with Richard Prior. Such a funny movie. Little did I know this movie was a remake. Apparently it's been remade several times. How weird.
Actually I think Bond saved UK film fans and directors from being overrun for decades with Rambo, Arnold, Chuck Norris, Seagal and Van Damme films by cramming it all in one franchise.
I agree wholeheartedly, but they always thought us in school, not to plagiarize, coincidentally I see why...it creates such a repetitive and rather mediocre creation, unless one actually takes the time to improve on the original, thoroughly outdated, or provide a different angle or mood set [see: Wicked or Return to Oz, related to Wizard of Oz or The Thing (1982) or Scarface (1983)]
Bale was a solid Bruce Wayne... but he was far from the "perfect" Batman... Hell, Harvey Dent/Two face was given more notice next to the Joker in TDK than Batman by audiences and critics alike, being the most talked about and highest rated film in the series.... The introductory selection into the series where Batman was actually the sole focal point remains the least favored by either... Christian Bale throughout the series was the one actor consistently criticized for his shortcomings... Frankly, it would've gone mostly overlooked in the annals of cinema if not for the success of TDK...
And yet Bale continues to act circles around everybody in every other role he's in. I don't think there could be a "perfect" Batman... there's only so much "acting" one can do when they're ultimately wearing a rubber suit and mask.
Michael Keaton disagrees... The problem with Bale's Batman was it's lack of subtlety, and menacing aura.... While Keaton's Batman wasn't given as much attention by the writing as Bale's Batman was.... he gave the character a greater dark, brooding yet dangerous presence with but a gesture and a glance than anything that ever came out of Bale's over-the-top gravely, hard to understand voice.... "If a man has enough power, he can speak softly and everyone will listen." Bale has shown to be a capable actor... but not shown to have the range and diversity of say a Heath Ledger (what his short existence allowed us to see).... Not to say he's one dimensional, not at all... but, clearly, there is at least ONE type of role thus far... that is beyond his ability... It's no slight.... after all, you couldn't see De Niro as Batman.... and he's a fabulous actor...
His Patrick Bateman and Dickie Englund beats Ledger's joker.... in both "range and diversity". I disagree that Keaton's Batman was any better. If you feel his was "darker", you can thank the writing, direction, set-design, music, and screenplay... but Keaton certainly didn't do very much himself while he was wearing the costume other than stand there and deliver the short-sentence lines the writers wrote for him (whereas his Wayne is still the best written of all the Wayne's). And De Niro, in his prime, could easily play this character... and then some.
I think you mean Dickie Eklund... and I disagree with pretty much everything else you said in this post... Jack was given the same writing, direction, set-design, music and screenplay and look at the difference between his interpretation and Ledger's... An actor is provided the lines.... but the reading, however hands-on a director may be, is up to the actor's interpretation of the direction... Any nuance is provided for that character by the actor, and the actor alone... If you looked at Keaton and only saw "standing still, one liners" then you fail to grasp the importance of acting subtlety.... Intensity isn't always overt... A lot can be conveyed with silence... For whatever reason, Bale didn't see what Keaton did in Batman's character... which is one thing EVERY Batman fan immediately notes of the character... I guess Bale thought more along the lines of Eddie Murphy when he said of his academy nomination for his work in Dreamgirls... " I didn't get it. To me what I did in the Nutty Professor, playing all those different parts was a lot harder than anything I did in Dreamgirls. A lot more work went into that than... that one look (referring to the scene where he's about to do heroin in front of his friends and loved ones and not giving a damn he's about to, a sentiment punctuated by the aforementioned look he gives to those trying to stop him.)" Paraphrasing, of course... but, you get the idea... There is another side of that quote, however.... demonstrating the challenge of acting behind "rubber masks"...
Again, you're confusing acting with writing/screenplay. Nicholson portrayed the joker that the movie called for... Nolan's joker never called for a zany criminal clown, it called for a psychopath (and Ledger took it to the next level). And if the roles were reversed, pretty sure Bale could do what Keaton was asked to do... vs. Keaton acting in one of Nolan's movies. Also, this is by far the dumbest 2am BBS debate ever...
Is it a debate? I was interpreting it as a casual discussion on acting.... See...? The reaction is in the interpretation... If you look at Jack in Batman, and Jack in several of his "zany" roles... it's the same character.... That's not direction or writing, that's the actor... That's how Jack interprets "zany"... and how he always will... Again, great actor, but not very diverse in his approach... I highly doubt Bale could've done what Keaton did, otherwise he would've done it... Ledger was free to improvise, and interpret his role as he saw fit... and act accordingly... why would there be any restrictions placed on a capable actor such as Bale in return...?
The director, casting and the source material all play into whatever theme the movie will fall under. It all has to go together. I mean the comics themselves reinvent the title characters all the time. You'll get alcoholic batman, lobotomized batman, wife beater batman (sorry Robin), or bi-curiously flamboyant batman (sorry Robin) over 50 years of material. So "perfect Batman" is like the perfect 10. It's a reflection of where you are, when you were, and what you were headed in some abstract ideal point in time. Heck, Keaton/Burton pairing did pretty well on me when I was 8. Now that I'm all cynical and post-9/11, a "real-life grounded in reality" interpretation of the Nolan/Bale Batman is so much better in my mind right now. Maybe when I'm ****ting in my diapers, Adam West Batman will make a comeback. Not the Schumacher/Clooney Batman though. Even that one's not redeemable in San Francisco. Having written the above, totally agreed.
I hope the first remark isn't direct at me... because I've been quite precise about what specifically an actor has say in... I've never made any claims of it entirely being on the actor... filmmaking in general is a group effort... What is brought out of a character is on the writing and the actor's interpretation of the character as presented by the writing and direction... that's how a character becomes real to an audience, the right actor gives a character it's nuance... rather than an actor simply playing a role, which is a reflection of an actor's limitations... such as Jack's Joker, or Bale's Batman... I don't see why anyone should take it personally... All actors have limitations... The difference in range/diversity between actors is simply related to the human fact that some reach their all/best sooner than others... And it is quite possible for an actor without all the acclaim to get one particular role better than a multi-academy award winner... Lastly, I'm not comparing films.... Nolan's Batman films are far superior... mainly TDK, and mainly for it's writing and Ledger's brilliant performance... but it's Batman is not simply not perfect... but far from perfect
Having watched the Robocop remake . . . they really missed the point of the original soo badly. . . . it was an ok movie. . . but the meaning and interpretations and dialog to go with it was sucked completely out Rocket River
Why is Batman being mentioned? He's become the American James Bond. Where when one actor has reached his limit, another will come in to continue telling his stories.
