Randall Ries

On 2/2/2022 at 10:06 PM, october said:

Combining your two posts...you think John Waters directing a Batman movie starring Ray Liota would have been better? 

Actually, I'd watch the hell out of that.

Right?

On 2/2/2022 at 10:03 PM, szav said:

What's your favorite scene from the movie?  As I think back on it there really are a lot of great scenes from this movie, and in the context of the 1980s, and what had ever been seen in a comic book movie to this point there was just so much that was novel and cutting edge.

This is one of my favorite parts, great humor too,,, unfortunately it cuts off the "you weight a little more than 108 lbs" punchline.  The ninja esque dual katana wielding thug, and Batman using martial arts to fight him off...that didn't exist in the universe of campy comic book hero movies before this I don't think.  I remember being amazed by it at the time.  Still looks pretty cool.

 

I don't have a favorite scene.

On 2/2/2022 at 8:47 PM, Terry JSA said:

Keith David as Robin. 

Jaleel White as as Robin.

On 2/2/2022 at 8:49 PM, Poekaymon said:

Cause of the sweet Bat-nipples.

Batteats. That was unneeded and very jarring to see.

On 2/2/2022 at 9:15 PM, Jayman said:

I think I’ll have a bowl of my favorite cereal while I ponder this thread…

There he is. Computer room shoulders himself.

"SNARF! I can't turn my head and my cape is tucked into my underwear!"

On 2/2/2022 at 8:55 PM, djzombi said:

Hyperbole much?  
Burton's Batman was so UN-family-friendly that he was booted off the franchise so Warners could make more money in merchandising, after the merchandise tie-ins for the first movie were so successful.  This contradicts your statement that Burton was catering to toys and (ironically, as McDonald's is often blamed for putting the final nail in Burton's Batman 3) fast food.  

to wit:

In the run-up to Batman Returns' release, Warner Bros' had doubled down on the 1989 original's success by bringing in an unprecedented number of merchandising and commercial partners. As reported by the LATimes reported in 1992, the key partners were McDonald's, Diet Coke, and Choice Hotels with an astonishing 120 product tie-ins planned including "talking toothbrushes, roller skates, and, naturally, T-shirts... boxer shorts, sunglasses and throw pillows... beach towels, beanbag chairs, weightlifting gloves and, yes, mugs." Nothing on that scale had really been considered before. That meant a huge responsibility on the movie to try and move merchandise for the partners who'd paid licensing fees, and with partners like McDonald's banking on Returns being a family movie, it all backfired very quickly. As Burton himself put it: "I think I upset McDonald's. [They asked] ‘What’s that black stuff coming out of the Penguin’s mouth. We can’t sell Happy Meals with that!’"
 

They weren't the only ones offended or put out by Burton's creative vision. Toy companies had to be appeased by a claim that marketing would be reliant on the release of Batman: The Animated Series, and actual movie tie-in toys are conspicuous by their absence from that run of releases. Kenner simply released a line of Batman figures with absolutely no link to Returns, despite advertising claiming they were indeed tie-is. Problematically for Warner Bros, who had to answer to their partners - including McDonald's who were being castigated by Christian organizations for their association with the movie - the key license holders had plowed an almighty $60 million into TV advertising, roughly three times as much as WB spent on marketing the movie itself.

McDonald's had ignored Kenner's approach to avoiding specific links to Batman Returns and transformed their restaurants into Gotham City, running a commercial campaign that merrily sang "it's Batman time at McDonald's" and proving to anyone who subsequently saw the movie how little they knew of Burton's vision. Batman Returns screenwriter, Daniel Waters  - who had been a big part of Burton's commentary on freaks - told 2005 documentary Shadow of the Bat – Part 4: Dark Side of the Knight that watching early screenings made it obvious there was a huge disparity in expectations and what was delivered at an audience level too. “It’s great. The lights are coming up after Batman Returns, and it’s like kids crying, people acting like they’ve been punched in the stomach, and like they’ve been mugged. Part of me relished that reaction, and part of me to this day is like, ‘Oops.’”

source:  What Tim Burton's Batman 3 Would've Looked Like (& Why It Didn't Happen) (screenrant.com)

Exactly. Burton never should have been hired to direct a Batman film. Certainly not 2. And yes. I hyperbole a lot. I find it soothing.

Who should have directed it? I would have went with Sam Peckinpah if he wasn't dead already. My 1st choice would have been John Waters. Or Martin Scorsese. Stanley Kubrick. Michael Haneke. Anyone but Burton. He was on a Beetlejuice high and that's why we saw Keaton as well.

On 2/2/2022 at 7:57 PM, Timely said:

So, who would you have chosen as the roll of Batman when it was cast in 1987-88? 

Truthfully? With that -script? No one. At the time, Pierce Brosnan. Michael Pare, if he could lose the Brooklyn accent. Tom Selleck? Kurt Russell? Ray Liotta? Charlie Sheen?

They considered Bill Murray as well. Just to illustrate how far off they were willing to go off the rails. I can say from someone who was actually there, NO ONE wanted Michael Keaton. It made NO SENSE. Everyone wanted Nicholson, of course. That was everyone's choice before it was cast. Others couldn't figure out why Pat Hungle as Gordon? He bore some resemblance to the 'Tec 27 Gordon. But Gordon could have been cast better.

Simply put, they wanted to sell toys and fast food. T-shirts. The whole 9 yards. They pretty much ignored the hard core fans and wanted Batman '66 with a little low lighting scenery.

On 2/2/2022 at 4:07 PM, toro said:

I was an adult who loved that movie.  After Superman III and IV I thought comic book movies were doomed.  Then they announced Keaton, and then I thought it would be just "superbad"  But Keaton was very good in the role.  Everyone has already named the bad Batman actors.  But when Keaton said this line in the movie everyone, adults mainly cheered. 
 

 

It's strange because when I read the pirated -script, that's the line that my eyes dragged across. "I'm Batman". Certainly they will change THAT. That's terrible writing. They did not. Life can be rough. It became a tag line for just about everything.

On 2/2/2022 at 4:41 PM, Ryan. said:

Old guys complaining about movies about men in tights not being grown up enough. Ecstasy. 

Ryan. What are you? 29? 30? Less?

Yeah, I'm complaining. I complained about it when I was young as well. Does that count? And here YOU are, Ryan. On a comic book forum snuttin' down your nose at what? Another comic book fan? Oh ok.

On 2/2/2022 at 5:35 PM, Lord Gemini said:

I'm not sure why you think you speak for all of us.

"All of us" meant my group. My associates. My collector friends etc in 1989. Not you. Not your mom. Not your little brother.

On 2/2/2022 at 12:56 AM, Mecha_Fantastic said:

I find the movie to be completely unwatchable these days. 

Yes. It's what it always was. I mean, I watched Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang through the eyes of a child as they reran the movies in the late 1960's. Know what I see when I re-watch them through my adult filter? Awesome movies. A little sugary (No pun intended) but we can use some sweetness these days. Mary Poppins was a b*&ch in the book. THAT much I noticed they changed. That was a welcome change. Ever huff ether with someone who's on a constant downer? It STINKS! LOL!

On 2/2/2022 at 3:06 PM, Badger said:

Exactly. First time on screen, big or small, the Joker was "scary." Maybe not Leto or Jared scary but still light years ahead of anything else seen so far. Nicholson was awesome.

What they tried to do was alienate no one. And by doing that made a ton of money and set the tone for the rest of the movies which - just IMO - all suck. Nicholson wasn't scary to me. But I wasn't a kid. To me, he was a nuisance.

Really? Bruce Wayne swinging upside down like he was a bat hanging off the roof of a cave? Show me any other reference to that. Wacko.

And sure. I get it. It seems like most of the commenters here were kids when they saw it and it must have seemed awesome and that is fine. But y'all grew up, right? Try watching it through my lens as an adult who was conned into going to see it. I had read the -script one year before production and man. It was terrible. And they didn't change one single word. I refused to go see the movie and my wife made dinner out plans with friends and after dinner, guess where we ended up? I tried. I got to the line "I'm Batman" I said "Yeah? I'm outta here", tried to leave and they had to trank me back into my seat.

It's funny to think about now. Back then, it wasn't universally accepted as a good movie among Batman fans. Lots of eye rolling.

So, I as an adult (an admittedly cranky adult) I am still waiting for my grown up Batman movie. Think anyone could please pull off a DKR movie that stays faithful to the 4 books? That cartoon is terrible as well. Look at Sin City. That was amazing as a film.

On 1/20/2022 at 12:08 PM, jmg3637 said:

When I got into comics  I enjoyed DC much more than marvel  so those were the books I read  in the late 60's

When I got back into reading in the late 80's  those were the characters I was familar with and wanted to see where the stories were going.

 

As I began to "invest" in comics  I bought many collections  and started building my marvel collection  while also adding many more DC

 

Shifted my focus after a few less than pleasant internet  deals  and  shifted  to Four Colors via Trade  about 15 years ago

 

Still very happy  with my silver age DC's  even though the keys in that era are few and far between

 

I am so enjoying having access to  the images  that Photobucket  was holding hostage and then threatened to  delete if I did not pay something

According to this cover, one of those grappling hooks is going right through my house in VT. LOL! Anyone else?

On 2/1/2022 at 11:17 PM, The Meta said:

Jack Nicholson brought the exact amount of crazy to the joker, and if they had made it more gritty than campy, we would have gotten the Joker....

The dude at the beginning would have been even better. That guy was a chill fest.

On 2/1/2022 at 11:01 PM, Jesse-Lee said:

That's why I always lose large chunks of time whenever I hear "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

Well, HOPEFULLY that's why. LOL!

On 2/1/2022 at 10:44 PM, Ken Aldred said:

The heightism is irrelevant. He was a really good Batman, and Bruce Wayne.

It isn't "heightism". 5'9 is better than average height for a male. It was the wrong choice of Batman and Bruce Wayne. We all thought so. LCS and their clientele at the time. That photo to me doesn't look like a respectable Batman. And that is the point. People who flipped over the movie can't even believe their own eyes.

On 2/1/2022 at 10:48 PM, Jesse-Lee said:

I loved the Batman movie, but to your point, I was in 6th grade in 1989. I loved everything about it back then - the hype, the soundtrack (I still have songs from the soundtrack on my regular driving playlist), and even the casting. Kim Basinger was hot and smart, Jack Nicholson was funny but scary with a nice touch of pomposity. And Michael Keaton was a smart-aleck, with just enough darkness behind the eyes that made him seem dangerous (again, at least to a 12-year-old). I'll never not look on that movie without fondness.

I would love to see a live-action DKR adaptation with Keaton and Nicholson reprising their roles. It might be a little late with Nicholson, but I think they could pull it off with some movie magic. But now that we better know these actors' ranges - how dark they can be, how much more you can be cinematic with "superhero" movies, etc. - I think it would be an intriguing choice.

That's exactly my point. The movie was beamed into your 6th grade face. You and your classmates were like Manchurian Candidates.

On 2/1/2022 at 10:37 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Despite being short, still far better than George Clooney in the role.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

1989 was a sorry year for the Dark Knight. 1986 was the year he was christened "The Dark Knight" by Frank Miller. As far as I know. Then Michael Keaton accepted the role of Batman in Tim Burton's ridiculous-a-thon "Batman". To the horror of all of us. Batman fans and Michael Keaton fans. Keaton is a comedian.

Back to Gotham City as a giant playground. With giant props. With a goofus Joker again. And we got who? Talia Al Ghul as Batman's love interest? Awesome! MIGHT have been. But no. We got Vicki Vale.

Neal Adams, Denny O'Neil, Terry Austin, Marshall Rogers, Jim Aparo, Bob Haney and Frank Miller must have sat in the theater in 1989 and wondered why they had put all that thought and effort into revitalizing the character just to watch DC Comics pander to their children.

"Daddy! Make Batman wear a dress! Tee hee!"
"Ok, honey!"
"Daddy! Hire Tim Burton to direct your Batman movie! We LIKED Beetlejuice! He was fuuuunny, Daddy!"
"Ok, Sweetheart!"

I mean, come on. Tim Burton had manlier shoulders than Batman, fer Chrissakes! Tim Burton is 6'0. Batman was supposed to be around at least 6'4. "A huge man dressed like Dracula". Michael Keaton? 5'9. About a foot short.

Don't believe me? How about....YOUR OWN EYES? Here's Michael Keaton as The "Dark" Knight and Tim Burton. Here we see Keaton standing bolt upright with the graceful, sloping shoulders of a high school lab partner. Tim Burton is humped over like Wybie in "Coraline" and he had a majestic shoulder spread compared to Batman in this photo.

On 1/31/2022 at 1:18 PM, Upgrayedd2 said:

OK, the seller found it on PicClick. And...the Restoration was clearly displayed. This is 100% on me. And I told the seller as well. 

I did point out that on his current listings the only place it shows any type of modification is in the Modification Item. I suggested he again prominently highlight the comic have Restoration.

I consider this matter closed and an expensive lesson learned. Thank you all for your feedback

Yeah, that's nice. I think the scammer is right here.

Haha! Looks to me you are about to take the cover right off the book. Don't worry about the names. Worry about staple pull.

On 1/31/2022 at 4:55 PM, Extrovert said:

A junkie named Speedy? Nice.

I never understood how he even got that name. Terrible name for a sidekick.

On 1/29/2022 at 12:20 PM, MAR1979 said:

Want to hear about WP talk to Bob Storms,  I  think that guy would take a 8.5 WP over a 9.8OW 

Book in old school slab I picked raw for $2 in the late 1990's then self submitted. Book in modern slab cost me a lot more that

When I view the top, bottom and side of the books through the slabs the pages on the older slab look just as if not more white. Given the older slabs are not as transparently clear as new I do think if I re-submitted the old it would get bump.  Since mine encased in only 9.8 in in original CGC slab I'm not going to do that. I've soft spot for the old slab labels.

BTW the reason I picked up the new slab is I wanted a copy with WP.

P.S. Love the story and cover of this book.  My favorite in the Godzilla run. Now if Disney and Toho could get the Avengers and Godzilla to square off in the same feature film I think many heads would explode due to Pop culture overload.

 

 

My personal collecting rules - I've zero issues with 9.8 ow/w for Silver or Bronze. If book is 1981 or newer then must be WP.   For 9.6 WP if book is post 1975, 70-72 OW/W is OK, 73-75 case by case basis,  Silver  9.6 OW/W is still fine by me.

 

 

 

The WP book is clearly a better presenter. Don't get the inside cover reflection. Someone said that's a trick of the slab, but I have seen that raw. Sweet books! You must love them!

On 1/29/2022 at 11:50 AM, Bird said:

I learned of it here on the boards. here is a brief discussion

 

Thanks! There aren't very many examples of pink pages I could find. One, to be exact. The Fabulous, Furry Freak Brothers books were printed with pink pages. Sort of, I guess. Doesn't look all that pink. I guess this one is aged.

On 1/28/2022 at 9:40 AM, D2 said:

I just collect few books. 
 

I don’t own a store or have a 250 sq ft room dedicated to storing boxes and boxes of collectibles. 
 

I don’t collect entire runs of any particular character or series. 
 

I just focus on a few key books that I love, for my own reasons, and I strive to collect the best possible copy of that particular issue.

I also understand that my collecting habits and methods do not align very often with others, but I also feel strongly with how I see the hobby, and feel the importance of voicing my opinion. 
 

Often this opinion is met with extreme prejudice on these boards, as they are not the norm, however I also believe that most collectors on these boards are borderline hoarders and OCD, giving advice that I tend to disagree with. 
 

For all we know, comic books and their values could plummet, becoming nearly valueless, or they may skyrocket in value, only being for the ultra elite. 
 

In either scenario, if you focus your attention to a razor edge and get your absolute favourite and happiest copy of what issue you enjoy most, you’ll never regret your decision. When you have that one issue, then move on to the next. 
 

One issue at a time. 

Join the crowd. I sure get that. Even when I'm deadnuts correct, I get someone who ignores it and tells me to "lose the tone". Maybe it deserved a "tone". Sometimes if you don't "toney" it up, the point is lost.

I can't even afford everything I would LIKE to have. Say nothing about entire series or even runs. I set my goals in a reasonable fashion. I have been a collector for many years of different things. I was always impacted negatively whenever I had "too much" of a given item. The items lost their significance and importance and it began feeling like work or money. Neither of those two things are high on my list of importance.

Andy Rooney voice: "Ever notice when YOU are making a difficult point, you are considered 'Obnoxious' by a certain person, but when the same person is making a difficult point, they consider themselves 'passionate'? I have."