Originally Posted by undercoverlover
Burton was is and ever shall be a complete genius, to change his unique style of what is essentially his film is ludacris.
Disagreed. Part of the fun of working with new directors is getting variable interpretations on the same subject. Sometimes, you get bad interpretations (proven by Joel Schumacher), but that doesn't mean there can't be good ones, either. For example, Alfonso Cuaron did a great job altering the
Harry Potter series by using his own style for
The Prisoner of Azkaban to complement the groundwork already laid out by Chris Columbus. And while I believe Sam Raimi is amazing, I'd like to eventually see someone else' interpretation of
Spiderman. Don't count this
Batman flick out until you see it, because you might be pleasantly surprised. And if it turns out to be garbage, then you can sign onto MoFo and rub my face in it all you want.
Originally Posted by undercoverlover
I love the darkly gothic style of the sets and costumes and the decadent feel to glamorous parties and events in Gotham city. Point: Gotham is not New York! it is gotham city with its on style, feel and design, and its stupid to make it into something it isn't.
Agreed. Gotham City exists as a strange amalgam of "City of Tomorrow" architecture, with 30's/40's noir elements thrown in. But I haven't even seen any concrete "city" sets yet for this film, so I have no idea what Gotham is going to look like. For all I know, the sets will be right on the money, or way off base.
Originally Posted by undercoverlover
The logo, the car, the style, i think it's poo poo, the car looks horrific and the logo looks dated-i kno its a prequel but its not set too far in the past.
That logo is the best Batman logo there ever was - not the yellow and black oval, because that one makes no sense. And the logo isn't going to decide if the film is enjoyable or not, nor the car, nor the style. The acting is going to be key here, and I think they've got a stellar cast to work with. As long as the director has a competent head on his shoulders, he'll use those big names right - and that'll decide the fate of this film.
Originally Posted by undercoverlover
And i love micahel caine to bits, i really do but i just cant see him as Alfred.
Oh, I can. Alfred isn't supposed to be some tongue-biting "yes" man. He actually has alot to do with Bruce Wayne's creation of the Batman persona, and that takes a pretty influential man. Michael Caine really played the wise companion of a troubled boy well in
Secondhand Lions.
Originally Posted by undercoverlover
I know actors hate to be pigeon holed but Gary Oldman is so good at playing the baddie, why the hell is he playing a young commisioner Gordon-what bright spark came up with that one?
Although he's not who I would have chosen to play Gordon, I still think he should be given a chance. It's always great to see Oldman play non-villains, because people forget that he's quite the versatile actor.