Batman Begins

[RegisPN]

Acho q esse lance do uniforme em si ñ ser tão escuro, é proposital devido à iluminação usada no filme. Se repararmos bem na maioria das fotos de ação do filme, ou mesmo nos vídeos, o uniforme parece completamente preto! Talvez o uniforme tenha sido concebido em cinza escuro, para não perder todas os seus detalhes nas cenas mais escuras do filme.

 

[adam_jones_1]

Acho q esse lance do uniforme em si ñ ser tão escuro' date=' é proposital devido à iluminação usada no filme. Se repararmos bem na maioria das fotos de ação do filme, ou mesmo nos vídeos, o uniforme parece completamente preto! Talvez o uniforme tenha sido concebido em cinza escuro, para não perder todas os seus detalhes nas cenas mais escuras do filme.

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

concordo em parte.

 

acho que pro batman funcionar bem mesmo no filme...

 

boa parte de suas cenas devem ter pouca iluminação.

[heavymetalboy]

Ae pessoal,

Figura de ação (boneco é o ca*#@) de BATMAN BEGINS com 30 polegadas, nada menos doque 80 cm de altura, isso mesmo, eu já vi na loja e realmente é grande e bonito

Vendido no Rio na Ri-Happy, apenas R$ 189,90

[heavymetalboy]

Ae pessoal,

Figura de ação (boneco é o ca*#@) de BATMAN BEGINS com 30 polegadas, nada menos doque 80 cm de altura, isso mesmo, eu já vi na loja e realmente é grande e bonito

Vendido no Rio na Ri-Happy, apenas R$ 189,90

http://radelcollares.sites.uol.com.br/batfigura1.jpg

http://radelcollares.sites.uol.com.br/batfigura2.jpg

[felipef]

Vi aqui no Rio! Se o filme for tudo mesmo, quem sabe...

 

 

[begins]

mermao

 

acabei de chegar do cinema

 

fui assistir Cruzada(que eh ducaralhoooooo)

 

ai fiquei com a campanha de publicidade dos blockbusters aqui no Brasil

 

1.Passo o trailer de Quarteti Fantástico, o 2ºtrailer,que so eh

diferente do segundo,pq em vez de no final o tocha flar,o coisa eh q

flar pegando o carro da velha.

 

2.Star Wars III,o primeiro trailer

 

3.Batman Begins o segundo trailer

 

 

 

quer dizer

 

porra

 

era pra ja ta com os trailers novos e talz

 

num digo nem batman

 

pois o trailer novo saiu a pouco tempo

 

mas star wars pow

 

ja saiu u novo a trilenios

 

 

 

e falando de poster

 

o de batman q tem la,ainda eh aquele da caverna(tem uns 3 dele)

 

agora gostei do de star wars e o de quarteto

 

sw3-o novo

 

4-aquele com os quatro em cima do predio

 

 

 

flw

 

e vejam cruzada,eh bom demais,ridlley scott eh foda mermo

 

 

 

[felipef]

Já tá marcadão amanhã Cruzada! Aqui no Cinemark da Barra tem um display grande do BB e sempre que vejo, vagabundo tá parado na frente vendo.

[felipef]

A few more randon quotes from our source who has seen BATMAN BEGINS (*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*)--

"The fight between Ducard and Wayne on a frozen lake was really exciting. The camera moves as if it’s slipping on the surface and you really feel like you’re actually involved in the sword fight."

"One memorable scene were [Jett-edit] is being interrogated by Batman; Bale looks truly terrifying, almost as if he is out of control and is ready to do anything to him to get the information he requires."

"The most memorable piece of music being when Ducard and Wayne are fighting on the ice. We flash back and forth in time seeing Wayne’s parents being shot and him being trained by the League of Shadows, whilst fighting Ducard. The music reminded me of the scene in THE THIN RED LINE when the American Soldiers attack the Japanese village towards the end of the film, it’s very much in the foreground with the action and voice over almost flowing with the music as if we where watching an opera. As with all great scores, it tends to pull at your heart strings as it’s full of emotion."

"You know the scene in FIGHT CLUB when Brad Pitt is talking to the camera and it all of a sudden goes all jittery as if the film is coming off the spools? Well, that’s the same way you’re going to see things when the scarecrow sprays his powder on you. Very freaky indeed. Nolan has been very clever throughout the film ensuring that the audience is very much involved in what is happening on screen, as if the audience is part of the film."

Alrighty then! I gotta say that I can't wait for this film. I'm hoping that the "official" BOF reviews - one by me and one by Paul Wares - will be up before the film hits the big screen. I also have a few " special guest" reviews coming as well. Plus, I will want to know what y'all think of BEGINS and will use reader comments as well....

[Movie Freak]

Figura de ação (boneco é o ca*#@) de BATMAN BEGINS com 30 polegadas' date=' nada menos doque 80 cm de altura, isso mesmo, eu já vi na loja e realmente é grande e bonito[/quote']

Qual o problema de falar "boneco"? De qualquer jeito, vão te zoar por comprar coisa q alegam ser "de criança", então, não tenha medo de ser feliz!

[LEospider]

po achei ele meio sem pescoço hehehe

[Big One]

Eh como o Regis falou, eles tem q pensar como o uniforme

vai funcionar na tela, no claro e principalmente no escuro. Eu não

havia reparado que o cinto era grande assim, achei q fosse menor...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[felipef]

Grandes, em inglês, mas valem uma lida!

 

 

SUMMER SNEAKS

Rescuing Batman

-STUDIO POLITICS AND CREATIVE MISFIRES SENT THE DARK KNIGHT'S FORTUNES INTO PRECIPITOUS DECLINE. COULD SOMETHING IN HIS PAST SAVE HIM?

By James Greenberg, Special to The Times


When David Goyer, co-writer of the eagerly awaited "Batman Begins," attended a comic book convention in San Diego last summer, the audience of 7,000 was noticeably antsy. It was the first time anyone associated with the film was speaking publicly. "The first question I got," recalls Goyer, "was someone stood up in the audience and said, 'How can you guarantee this movie won't suck?' And everyone applauded."

In a way, that's the dilemma facing Warner Bros. as it gets ready to release the first Batman film in eight years on June 15. The challenge for the studio is to overcome the stigma of the last Batman film, the much-maligned "Batman & Robin" — a film so disliked it nearly killed off a franchise that has made $1.2 billion in worldwide box office grosses.

Why a company would let a product as profitable as Batman lapse for that long is an example of how bad judgment, studio politics and the vagaries of the creative process can stall even the most commercial projects. While Warner Bros. struggled to figure out how to distance the franchise from "Batman & Robin," the best strategy ultimately may have turned out to be just allowing enough time to pass. What made that solution particularly galling for the studio, which owns DC Comics, was that while Batman and Superman lay dormant, rival Marvel Enterprises comic characters such as Spider-Man, X-Men and Blade were creating hits all over town for competing studios Sony, 20th Century Fox and New Line Cinema, respectively.

Warner Bros. attempted to resurrect Batman four times before it finally decided to go ahead with "Batman Begins." "It took us a number of tries and a number of people to get to the place we got to," admits Warner Bros. president of production Jeff Robinov. "I think it would certainly be more helpful not to say someone failed. All that matters is we found the person who we believed in to do it."

That person was Christopher Nolan, the 34-year-old director of the indie hit "Memento" and the edgy (for a studio) "Insomnia," a remake of a Swedish art house favorite that Warners distributed but declined to finance.

If Nolan's credentials made him an unlikely choice to raise Batman from the dead, he obviously told executives at the studio exactly what they had been hoping to hear. After a 45-minute, point-by-point pitch, Warner Bros. signed Nolan to a pay-or-play deal on the spot without even a treatment or a script in place.

Nolan envisioned Batman as a real person and promised to present a story unlike other comic book adaptations. "What I wanted to do is make the audience believe in the reality of this character," he says. "Batman is unique among superheroes in presenting that opportunity. He really is just a guy that does a lot of push-ups."



A CHARACTER WITH LEGS

That Batman has had such longevity is a testament to the character created by Bob Kane in 1939. The myth, or "canon," as comic book fans like to call it, of Batman describes a child, Bruce Wayne, who witnesses the murder of his parents and, out of regret and revenge, becomes a crime fighter when he grows up.

But how Batman actually became Batman had never been chronicled on film or in the comics, and Nolan saw that as a gap in film history that he could fill. It's a direction Warner Bros. could have taken with the first Batman film, in 1989, but instead it chose Tim Burton's more idiosyncratic vision (designed by Anton Furst).

"That first film didn't really address the origin or frame Batman as an extraordinary figure in an ordinary world," says Nolan. "Instead, the environment was as extraordinary as the character. I think it was basically the studio's way of convincing the public that you could have a very cool Batman film."

Burton's "Batman" got the enterprise off to a promising start, making $411 million worldwide. "Batman Returns" arrived in theaters just three years later, but business fell off considerably, delivering only $266 million. Fearing that Burton's vision was too dark for the mainstream audience, the studio brought in Joel Schumacher ("The Phantom of the Opera") to give the series a glossy shine. With Val Kilmer replacing Michael Keaton as Batman, the series bounced back with "Batman Forever," which brought in $336 million.

Warner Bros. was convinced it was on the right track and pretty much gave Schumacher carte blanche for the next installment, "Batman & Robin" (1997), with George Clooney as Batman. By then the film's tone had departed so dramatically from the character's dark origins in DC comics, with Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and his henchman ice-skating around a museum while pulling off a heist, that hard-core comic fans and general audiences alike found the action more kitschy than entertaining, and grosses dropped to a new low for the franchise, $238 million. The addition of nipples and a codpiece to Batman's costume may be the film's lasting legacy. (Schumacher declined to be interviewed for this story.)

Right up until the opening of the film, Warner Bros. was anticipating a blockbuster and expected to keep churning out sequels every few years. "We all thought we were making the biggest Batman ever at the time," says Bill Gerber, then co-president of production. Schumacher started working on the next installment with writer Mark Protosevich ("The Cell"), continuing in the same vein with multiple villains and more silliness.

As a writer who worked on one of the abandoned Batman projects put it, the studio was reluctant to give up its notion of who Batman was — a guy who makes a lot of money.

Even when the blockbuster failed to materialize, Warner Bros. had plenty of motivation to keep the series going. The franchise was a merchandising bonanza. According to one source, toy manufacturers had been invited to sit in on creative meetings for "Batman & Robin." "Sometimes it looks like a business masquerading as a movie," says Peter Guber, producer (with Jon Peters) of the first two Batman films and co-host of AMC's "Sunday Morning Shootout." "People in house say, 'Make it, make it, so I can sell my ancillary products.' "

The public's rejection of "Batman & Robin" and the studio's lack of a creative solution kept Warner's from racing ahead with a new version. "You wouldn't have just naturally gone from Batman 4 to have a Batman in the theater 18 months or two years later," suggests Robinov. "I do think there was a natural sort of breathing period. It was a question of finding the right approach."

And coming off big-budget flops such as "The Postman" (1997), "Wild Wild West" (1999) and "Batman & Robin," the studio may have been less than eager to risk investing in its franchises without a clue how to make them work. After "Batman & Robin," the only direction Batman could go was forward to the future or back to the original story, and Warner Bros. didn't know which way to turn.

In April 1998, a surprising move signaled the troubled tenor of the studio. President of production Lorenzo di Bonaventura pulled the plug three months before shooting was to start on a $150-million production of "Superman," to be directed by Burton and starring Nicolas Cage, "until such time as the budget is appropriate and the script realizes its potential."



IN THE THROES OF DEVELOPMENT

While Warners labored to mount Batman for the big screen, its television division found the material more manageable, with several animated versions and even plans for a Bruce Wayne TV series. In 1999, "Batman Beyond," an animated kids' program set 40 years in the future, featured a retired Batman who has become the mentor to a young crime fighter. By the following year, the film side of the studio was thinking this might be the way to go for a live-action feature.

Director Boaz Yakin ("Remember the Titans") was brought in and started working on a script with the show's creators, Paul Dini and Alan Burnett. What Yakin had in mind was a futuristic "Blade Runner"-type Batman. His dream casting had Clint Eastwood playing the former Dark Knight.

Dini and Burnett worked on a draft with the director, but the studio soon lost interest in the concept, at least the way Yakin saw it. His idea was a hard-edged, darker and nihilistic Batman with swearing and violence. There's no way it would have been PG-13. Clearly this was not the same Batman Warner Bros. was looking for. Unwilling to bend to the studio, Yakin went off to work on another project, effectively ending "Batman Beyond." As Warner Bros. was cooling to "Batman Beyond," it was warming to the idea of developing a story about the hero's origins. In the late '80s, Frank Miller (writer and co-director of "Sin City") had revitalized the Batman character with a series of dark and gritty graphic novels, four of which were later packaged as "Batman: Year One," dealing with his first adventures as the Caped Crusader.

Much to the shock and delight of most Bat-observers, the studio signed daring indie director Darren Aronofsky, who to that point had released only "Pi," an innovative black-and-white film about a deranged math genius.

Most fans, still smarting from "Batman & Robin," applauded the teaming of Aronofsky and Miller, but few believed that Warner Bros. would actually make the film.

Perhaps the only surprise when Aronofsky and Miller delivered their script was that the studio was surprised by what it got. Their Batman was a brooding hero with a complex psychology, and the action was realistic and violent. "That was the way we pitched it, and that was the script we delivered. They knew what was coming, so their response was definitely confusing," says Eric Watson, Aronofsky's longtime producing partner.

The Aronofsky-Miller script surely would have produced an unflinching R-rated movie, not something the studio could afford to do. "It was clear that making a large film of the nature of 'Batman,' and what it means to Time Warner, they're going to want the rating to be a certain way," says Watson. "They needed a PG-13."

Robinov's recollection of the "Batman: Year One" experience is decidedly different. " 'Batman: Year One' never went very far," he says. "We never made a deal. There was never a script done. It didn't go further than it did because the intention of that movie didn't feel right."

The merger of Time Warner with AOL in January 2001 and the company's subsequent free fall perhaps put further pressure on the film division to rescue the day with one of its superheroes. At the same time, the pressure may have been paralyzing. After veteran studio bosses Terry Semel and Bob Daly departed in late 1999, their replacement, Alan Horn, had promised to build the studio's release schedule around five tent-pole pictures a year.

"When Alan Horn first took the job, he said he wanted to revive the Superman and Batman characters," says Robinov. "That was a priority for him." So the studio was throwing as much as it could into the hopper, hoping something would stick.

As "Batman: Year One" was sinking, the studio decided to try yet another approach. What if Batman and Superman faced off in one film as they had done many times in World's Finest Comics? Wolfgang Petersen ("The Perfect Storm") was hired to direct the project, and he, in turn, brought in writer Andrew Kevin Walker ("Seven") to write the screenplay, later polished by Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind").

Petersen envisioned a clash between a big-city, brooding Batman motivated by anger, pain and guilt, and a Superman who was all-American, small-town and innocent. He promised "a true existential experience with visual fun." If all went well, he said, the film could be in theaters by summer 2004.

But things did not go well. In addition to creative issues, "Superman Vs. Batman" fell victim to cutthroat studio politics that pitted Di Bonaventura against Horn over the kind of films the studio was making, a dispute that ultimately stretched as far as corporate headquarters in New York.

Meanwhile, a script by J.J. Abrams (creator of TV's "Lost" and "Alias") for another Superman film, the first part of a proposed trilogy, had gained favor at the studio. Horn was said to prefer the optimism of the "Superman" script to the darkness of the "Superman Vs. Batman" screenplay. He then took a step that was bizarre even by Hollywood standards: He distributed copies of both scripts to 10 other company executives and solicited their opinions.

According to an executive involved in the debate, Di Bonaventura argued that "Superman Vs. Batman" boiled down the characters to their essence; not going ahead with it, he said, would be "one of the great mistakes of all time."

Robinov agrees that it was an excellent script, but "rather than reintroduce the two characters in one film, we made a conscious decision to try and introduce the two characters independently. I think it gave us a lot more latitude to continue with Batman," he says.

The vote was 11-1 in favor of "Superman" — Di Bonaventura's was the one dissenting vote. For Di Bonaventura, the "Superman Vs. Batman" episode was just symptomatic of a larger rift, and he resigned his post the following month, in September 2002.

In the eyes of many comic book boosters, Warner Bros. made the right decision. " 'Batman Vs. Superman' is where you go when you admit to yourself that you've exhausted all possibilities," says Goyer, who wrote the screenplays for "Blade" and its two sequels. "It's like 'Frankenstein meets Wolfman' or 'Freddy Vs. Jason.' It's somewhat of an admission that this franchise is on its last gasp."

But the move left Warner Bros. without a franchise film for either summer 2003 or 2004. So it looked again to Batman — sort of. A production of "Catwoman," a Batman spinoff the studio had been trying to put together for at least 10 years, was hastily assembled with Halle Berry replacing Ashley Judd, who had long been attached to the project. The problem was that the film had nothing to do with Batman or the history of the Catwoman comic book character. The $100-million movie took in a mere $40 million.



STARTING OVER

Although the impulse in Hollywood is often to keep cranking out films and milking a franchise until it's dry, some observers believe the delay in mounting a new Batman was not a bad thing. "I don't think eight years is that long," says Guber, who took nine years to put together the first Batman film. "What they were doing was resting the franchise, and maybe they should have rested it even longer. They needed to get the other film out of the marketplace and out of the consciousness of the core audience."

"After 'Batman & Robin,' it was necessary to do what we call in comic book terms 'a reboot,' " says Goyer. "Say you've had 187 issues of 'The Incredible Hulk' and you decide you're going to introduce a new Issue 1. You pretend like those first 187 issues never happened, and you start the story from the beginning and the slate is wiped clean, and no one blinks.

"One of the reasons they do that is after 10 years of telling the same story, it gets stale and times change. So we did the cinematic equivalent of a reboot, and by doing that, setting it at the beginning, you're instantly distancing yourself from anything that's come before."

In the marketing of "Batman Begins," "We wanted to make sure ads and the teasers and trailers looked nothing like the previous films, and we were very careful about what we released to the public," says Goyer. "We had to reeducate everyone that this is not the same kind of story."

For Nolan and Goyer, Batman, by his very nature, is a romantic character. In their script, a disillusioned Bruce Wayne sets out to the four corners of the world to amass the experience and training that will eventually make him Batman. "I was not just making a darker version of the central character but also a larger, more sweeping version of the origin story," says Nolan. Cinematically he was thinking more of "Lawrence of Arabia" than a comic book.

And Gotham, which for Burton and Schumacher did not seem to exist in the real world, became more familiar. Nolan shot exteriors in London, New York and Chicago, so Batman's hometown now intentionally looks like a recognizable place (mostly Chicago).

Before Goyer started working on the script, he wanted to know if there were any restrictions or mandates from the studio. Among the few conditions was that the film not be R-rated, but the ratings question was a nonissue for Nolan. "My view was that this is a movie I wanted to see when I was 11 years old, so in my mind it's always been PG-13. I never really addressed that issue specifically. I just assumed that's what it would be." When it came to casting the Caped Crusader, the rumor mills were working overtime (everyone from Ashton Kutcher to Jake Gyllenhaal to Billy Crudup), but Nolan wanted the relatively unknown Christian Bale. Still no balking from Warner Bros.

The studio didn't mind if "Batman Begins" was dark as long as they could still market it as a "four quadrant" film, which means appealing to kids and adults, males and females. The last thing Robinov wanted to know was whether Nolan could deliver the film in a specified period of time. "He said, 'Yes, absolutely,' and we said, 'Great, let's do it,' " recalls Robinov.

After eight years of false starts and misfires, the studio finally seems to have figured out how to get one of these movies made: Commit to a skilled team with a vision and then leave them alone. "I think they knew they had to do something different in terms of reinventing the franchise," says Goyer, "and I think they knew it wasn't a film that could be made by committee."

And now that the franchise is up and running again, the studio is keen to keep it that way. Nolan and Goyer have a rough idea where the next couple of films would go, and in fact the last scene of "Batman Begins" could be the first scene of the next film. But Goyer and Nolan won't commit until they see how this one is received. After all, no one — not the filmmakers or the studio executives — wants the financial, historical or moral responsibility for having killed off a superhero.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-ca-batman8may08,1,47 22182.story

 

 

Heroes vs. Stars: Revenge of the Nerds
By A. O. SCOTT

Published: May 8, 2005


ONE of the few memorable moments in Chris Rock's bridge-burning turn as host of this year's Oscar broadcast was his observation that while Russell Crowe is a bona fide movie star, Tobey Maguire is "a boy in tights." This remark was taken, and was probably to some extent intended, as a cruel put-down of a fine young actor, but it nonetheless illustrated a basic axiom of popular culture that has nothing in particular to do with Mr. Maguire's masculinity or Mr. Crowe's clout. Simply put, a superhero is not a movie star, and vice versa. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that as a cultural figure, the superhero is the opposite - the nemesis, the secret alter ego, the evil twin, the Bizarro-world double - of the movie star. And in their battle for world domination, notwithstanding Mr. Rock's mockery (though implicitly reflected in it), the superheroes are winning.

Their ascendancy in Hollywood is a triumphal chapter in a 70-year epic during which comic books have moved from the disreputable, juvenile margins of pop culture to its center. And not only pop culture, but upper-middlebrow literature, too, as young middle-aged novelists like Michael Chabon and Jonathan Lethem have found in the realm of boyhood fandom a rich store of ready-made myths, mysteries and moods.

The cachet of comics - and I mean the old, cheap, pulpy kind, not "comix" or "graphic novels" - is all the more remarkable given that for most of their history, they could count on provoking the disdain of literary intellectuals, the panic of moralists and the condescension of mainstream show business, which saw them as fodder for cartoons and campy kid shows. The days when a film critic could wish that comic books would just go away - as Robert Warshow did in a brilliantly ambivalent 1954 essay on his young son's fandom - are long gone. The superheroes demand to be taken as seriously as they have always taken themselves.

For one thing, they command some very serious money. The ostensible point of Mr. Rock's riff was that only a handful of certified movie stars can guarantee box-office success, and that the studio executives should bear this in mind when casting their would-be blockbusters. But the numbers tell a somewhat different story, since the movies featuring Mr. Maguire in tights, "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2," had two of the biggest opening weekends in movie history and have outgrossed Mr. Crowe's entire catalog so far. Credit for those huge numbers, needless to say, belongs more to Spidey than to the person in his costume, and it is the web-slinger and his ilk who currently dominate the box office.

While the number of movie stars is dwindling - are there 8 now, or still 10? Does Brad Pitt count? - the ranks of big-screen costumed crime fighters is growing. On June 15, Batman returns - I mean "Batman Begins" - since he already returned 13 years ago, in the second installment of the newly reset series - and the Fantastic Four step out to join their successful Marvel colleagues the X-Men. A new Superman and an updated Wonder Woman are on the horizon, and the conventional wisdom of the moment is that there is room for all of them and more. Even the B- and C-list do-gooders - the Hellboys and Punishers, the Blades and Elektras - get their chance and earn their money. The occasional failure - whether ambitious and flawed like "The Hulk" or extravagantly awful like "Catwoman" - only seems to sharpen the appetite of the public and the eagerness of the studio executives. Unlike movie stars, superheroes do not have agents, weight or drug problems, controversial political beliefs or outrageous salary demands, and their box-office power has yet to find its deadly kryptonite.

Further evidence of the rivalry between movie stars and superheroes can be found in the early pages of "Men of Tomorrow" (2004), Gerard Jones's fast-paced and informative retelling of the origins of modern comic-book culture. In an opening set-up, from which the rest of the book flashes back, Jerry Siegel, one of the Cleveland teenagers who dreamed up Superman back in the Great Depression, is reading an article in the trades about the impending movie based on his creation and contemplating another skirmish in his endless campaign for recognition and compensation. The anecdote, which takes place sometime in the mid-1970's, dramatizes both Siegel's bitter exile from the comic-book world he had helped to invent and also the multimedia juggernaut that comic books had become. Warner Brothers, having recently acquired National Periodical Publications, parent of DC Comics, was gearing up for an exercise in what a later era would call synergy, and it had big plans for "Superman." There was a 300-page script by Mario Puzo and candidates to play the Man of Steel reportedly included Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman and Dustin Hoffman.

Those names, appearing on the first page of Mr. Jones's prologue, are at best incidental to his tale, but they do catch the reader's eye, providing a passing glimpse of a strange alternative history of Hollywood. Needless to say, none of those stars got the part. And to picture any one of them in tights and a cape, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, requires superhuman powers of imagination and results in images of nearly monstrous absurdity. Could we really have had a squinting, sneering Superman ("Do you feel lucky? Well do you, Lex Luthor"), or a scowling, nervous, diminutive Clark Kent ("Ms. Lane, are you trying to seduce me?")? And what about Al Pacino, another hot movie star of the 70's whose name pops up later on?

The very idea - hoo-wah! - seems as much a violation of the laws of nature as X-ray vision, spider sense in humans or unassisted flight. There may have been specific reasons none of these actors wound up attached to the final project, but their collective nonparticipation established a rule that has rarely been flouted. By the time the first "Superman" picture was cast, the title role went to Christopher Reeve, who had the chiseled features, the height and the hint of mischievous self-spoofing that made him seem, at the time and in retrospect, perfect for it. What he did not have was a well-known name or a recognizable image, and that was also perfect. Reeve, an impeccably trained, reasonably talented actor, did interesting work in other pictures, but his stardom was delimited, even as it was enabled, by his most famous character. And like the artists, inkers and writers who brought Superman to life in his original, pulpy incarnation, Mr. Reeve did not own the character, but rather inhabited him, gracefully and with good humor, for as long as the franchise lasted.

Now the franchise is being revived, with an unknown Australian named Brandon Routh stepping into those red midcalf boots for "Superman Returns" next year. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the DC/Warner universe, the moribund "Batman," begun by Tim Burton and run into the ground by Joel Schumacher, has been made over, with Christopher Nolan at the helm of "Batman Begins" and Christian Bale as the young caped crusader. Mr. Bale, like Mr. Maguire - and like Eric Bana ( the Hulk) - is a relatively skinny, serious actor with enough charisma to embody the role but without the kind of excessive individuality that would overshadow it.

The earlier Batmen - Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney - are perhaps the exceptions that prove the rule. Each one had already made - or would subsequently advance - some claim on genuine movie stardom, but their one-shot impersonations of Batman did not do much to elevate their standing. And their intense, unpredictable screen personalities - the very idiosyncrasies that would have formed the basis of lasting stardom - seem to block our access to the fantasy of superheroism, which is based on psychological transparency. Movie stars are glamorous creatures we dream of meeting someday, while superheroes are the people we secretly believe we really are.

That dimension of secrecy is crucial. Comic books are the foundation of a fan culture once derided and now celebrated as the province of nerds, misfits and losers - young men, like their idols' alter egos, who could compensate for their social marginality by coming to the rescue of the society that had spurned and mocked them. Their origin stories are tales of shame, victimization and abandonment overcome by lonely discipline and endless self-sacrifice. (Batman, the orphaned heir to the Wayne fortune, and Spider-Man, a working-class orphan from Queens, share not only secret identities but also a penchant for solitude and melancholy.) Stars, on the other hand, are the society's most cherished winners, congratulated for being themselves, drawing attention in the way that the masked, disguised and anxious supermen never do.

Or so we're told. Within the confines of their narratives on page and screen, the superheroes will be perpetual underdogs - the paradox that has kept them going throughout their history. But as any comic book reader knows, their victory is never final, and the vanquished movie stars will never vanish altogether. They can always find work playing villains, as Jack Nicholson and Arnold Schwarzenegger did in the first and last installments of the earlier "Batman" series. So perhaps Mr. Maguire should take heart. When he outgrows his tights and is cast as a misfit with a diabolical plan to destroy the world, rather than as a misfit with a mission to save it, he will at last have proven Chris Rock wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/movies/moviesspecial/08sco t.html

Tudo do SHH. Rs...

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Melhor parte da experiência de ter ido ao cinema ontem ver Cruzada (ruim), foi ter visto os trailers de Casa de Areia, Episódio 3 e Batman Begins. Rs... No cinema, todos os três, arrepiam! No final do 1º teaser do Batman, algumas pessoas já sabiam, outras reconheceram, mas a maioria nao se ligou quem era. Eu, Clara, meus primos, 3 amigos e outros oelo cinema falmaos ao final, mais ou menos assim: "Finalmente, um filme do Batman!" e "Nossa, o novo Batman!". E depois desses comentários, todo o cinema começou em burburinho.

felipef38480.4174305556

[Movie Freak]

É, tem gente q eu converso q ainda nem sabe q um filme do Batman está pra sair... e olha q é mês q vem.. vai pegar td mundo de surpresa..

E esse artigo aí deve ser interessante.. mas vou ter q tirar um dia só pra ler..

[Alexander Bell]

alguém, por gentileza, poderia traduzir só o sub-título da matéria acima??

Fiquei preocupado! Com o meu péssimo e limitado inglês, eu li algo do tipo: "política do estúdio leva o cavaleiro das trevas ao declínio..."  tão falando do novo filme...ou dos antigos?

[Big One]

 

alguém' date=' por gentileza, poderia traduzir só o sub-título da matéria acima??

Fiquei preocupado! Com o meu péssimo e limitado inglês, eu li algo

do tipo: "política do estúdio leva o cavaleiro das trevas ao

declínio..."  tão falando do novo filme...ou dos antigos?

[/quote']

 

 

 

Sim, mas o título não para aih...depois continua: "Pode alguma coisa no passado salvá-lo ?

 

 

 

E depois fala de todos as tentativas anteriores de trazer o Batman de

volta, do Suoermana vs Batman, dos erros dos outros filmes do Batman e

de todo o cuidado e preocupação q tiveram e fazer deste Batman, um novo

Batman, sem nenhuma ligação com a franquia anterior.

 

 

[RegisPN]

E mais uma fotinho bacana...

Ah... E tem essa outra também...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v651/damianpadden/dsc02445 0mg.jpg

Já vimos essa cena antes, só q c/ muito menos luz!

 RegisPN38481.4094560185

[Alexander Bell]

Grande Big One, obrigado pela explicação!

Grande Regis... essa máscara do Batman é uma incógnita... Tem foto que ela parece legal... e tem hora que ela parece uma coruja da cabeça grande... acho que usaram mais de um modelo durante o filme.

[adam_jones_1]

valeu pela foto Regis, mas caso voce não tenha percebido a mesma já vinha anexada na matéria em inglês que

 

o felipef colocou na página anterior.

 

e quanto a outra foto, o que prejudica é a

 

iluminação, somente isso, quem disse que o uniforme

 

foi feito pra ficar se exibindo?

[joao_spider]

Não sabia onde colocar isso e achei bobagem abrir tópico pra isso... qualquer coisa a gente tira...

 

Novo logo para a DC Comics

 

 

A DC Comics revelou ao jornal Herald Tribune que vai atualizar sua clássica logomarca. O ícone, utilizado desde meados da década de 1970 sem alterações, dará espaço a uma nova marca, que pode ser vista ao lado.

Criado pelo designer Milton Glaser, responsável pelo memorável I [Coração] NY, o novo logo aparecerá pela primeira vez numa publicação dia 25 de maio, na capa de DC Special: The Return of Donna Troy.

O logotipo visa representar a DC Comics em todas as mídias, dos quadrinhos aos brinquedos, passando pela TV e filmes. A marca vai imediatamente estampar, além das HQs, as telesséries Smallville, Liga da Justiça sem limites, Krypto, Jovens Titãs e O Batman. Também aparecerá - em versão animada - em Batman Begins.

Com filmes de Batman, Super-Homem e Mulher-Maravilha - entre outros - em produção, a DC Comics planeja retomar o espaço que ocupou nas telonas nas décadas de 1980 e 1990 e a mudança espelha também esse novo posicionamento multimídia. "Há uma certa preocupação de que não estejamos usando todo o potencial da DC", explica Kevin Tsujihara, vice-presidente de estratégia e novos negócios da Warner Brothers. A declaração, obviamente, compara o desempenho da DC com a concorrente Marvel Comics, que nos últimos anos emplacou grandes sucesso no cinema e nos games.

O jornal aproveitou também para informar que um desenho animado da Legião dos Super-Heróis está sendo pensado. No entanto, detalhes ainda são escassos.

Fonte: omelete.com.br e bluetights.com

[heavymetalboy]

Figura de ação (boneco é o ca*#@) de BATMAN BEGINS com 30 polegadas' date=' nada menos doque 80 cm de altura, isso mesmo, eu já vi na loja e realmente é grande e bonito[/quote']

Qual o problema de falar "boneco"? De qualquer jeito, vão te zoar por comprar coisa q alegam ser "de criança", então, não tenha medo de ser feliz!

Então, mas só aqui no Brasil que tem essa descriminação com os chamados "bonecos". Você acha que algum daqueles "Bonecos" da MacFarlane Toys(movie maniacs) são pra crianças ficarem bricando até quebrar.

Mas isso aos poucos vai mudando, vá em uma loja de briquedos e veja na caixa de "bonecos" como shrek, x-men, spawn, macfarlane e outros. Estão vindo escrito "Figura de Ação"

Lá fora, em sites como amazon, não é puppet que voçê vai achar e sim "action figures"

Mas tá tudo beleza, eu entro felizão nas lojas de brinquedos fico vendo os "bonecos" e pior, vão chegando varios os "nerds" barbudos que nem eu pra ver.

Vou comprar um Batman desse ai com 80cm que é fodão mesmo.

Valeu !

[joao_spider]

E por falar nisso, olha aí as estatuetas... algumas são feitas e pintadas a mão... fino demais

Batrang igual ao usado no filme: $ 150,00

Edição Limitada: $ 195,00

[RegisPN]

Grande Regis... essa máscara do Batman é uma incógnita... Tem foto que ela parece legal... e tem hora que ela parece uma coruja da cabeça grande... acho que usaram mais de um modelo durante o filme.

[/quote']

Verdade! Em algumas fotos a máscara está OK, em algumas outras está c/ um baita maxilar de morcego c/ caxumba!!! Mas, vc já reparou q qdo as fotos são nitidamente tiradas do filme já pós-produzido, as imagens são as mais legais? Será q houve retoques digitais p/ corrigir certas imperfeições no uniforme??? Mera especulação...

valeu pela foto Regis' date=' mas caso voce não tenha percebido a mesma já vinha anexada na matéria em inglês que
o felipef colocou na página anterior.
e quanto a outra foto, o que prejudica é a
iluminação, somente isso, quem disse que o uniforme
foi feito pra ficar se exibindo?[/quote']

Percebi sim Adam. Postei novamente a imagem propositalmente. Apenas p/ enfatizar mais uma bela foto do filme! BLZ?

 

[felipef]

Regis, seu safado! Rs...

 

 

A trilha sonora de BB:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009IW88A/qid%3D1115 664554/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-1165917-4565703

E farei a pré-venda na CD Point no dia 4 de junho:

http://www.cdpoint.com.br/

 

[heavymetalboy]

E por falar nisso' date=' olha aí as estatuetas... algumas são feitas e pintadas a mão... fino demais

[/quote']

MUITO BOM !!! ....EU QUERO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ........

Tem que gastar "bunito" pra conseguir, só vindo lá de "fora"

[felipef]

O trio maravilha e seu novo símbolo:

http://superherohype.com/nextraimages/dclogo.jpg