I watched both when they were in theaters. I enjoyed both, but expected Boyhood to swamp all the awards, so rooted for Birdman because I felt it was the underdog and more entertaining. Boyhood was an experience, but one I wouldn’t really want to revisit.
Everything is a product of its time.
But some more than others. I once again point to how Superman, although made 10 years earlier, ends up being much more timeless.
I mean, you may not be wrong, but you can’t tell me that Superman doesn’t ooze the seventies at some moments as well.
Fair enough. I guess what I’m trying to say is Batman feels like a movie of its time rather than a Batman movie, while Superman feels more faithful to the character. Superman is the first thing I’d point to if someone wanted me to explain the character, while Batman isn’t. It’s still a solid movie and I really enjoy it to this day.Well as I’ve said multiple times already, it’s a Burton movie. And by extension it’s not a Batman movie.
Batman isn’t a Batman movie? I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here.
Have you seen it?
It’s not a Batman movie, it’s a Burton movie that happens to have Batman and happens to star The Joker.
It’s technically a Batman movie but presumably you get my point now.
Which (live action) Batman movies then are actually Batman movies and not just Martinson/Burton/Schumacher/Nolan films that happen to have Batman?
You might as well say Superman: The Movie was not a Superman movie but a Donner movie that happened to have Superman. Every director flavors their movies with their own style, so I’m not sure what the point is of Burton’s Batman not really being Batman.
If anything, you should say that about Shumacher’s films and not Burton’s.