Tim Burton

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Message
Author
User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Tim Burton

#101 Post by dda1996a » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:38 am

I'd say he's made 3 decent films at least, but the rest sound so awful I never bothered checking them out. Time to Kill and Lost Boys are pretty great

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Tim Burton

#102 Post by knives » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:57 am

I also like Phone Booth. There are definitely many worse peers like Tom Shadyac.

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Tim Burton

#103 Post by Lost Highway » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:12 am

I haven’t seen Time to Kill. Lost Boys is one of those bad movies along the lines of The Goonies inexplicably held up as a classic by the 80s nostalgia crowd and Phone Booth was a fun high concept Larry Cohen script, blandly directed. I wished Cohen had directed it himself and had brought some of his eccentricities to the film.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Tim Burton

#104 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:38 pm

I'm not a fan of any of his films (especially Time to Kill), but give him props for slamming the media for fat-shaming a not-actually-fat Alicia Silverstone in the mid-'90s. If memory serves, it was disgusting to him to do that to a teenage celebrity at the same time schools and doctors were trying to raise awareness about eating disorders, and he was right.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: Tim Burton

#105 Post by Orlac » Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:48 pm

Burton pretty much was ground zero for my love of films and film history, as at the age of 5 I had the Making of Batman book, which featured several pics of a crazy looking madman with outlandish attire - Burton, I should clarify - and he became THE name to look out for. Planet of the Apes was the end of that wonderful streak, but what a great run his 90s films were.

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Tim Burton

#106 Post by MoonlitKnight » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:32 am

Indeed, "Planet of the Apes" is the most un-Burton-esque film he's made... which is probably why it's my least favorite of his, and the only one I don't own.
Zot! wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:19 am
The 60's series actually has an active fanbase and I think it still shows up as an alternate universe version of the bat-verse in certain media.
The '60s series certainly still has its place -- just not in the cinematic visions of Batman.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: Tim Burton

#107 Post by Orlac » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:53 am

Well...the recent Adam West animated movies got limited theatrical relases...

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Tim Burton

#108 Post by R0lf » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:48 pm

My problem with Burton as a director is easy to pinpoint: he is great at directing actors and chamber plays but is terrible at action set pieces.

The issue with his movies is that as his career has progressed the movies have become more and more dense with those terrible action set pieces.

User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Tim Burton

#109 Post by dda1996a » Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:49 am

I'd vehemently disagree, as I think it's both his and Depp's falling on easy caricature of what made them interesting in the first place. The outsider, Gothic style, and out of the box thinking regarding sets and world building has been replaced by lazy scripts, empty performances and lame CGI. His Alice, Charlie and Dark Shadows are awful

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Tim Burton

#110 Post by knives » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:51 am

R0lf's argument seems more reasonable to me especially as evidenced by the film's themselves. The best ones recently, or at least the most warmly received, are the simplest ones with minimal plot activity like Big Eyes and Sweeney Todd. Even within the films themselves you can see his point quite clearly. Dark Shadows is actually a pretty funny movie in the Beetlejuice mold for most of its runtime, but ends on a ridiculous action piece which severely hurts the film. Alice is probably his most action heavy and character light film and it comes across as his weakest as well. Even early in his career you can see this with the Batmen as the first film is much more action heavy with Waters' script for the second focusing primarily on a couple of locations as four main characters play out their comedy resulting in a second film that is superior (though obviously people at the time didn't feel that way).

User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Tim Burton

#111 Post by dda1996a » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:01 am

Well I consider Big Eyes a major misfire and Dark Shadows neither funny nor worthy of any praise. Isn't Pee-Wee all set pieces? I think, again, that it's his awful use of CGI and lazy scripts and over reliance on weirdness for weirdness sake that have made all his recent films awful and unbearable to me. If you may change the wording a bit I'd say it's more that stuff like Big Eyes is more grounded and less reliant on CGI and crazy Depp in makeup, as I'd say any major set-piece barring Mission Impossible and a Spielberg film in recent years has been awful (you can largely thank Marvel for that, but that's beside the point)

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Tim Burton

#112 Post by Lost Highway » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:22 am

dda1996a wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:01 am
Isn't Pee-Wee all set pieces?
That's one reason why it works so well. The film is a framework for a bunch of Paul Reubens' routines which Burton enhances with his aesthetic, which melds perfectly with the Pee-Wee universe. Plot and story telling aren't among of Burton's strong points, so the film plays to his strengths. That's why I still think it's his best film.

User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Tim Burton

#113 Post by dda1996a » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:40 am

I agree with you as well, it was more of a rhetorical question to further my point, as in his early films he made use of creative ways to enhance his films, also miniatures in Edward Scissorhands and the obvious artificiality of his Batman films. He just became lazy with CGI being easy to create

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Tim Burton

#114 Post by Lost Highway » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:06 pm

I'll never understand why laymen think CGI is "easy" to create or that filmmakers are "lazy" for using digital effects. I work in the digital effects & animation industry and creating high end digital effects takes a lot of talent, innovation and an incredible lot of time, often in endless hours of unpaid overtime by hundreds of artists. We don't push a button and CGI just happens, everything has to be designed, built, lit, textured and often animated by highly skilled artists. In many cases what people think is an entirely digital effect is a mixture of practical and digital and often people have now idea that they are looking at CGI if it isn't some impossible creature or stunt. David Fincher's movies and TV series are packed with digital effects which are impossible to spot.

The main reason why filmmakers use CGI, is because it affords opportunities which previously were impossible. Most of the stuff you see in a blockbuster these days would have been impossible to do practically and audiences have expectation of effects work which simply can't be achieved by practical effects. It's a tool which can be used well or poorly. Burton loves practical effects and that's why he's produced five stop frame animation films, of which he directed three. Then there is the issue that studios often won't support practical creature effects and insist on CGI. When I still was a stop motion animator I was up for a job on Mars Attacks! as the martians were going to be done that way. The studio simply wouldn't do the movie unless Burton used CGI, because it would have been far too expensive.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Tim Burton

#115 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:22 pm

Some fascinating points being brought up by everyone above. This is all wild conjecture but I also wonder whether there is also an element of the 'outsider' becoming the mainstream that affected Burton's films post-1999? Suddenly the kookiness and weird asides have to actually carry the weight of an entire film. I think Tim Burton somehow managed to pull that off throughout the 90s (Edward Scissorhands being a supreme example), but ever since (and especially when getting into tackling already pre-kooky and weird classics of children's literature and Sondheim) it has felt more as if it is not quite aligning with audiences as much as it once did.

Going back to Planet of the Apes again, I think that I would agree with MoonlitKnight that it does not exactly feel like a Burton film (on the surface at least with all the subversion and weirdness mostly subtextual, which is why I think it still works because it is still there and not overwhelmingly so) with its blandness in most aspects (design, script, even the lead actor and the human characters later on) especially coming out of the supremely gothic and detailed world building of Sleepy Hollow feeling particularly jarring but maybe intentionally so. It is as if that film is the closest to a successful mainstream Tim Burton film, but in the process that muted all of the elements an audience would maybe want to go to a Tim Burton film for. And then everything since feels a reaction in the extreme opposite direction, where CGI allowed the imagination to run wild. Which was perhaps not entirely for the best in this case, with a director whose best films were always riding that deliriously exciting line of always threatening to tip into a chaotic jumble of stuff (imagery, performance, wild camera moves) at any moment and maybe only 'worked' because of practical restrictions that had to be worked within. Maybe that makes Ed Wood even more of a telling masterpiece!

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: Tim Burton

#116 Post by Orlac » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:11 pm

One thing I love in Burton's early films is the contrast between the weird and normal. In Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands, we see the Gothic intrude on Norman Rockwellian towns, and even Batman has that wonderfully jarring scene where the Joker invades Vicki Vale's sunny and bright apartment.

User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Tim Burton

#117 Post by dda1996a » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:18 pm

Lost Highway wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:06 pm
I'll never understand why laymen think CGI is "easy" to create or that filmmakers are "lazy" for using digital effects. I work in the digital effects & animation industry and creating high end digital effects takes a lot of talent, innovation and an incredible lot of time, often in endless hours of unpaid overtime by hundreds of artists. We don't push a button and CGI just happens, everything has to be designed, built, lit, textured and often animated by highly skilled artists. In many cases what people think is an entirely digital effect is a mixture of practical and digital and often people have now idea that they are looking at CGI if it isn't some impossible creature or stunt. David Fincher's movies and TV series are packed with digital effects which are impossible to spot.

The main reason why filmmakers use CGI, is because it affords opportunities which previously were impossible. Most of the stuff you see in a blockbuster these days would have been impossible to do practically and audiences have expectation of effects work which simply can't be achieved by practical effects. It's a tool which can be used well or poorly. Burton loves practical effects and that's why he's produced five stop frame animation films, of which he directed three. Then there is the issue that studios often won't support practical creature effects and insist on CGI. When I still was a stop motion animator I was up for a job on Mars Attacks! as the martians were going to be done that way. The studio simply wouldn't do the movie unless Burton used CGI, because it would have been far too expensive.
I never said CGI was easy, but I feel like a lot of directors these days go for general mayhem and a lot of CGI instead of going for a more intelligent and simple way. I'd say something like how Spielberg had to deal with a malfunctioning shark in Jaws. Finding ways to not go and create ugly and very bad looking CGI would have made his Alice maybe a little more bearable. I mean nothing will ever match Svankmajer's brilliant take on it, if we're looking for comparisons and an example of what I tried to say. I feel like Burton used to try and find creative ways to even use CGI here and there, but by the time of Alice etc. he just didn't even bother trying.
I'm not against CGI when it's used sparsely, like Fincher uses it. But he uses it to enhance reality, not base his real actors around CGI.

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Tim Burton

#118 Post by R0lf » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:14 pm

DARK SHADOWS I think played well in the one or two scenes we had which were just characters sitting around talking. I remember feeling hopeful when there was a very nice breakfast scene early in the movie. But the movie just so quickly dashed that goodwill with all the atrocious set pieces. I remember particularly a ghost backstory montage and an office fight with Eva Green being absolutely terrible. And actually that’s another big sin in Burton’s movies: wasting a good cast.

re. Tim Burton as outsider. I always consider the difference with his early movie characters that there is a feeling of respect, good humour, and graciousness. While at some point later they become a mocking nasty parody. In SCISSORHANDS even the larger than life ignorant neighbours are treated with care and aren’t being shown with any real hostility.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Tim Burton

#119 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:47 pm

Reviews for the new Beetlejuice UHD have been uniformly positive. Great picture, but: 1) the only disc media that's new is the UHD master - the regular Blu-Ray that comes in the package is essentially a clone of the old Blu-Ray, from the old 480i episodes of the Saturday morning cartoon down to the old HD transfer of the movie itself, and 2) this means no new extras outside of the packaging and knick-knacks were produced.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: Tim Burton

#120 Post by Orlac » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:12 pm

I got the complete cartoon series for Christmas last year. The first season is as good as I remembered, but the ultra-long fourth season is a real slog. Sooo...many...puns!

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Tim Burton

#121 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed Feb 17, 2021 4:22 pm


beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Tim Burton

#122 Post by beamish14 » Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:38 pm


He's had a long history with this property. He was, I think, the top choice to direct the 1991 feature (and the producers next went with Terry Gilliam, who also couldn't/didn't want to do it) and he was developing a stop motion feature.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Tim Burton

#123 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:33 pm

beamish14 wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:38 pm

He's had a long history with this property. He was, I think, the top choice to direct the 1991 feature (and the producers next went with Terry Gilliam, who also couldn't/didn't want to do it) and he was developing a stop motion feature.
I haven't seen them since I was a kid, but I remember the first two Sonnenfeld movies were kind of all right - the second one being a bit more memorable (like the Thanksgiving pageant where the Native Americans get their revenge).

As much as I've enjoyed Burton's work in the past, this feels like a blatantly calculated attempt to right the ship...like R.E.M. making Accelerate or U2 making All That You Can't Leave Behind. To be fair, he's made empty franchise vehicles since, well, virtually the beginning, but at least he left an indelible touch on pretty much all of them until Planet of the Apes.

His legacy feels like a victim of too much success. If Ed Wood had somehow ended his career as a film director, a lot of people would lament and speculate over the lost potential. If Sweeney Todd had been a giant flop and ended it there, it still would have been a commendable way of capping off an otherwise successful and massively profitable career. But he's been able to make one film after another, and it seems more and more like he's got nothing else to offer.

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Tim Burton

#124 Post by beamish14 » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:47 am

hearthesilence wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:33 pm
beamish14 wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:38 pm

He's had a long history with this property. He was, I think, the top choice to direct the 1991 feature (and the producers next went with Terry Gilliam, who also couldn't/didn't want to do it) and he was developing a stop motion feature.
I haven't seen them since I was a kid, but I remember the first two Sonnenfeld movies were kind of all right - the second one being a bit more memorable (like the Thanksgiving pageant where the Native Americans get their revenge).

As much as I've enjoyed Burton's work in the past, this feels like a blatantly calculated attempt to right the ship...like R.E.M. making Accelerate or U2 making All That You Can't Leave Behind. To be fair, he's made empty franchise vehicles since, well, virtually the beginning, but at least he left an indelible touch on pretty much all of them until Planet of the Apes.

His legacy feels like a victim of too much success. If Ed Wood had somehow ended his career as a film director, a lot of people would lament and speculate over the lost potential. If Sweeney Todd had been a giant flop and ended it there, it still would have been a commendable way of capping off an otherwise successful and massively profitable career. But he's been able to make one film after another, and it seems more and more like he's got nothing else to offer.

I second your appraisal of the two Sonnenfed Addams Family features. I love the central performances (Raul Julia's desperate phone call to Sally Jesse Raphael in the first always makes me smile), and the second film is incredibly audacious and hilarious; the reprogramming cabin that Wednesday and Pugsley are relegated to now looks to my adult eyes like the "gay conversion" torture that has increasingly become outlawed in America and Canada. I've always appreciated that the makers did use Charles Addams' cartoons as the springboard rather than the sitcom, too.

Burton's artistic decline pains me, and I say this as someone who owns 2 pieces of artwork he made while employed by Disney in the early 80's. I'm in awe of the stretch of films he made from the Vincent/Hansel & Gretel Disney channel twofer through Sleepy Hollow, with Mars Attacks! in particular being a perennial favorite. Even projects he didn't have directorial control over like the "Family Dog" episode of Amazing Stories (for someone who's worked so frequently in stop motion, his designs are beautiful in traditional cel animation) and Nightmare Before Christmas (although one cannot negate Henry Selick's unbelievable gifts) show a purity of vision that was so rare at the time of their productions, and even more scarce in today's ultra-homogenized Hollywood. Maybe he had stronger producers in the form of people like Denise Di Novi who could reign him in a bit and set parameters that enabled his work to thrive. Perhaps he was hungrier or more discerning with the material he chose and the writers he worked with (Jonathan Gems, the British playwright responsible for much of Mars Attacks!, also did rewrites on a number of his other films, and I think Daniel Waters' work on Batman Returns is just glorious). The person making films like Dark Shadows and Alice in Wonderland fundamentally doesn't know how to tell a compelling story anymore, and that's tragic.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Tim Burton

#125 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:07 pm

I actually have grown to love Dark Shadows over the last decade, to the point where it's become an October Halloween marathon perennial. The plot is a mess, but it's gorgeously gloomy, wonderfully deadpan, and boasts a killer soundtrack (both the obligatory Danny Elfman score and the groovy selection of 70's tunes). It's easily his most satisfying film since Sweeney Todd.

Then again, with the exception of Alice In Wonderland, there isn't a Burton movie I consider a complete waste of time.

Post Reply