Hot Toys DX09 - BATMAN - Batman (Michael Keaton) - Specs & Pics

[MaulFan]

I'm so glad that Hot Toys' figure looks drastically better than the actual suit it's intended to be. The cowl fits terribly there, but Hot Toys made it look like what it was supposed to look

I was nervous about how this figure would look because the cowl varied in appearance a bit throughout the movie and i really don't like some of the looks but HT gave me exactly what I like.

You mean like Val Kilmer and clooney bat suit?

Basically, put the Returns cowl on the Kilmer suit and lose the nipples. I feel like the Returns cowl is what they wanted the 89 to be but they just didn't have the resources.

 

[intothevoid]

I was nervous about how this figure would look because the cowl varied in appearance a bit throughout the movie and i really don't like some of the looks but HT gave me exactly what I like.

Very true. It could have easily gone pretty wrong

 

[DiFabio]

I think the thing that amazes me is the fact that it actually looks like a man in a mask. You really don't get that with the previous Batman figures Hot Toys has done because the face and eyes look pretty seamless. This however is crazy detailed. The subtle difference in the eye make up, the eyes, the way the "mask" sits on the face, the mouthpieces, it's just astonishing for something that's in 1/6 form.

It's quite possible that one could pass this figure off as being an extremely realistic 1:1 statue. Some of those hi-res shots rival even the most impressive PF and busts I've seen, perhaps even better?

 

[CollectorNC]

Everyone is taller that Keaton including Bob Kane.

 

[c3r1h5]

I think the thing that amazes me is the fact that it actually looks like a man in a mask. You really don't get that with the previous Batman figures Hot Toys has done because the face and eyes look pretty seamless. This however is crazy detailed. The subtle difference in the eye make up, the eyes, the way the "mask" sits on the face, the mouthpieces, it's just astonishing for something that's in 1/6 form.

It's quite possible that one could pass this figure off as being an extremely realistic 1:1 statue. Some of those hi-res shots rival even the most impressive PF and busts I've seen, perhaps even better?

That's what I noticed after watching the video of the figure. The thickness of the mask and how it fits on the head of the figure looks great. That's why I pre-ordered.

 

[MaulFan]

I think the thing that amazes me is the fact that it actually looks like a man in a mask. You really don't get that with the previous Batman figures Hot Toys has done because the face and eyes look pretty seamless. This however is crazy detailed. The subtle difference in the eye make up, the eyes, the way the "mask" sits on the face, the mouthpieces, it's just astonishing for something that's in 1/6 form.

It's quite possible that one could pass this figure off as being an extremely realistic 1:1 statue. Some of those hi-res shots rival even the most impressive PF and busts I've seen, perhaps even better?

Not taking away from this sculpt, but the effect is so much better because the eyes on the Nolan cowls are meant to be seamless, this is just the first HT sculpt where the film cowl has openings to show the effect. Even in the movie, Bale looks more like the cowl is his head thana guy in a mask, at least compared to Keaton.

 

[a-dev]

It's quite possible that one could pass this figure off as being an extremely realistic 1:1 statue. Some of those hi-res shots rival even the most impressive PF and busts I've seen, perhaps even better?

I'm generally not really impressed by PFs, busts and statues

And with the level of realism HT is achieving now I have no qualms about saying 'yes, better'.

 

[intothevoid]

I think the thing that amazes me is the fact that it actually looks like a man in a mask. You really don't get that with the previous Batman figures Hot Toys has done because the face and eyes look pretty seamless. This however is crazy detailed. The subtle difference in the eye make up, the eyes, the way the "mask" sits on the face, the mouthpieces, it's just astonishing for something that's in 1/6 form.

It's quite possible that one could pass this figure off as being an extremely realistic 1:1 statue. Some of those hi-res shots rival even the most impressive PF and busts I've seen, perhaps even better?

Yeah that's what I've always hated about the Nolan Batman HT heads, they don't look like a guy in a mask. The Medi TDK head actually does give that vibe, as do the custom heads i've seen from Adam.

No doubt HT did a spectacular job with this

 

[thenammagazine]

Pretty good comparison of the two suits:

'89:

RETURNS:

Man, that really shows how ____ty and halfassed the Returns suit was. It's like they didn't even try.

 

[lambo944]

I think the thing that amazes me is the fact that it actually looks like a man in a mask. You really don't get that with the previous Batman figures Hot Toys has done because the face and eyes look pretty seamless. This however is crazy detailed. The subtle difference in the eye make up, the eyes, the way the "mask" sits on the face, the mouthpieces, it's just astonishing for something that's in 1/6 form.

It's quite possible that one could pass this figure off as being an extremely realistic 1:1 statue. Some of those hi-res shots rival even the most impressive PF and busts I've seen, perhaps even better?

look at 0:43.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGxDKfFEjk"]Hot Toys 1/6 DX08 09 Batman Joker Window Display in Toys Hunter - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IrishJedi]

Man, that really shows how ____ty and halfassed the Returns suit was. It's like they didn't even try.

That and the cheap looking sets and oversall small scope (Gotham seems about the size of a baseball field) are my biggest beef with RETURNS.

Also, worst fake snow in the history of movies.

 

[CollectorNC]

Interesting quote from the screenwriter of "Batman": "You totally destroy your credibility if you show the literal process by which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman." Nolan apparently thought different.

 

[intothevoid]

Interesting quote from the screenwriter of "Batman": "You totally destroy your credibility if you show the literal process by which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman." Nolan apparently thought different.

Well thank God he didn't attempt it seeing as he didn't believe it would work. But damn he was WRONG

 

[IrishJedi]

I don't necessarily think either approach is right or wrong.

 

[a-dev]

Interesting quote from the screenwriter of "Batman": "You totally destroy your credibility if you show the literal process by which Bruce Wayne becomes Batman." Nolan apparently thought different.

That is very interesting especially with the kind of hindsight we have now.

Well, yeah he was wrong but thats not to say the '89 film is also wrong.

 

[thenammagazine]

That and the cheap looking sets and oversall small scope (Gotham seems about the size of a baseball field) are my biggest beef with RETURNS.

Also, worst fake snow in the history of movies.

That and all the blatantly sexual lines. It's like the screen writer wrote it at the Hustler Club with a diamond cutter boner. It really was a huge departure from the '89 flick in most aspects. My daughter wanted to watch it and I kept having to tell her, "nevermind honey, you'll understand in a few years" every time a line was delivered between the main cast members.

 

[intothevoid]

I don't necessarily think either approach is right or wrong.

Neither do I, totally different takes. But I meant he was wrong in that he didn't think showing the evolution of Bruce to Batman would work, it clearly did work in Begins.

But I can understand why Burton took the approach of just having him 'there' for the audience to accept rather than show the audience how he came to be.

 

[IrishJedi]

I think I know what Sam Hamm was saying there, which is the Batman in the '89 film is supposed to be a mysterious character with a mystique about him. You know WHY he's Batman, but nothing more (not the details on how he becomes Batman). And if you deal with that in the '89 film it would completely remove the mystique and the film noir aspects. In other words, that works in BEGINS but would not work in '89 BATMAN.

Nolan's approach to Batman was obviously different from the get-go, so that's not what Hamm was talking about here.

Like I said, neither is right or wrong. They're just different.

 

[thenammagazine]

I don't necessarily think either approach is right or wrong.

Besides, back then, we didn't need his origin spoon-fed to us to understand how Bruce became Batman.

 

[CollectorNC]

Well thank God he didn't attempt it seeing as he didn't believe it would work. But damn he was WRONG

I don't agree, the origin stories take up too much time...I mean 45 min for BB...many people were wondering if Batman was running late for his own movie.