Dick Tracy (1990)

[The Deadman]

This movie might not be the greatest but I certainly enjoy it.

[oldmanwinters]

The cast is certainly impressive, considering it's 1990 and a lot of those folks were near their peak name-recognition.

I love the cinematography and set-design, and how the whole thing feels like it's trying to turn a newspaper comic strip into real movie.

[IMJ]

This movie is like Robin Williams Popeye - flawed but only because they literally put the source material directly on the screen. And it shouldn't be any other way.

[Sumac]

Amazing movie.
Takes all tropes and tone of original and shamelessly adapts it "as is".

I can understand why its not for everyone, but whether you like it or not, it has a strong vision.

[Leo656]

Love it. One of my all-time favorites. It's not 1:1 with the comic strips, but is one of the single greatest examples of what it means to be "spiritually faithful" - streamlining and otherwise making mostly-innocuous changes when it's all but absolutely necessary but never going into "just change things for the sake of changing things" as too many adaptations do.

It definitely borrows a bit heavily from Burton's Batman, but I think a strong case could be made that in a vacuum it's a "better", or at least more straightforward and less self-indulgent movie. As filmmakers go, Burton and Beatty could not have been any more different in their approach to each film, so the general idea that Beatty was "mimicking" Burton is most likely false. Some similarities were unavoidable once the decision was made to have most of the action scenes at night, as well as have Danny Elfman do the score, but whereas Burton's production of Batman was infamously messy behind the scenes with Burton himself making up a lot of things on the fly, and subsequently scenes like the museum and cathedral feeling a bit tacked-on just to let Nicholson vamp - because they were, essentially, done that way for that reason - Beatty on Dick Tracy was slavishly devoted to the idea that everything in the movie make sense and not just be there to be there. They're both great, but over the years the idea has persisted that Dick Tracy was a "rip-off" of Burton's Batman and I feel like that's over-simplifying and not entirely accurate, nor fair.

They really put a ton of work into that movie, especially the costumes and make-up. When I was a kid I bought a book about the making-of and I must have read it a hundred times over the years. One of my favorite things is how they used so many matte paintings for backgrounds; between that and a strict color palette for the entire film, they totally nailed the comic strip aesthetic perfectly. To ensure maximum fidelity, every single color in the film is represented by only one specific shade no matter the context. Only one shade of red, blue, orange, etc., throughout the entire film as a way to replicate how it would have been done in a vintage Sunday strip. It seems like a small thing but it affected the entire film in a big way.

A couple of my friends and I were practically obsessed with the movie and everything that went with it. We had tons of the toys, books, and other miscellaneous collectibles. I still have all of it. Although the battery for my Two-Way Wrist Radio died some time around 1992 and I never replaced it. I doubt it would even work now, anyway, but I still have it. I was recently able to collect all the missing action figures from the line that I'd missed as a kid, except for The Blank which I doubt I'll ever own as it's over $2000 now.

As a side-effect, the movie brought with it a resurgence of the old comic strips, as various companies put out multiple reprint collections in both color and black & white throughout the early and mid-1990s. I very quickly amassed quite a collection of comic books, softcover collected editions, and even a few hardcover collections. I'd have to check but I *think* I have all of the strips in some form from the original through the 1980s Max Allan Collins stuff. But if I don't have everything I definitely have MOST of it. Regardless, it goes without saying that without the movie - itself only a modest success - most of those reprints never would have been made, or at least not been so ubiquitous.

The biggest "flaw" the movie has is simply that by necessity, if all the iconic villains were to be represented on-screen then they had to be broken down to basically one-dimensional representations of themselves, distinguished only by their respective physical abnormalities. It's admittedly a huge shame, BUT it was the only way to get them all in there. If you left any of them out, hardcore fans would complain they were left out; as it is, many of those same fans hate that their favorite villains like Itchy or Flattop are altogether different from their "real" characters, since nobody besides Big Boy gets anything to do except crack wise and shoot guns. But most people concede that at least everyone was in there and that in itself is mostly good enough.

There was simply no way at all to faithfully recreate all the bad guys and their arcs, as in the strip each of them had their own epic saga that would easily have taken up the entire running time of its own movie. So they were stuck with either doing one villain and one arc and making that the entire movie - which wouldn't have been very satisfying - OR they could do the "jambalaya" approach and just stick every character in there just so they all got face time, which is what they did. I have to say that was probably for the best. Just seeing every single one of the iconic villains together in one place more than makes up for the fact that they're all "In Name Only" versions, in my opinion anyway. It loses points for fidelity but makes up for it by being a blast.

So, yeah, huge fan. Big, huge fan. To say it changed my life would be accurate, considering how much Tracy stuff I've amassed since then. I'd never heard of the character before the movie but I've been a huge fan ever since.

[TigerClaw]

I saw it at the theater when it first came out, It was quite a unique movie for its time.

Here's a video that does a deep dive about the making of this movie.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

I saw it at the theater when it first came out, It was quite a unique movie for its time.

Here's a video that does a deep dive about the making of this movie.

I did too - but you mentioning that here reminded me that they aired a really cool Roger Rabbit cartoon short before the movie. I always got a kick out of that because I loved the Roger Rabbit movie.

[Zulithe]

Saw it in theaters as a kid. I'm definitely a fan. Movies like this, TMNT 1990, Hook, Batman 89, Batman Returns and a few others really were big for my childhood

[superstaff]

Saw this at 15 years old (waaaay later than 1990), and loved it. At the time, I was getting into a lot of comics, and I stumbled on this movie. I did see the commercials as a kid, and would be intrigued by it.

Also, the endorsements in those commercials that said it was better than Batman '89? Yeah. I think I agree with them. I thought this was a better movie, and a better adaptation/love letter to the Dick Tracy comics than Batman '89 was to Batman.

Man, I am playing with fire by saying this stuff. :S

[Leo656]

Well I mean, it's true on a technical level, although which one is a "better" movie is ultimately a matter of personal taste.

But as for which movie is more of a "love letter" to the character? Dick Tracy, easily.

For as great as Batman turned out, it was made by a guy who didn't like comics, and was only passingly familiar with the Batman character. His movies, it's often been said, are less "Batman Movies" and much more "Tim Burton Movies That Happen To Feature Batman Characters". He simply plugged Batman and Joker into his standard "Freaks and Outcasts" motif.

The results were ultimately impressive, but by definition and design they cannot accurately be called "a love letter to the Batman character", simply because Tim Burton did not actually or especially love the Batman character in the first place. He loved the idea of using him as a vehicle to tell his own stories, but outside that he was not especially a fan. And that's the root of whatever criticisms most people have ever cited against those films.

Therefore, if the Burton Batman movies are a "love letter to the character", it's somewhat by accident.

Contrast this with Warren Beatty and his approach to Dick Tracy. He fought for decades to get the movie made, and furthermore, to ensure it would be made "the right way". He was and remains fiercely protective of the character, and was adamant that things be played straight and not campy or silly. He still maintains the rights to translate the character on film, and refuses to give them up because he simply does not trust anyone in modern-day Hollywood to do it right - which is ultimately for the best, I feel. He was not trying to twist the character to his personal style, make fun of the material or try and make it into some kind of social commentary, as so many filmmakers do with their adaptations. His one and only concern was in putting the Dick Tracy strips on the screen, as faithfully as possible.

So by definition, while which movie is better is up to the person watching them, the matter of which one is more of a "love letter to the character" is pretty cut-and-dry. That was the entire point of Beatty making the Dick Tracy movie. Burton was essentially just playing with his Batman and Joker action figures.

I love them both about the same and they were both very life-changing movies for me. It's just that the conception and execution of each film was very markedly different. Burton did not have the same love and protective fire for Batman that Beatty did for Dick Tracy. Burton himself has been very outspoken that on some level, it was a paycheck movie as much as anything. Conversely, Dick Tracy was Beatty's passion project that spent many years in development until the stars aligned to make it exactly His Way.

I'll watch either one or both any day, but which filmmaker was more passionate about their project is hardly in dispute.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

But as for which movie is more of a "love letter" to the character? Dick Tracy, easily.

Yes, exactly. It's for the reasons you outline. Beatty worked hard to get the movie, and you can tell he really loved the comic through the references, script, visuals, etc.

His movies, it's often been said, are less "Batman Movies" and much more "Tim Burton Movies That Happen To Feature Batman Characters". He simply plugged Batman and Joker into his standard "Freaks and Outcasts" motif.

Yeah... I think the fact Burton just plugged Bruce and Joker into the 'Freaks and Outcasts' motif is a part of what I disliked in that movie. I'll get into it upon request, but I have many issues with Batman '89, and I don't like it very much. Like, I appreciate what it did for the medium, I understand why people might enjoy it. However, I had way too many qualms with it to really enjoy it even as a kid. I first watched it at 11 years old, and not during 1989, so I don't share that same nostalgia lots of people do, nor did I really live through the 'cultural phenomenon' it evoked either.

[Leo656]

I love it for what it is, but I too have always had a lot of issues with it.

Not as many as the sequel, which I've always had a true Love/Hate relationship with. The movie fan in me loves "Batman Returns" as a fun movie. The purist and Batman fan in me hates it for... well, mostly everything. Depending on what mood I'm in when I watch it, because the two sides of my brain are always flipping sides, it's either lots of fun or a total ice cream headache. And I never know which it's gonna be until I start watching it again, so I try not to watch "Batman Returns" too often. I'm worried that if I watch it too often, one day I'll just hate it completely and I actually don't want that to happen.

I've never been surprised that most of the people who are the BIGGEST fans of the Burton movies, simply don't read or care about Batman comics all that much. I can totally understand that. They work better, much better, if you don't have any other canon in your head and just take them as their own thing. Otherwise, if you have any kind of mental marriage to the comics at all... there's just SO much about the Burton movies that screams, "This Is All Wrong."

Less the first one, though. First one is actually reasonably faithful since WB kept Burton on a leash, so I can actually just shrug off a lot of the various deviations from the comic book canon in that one. Other than the Joker killing Batman's parents there wasn't a whole lot in that one that annoyed me, and even with that I understood why they felt like it needed to be done. By Movie Logic, it made sense.

The stuff they never filmed and only storyboarded, though, like how they tried to cram Robin in there before they thought better of it... y e a h, it was for the best that WB had that leash on Burton, because the stuff they cut or didn't film was honestly pretty terrible. That movie was about three steps away from being a disaster; thankfully, they made something great out of it.

Batman '89 is still one of my favorite movies ever, but it hasn't been my favorite Batman movie for a long time and I have always had a lot of things I didn't love about it. For me, the style, tone and soundtrack go a long way towards elevating the material. There are entire scenes in the movie that just plain make no sense to be there - as iconic as the "Let's Get Nuts!" scene is... WHAT the F*CK was THAT about? - but everybody is having so much fun and the music is great and the costumes are superb... it's easy to forgive the lesser points. For me, anyway.

I do love the movie for what it is. To me, "Batman Begins" will probably always be my favorite Batman movie, partly because they got the origin perfect and didn't deviate too far from any of the established canon. You could easily slot it into any Batman universe as the origin story and it would work. Whereas Batman '89, it pretty much needs to be taken as its own thing entirely. Which is fine, it's a great movie. But purists have always, always had a lot of things they've pointed to and gone, "Eh. Nah." Whereas "Begins" has far fewer of those things. Which to me puts it ahead on points.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Not as many as the sequel, which I've always had a true Love/Hate relationship with. The movie fan in me loves "Batman Returns" as a fun movie. The purist and Batman fan in me hates it for... well, mostly everything.

I do have many issues with '89, yet I have even more with Returns. Let me say that I did not go into these movies with the intent to hate them. I was a young-ish kid, and super excited to see them. Returns was the first one I saw because it was on TV one night. I had heard great things about the Burton movies, so I anticipated loving them. ...I hated Returns.

I hated basically everything in it, as a Batman fan. I do kinda like the aesthetic, and the Morbid Christmas theme. Since I am a Batman fan, it's hard to set most of it aside and see it as a Burton movie than a Batman one. I tend to be mixed on Burton, by the way, and tend to either love his movies (Pee-wee's Big Adventure, Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish), or hate them (the Batman ones, Planet of the Apes, Dumbo).

Yes, Batman Begins is my favorite live action Batman movie. I don't think anything else has come close, in live action. Animation-wise, I think my favorite is Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker...if that counts. If not, likely Mask of the Phantasm or Under the Red Hood.

[Leo656]

I let "Mars Attacks" be Burton's "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. No matter what else he fell short on, at least he gave us that.

He's lucky he made that. Because I watched that "Superman Lives" documentary and listening to him and Cage ramble on about how badly they would have ruined Superman made me wanna throw both of them into the sun.

But whenever I get mad at him, I just think of "Mars Attacks". "Ed Wood" wasn't bad, either.

If the Affleck Batman movie had ever been made, that probably would have been my favorite Batman solo movie. But alas, it never happened and so we can only go by what exists, which leaves "Begins" in first place for me. I know everyone prefers "The Dark Knight" but while that's a better movie as a movie, there's once again a ton of things that annoy me as a Batman fan to the point I can't rate it ahead of Begins.

To the thread topic, on one hand it's a shame we never had a Dick Tracy sequel, and I know Beatty keeps swearing that "one day" it'll get done (yeah RIGHT, buddy! )... but on the other hand, all the bad guys died by the end of the first one so what the f*ck would they even have done? The only guy left was Mumbles!

I mean, in the comics he was more or less the closest thing Tracy had to an arch-nemesis, on account of he kept cheating death and coming back multiple times many years apart, whereas almost all of the other bad guys stayed dead... so I guess they COULD have done a whole sequel about Mumbles, if they needed to. But I mean, the first movie didn't exactly position him as a heavy-hitter, y'know?

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I let "Mars Attacks" be Burton's "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. No matter what else he fell short on, at least he gave us that.

lol, yeah, that's one of the 'good ones' of his for me.

To the thread topic, on one hand it's a shame we never had a Dick Tracy sequel, and I know Beatty keeps swearing that "one day" it'll get done (yeah RIGHT, buddy! )... but on the other hand, all the bad guys died by the end of the first one so what the f*ck would they even have done? The only guy left was Mumbles!

I mean, in the comics he was more or less the closest thing Tracy had to an arch-nemesis, on account of he kept cheating death and coming back multiple times many years apart, whereas almost all of the other bad guys stayed dead... so I guess they COULD have done a whole sequel about Mumbles, if they needed to. But I mean, the first movie didn't exactly position him as a heavy-hitter, y'know?

I don't want a sequel, especially not now. In this current climate in entertainment, who knows what Hollywood would do to it. I'd rather have fond memories of Dick Tracy, and not think about how in the sequel he was an impotent old man that failed at life, and who gets lectured by a blue haired trans girl about his white privilege.

[Leo656]

Well on the one hand, that's exactly why Beatty holding onto the rights is such a good thing. As long as he hangs onto it, nothing like that will ever happen. He'd never LET it happen.

The problem is... he's gonna die one day, and when that happens I'm not sure who the film rights revert to.

NOBODY wants a "modern-day" Dick Tracy reboot, with him wearing blue jeans and a canary-yellow blazer over an ironic T-shirt and his yellow fedora cocked slightly askew, still wearing the red-and-black striped tie even though he's wearing a T-shirt for Maximum Douche Effect. Nobody who f*cking matters, anyway.

The problem is, Hollywood reboots EVERYTHING eventually even if nobody asks for it. So one day after Beatty dies, some scumbag is gonna be looking at the list of Stuff That Hasn't Had a Modern-Day Reboot Yet and that's gonna be near the top of the list. And they're gonna do it, and it'll be some mix of what you and I have described, and it's gonna be the dirt-worst thing ever.

I try not to think about it. Hopefully I'll be dead by then, too. Because if I'm not, that might trigger the stroke that kills me.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

NOBODY wants a "modern-day" Dick Tracy reboot, with him wearing blue jeans and a canary-yellow blazer over an ironic T-shirt and his yellow fedora cocked slightly askew, still wearing the red-and-black striped tie even though he's wearing a T-shirt for Maximum Douche Effect. Nobody who f*cking matters, anyway.

I laughed out loud trying to picture this. I envisioned older Finn Wolfhard in that role. Oh, Jesus Christ, rofl.

[Leo656]

It's exactly what they'd do if they made it today. 10000%.

[Andrew NDB]

I was just thinking about this movie today, for some reason. I haven't seen it since maybe the theaters. I remember I bought the trading cards for it, or they came with gum that I bought or something... but when the movie came out, I remember I didn't really like it. I wonder if I'll appreciate it more now.

[ZariusTwo]

I remember being hyped for it too, saw the old cartoon at the time and collected the junior adaptations.