Batman (1989 ) vs Batman Begins (2005)
View Single Post
12-07-2012, 02:16 AM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Originally Posted by
I'm not a fan of Nolan's batman movies. They feel hollow, focusing too much of their energies on "gritty realness" than on capturing the spirit of the material. It's something that Nolan does a better job of overcoming with a number of his other films (Inception, Prestige) but it has been something that seems to plague his career. While I find his films watchable, I don't find them all that enjoyable.
Burton, meanwhile, created a movie that was certainly a good deal less "real," but was a far better experience. By the same token, it seems Burton often falls too far the other way. His films are rich experiences, but often with too many unnecessary calories that leave you unfulfilled. Still, when he's on his game, I favor his work over Nolan's.
I agree with all of this. Nolan's trilogy is technically great, but rather soul-less, IMO. Part of that, I think, is that Bale was a bad choice--unlikable, cocky, unbelievable, ungrounded--and part is that, as you alluded to, Nolan seems to focus on realism and style over spirit and entertainment. You finish watching one and you may heap the greatest praise on it, but you're not smiling ear to ear like you just got off of a rollercoaster. His Batman movies aren't really popcorn movies and aren't really deep movies. They're at a kind of awkward point in-between that doesn't exactly entertain or stimulate, IMO. I realize that a lot of people love these movies, so I may be in the minority, but I wonder how much people really
the movies, as opposed to just recognizing how well they're made. It
a bit curious that the movies don't have the level of merchandise, commercial tie-ins, pop culture references and fan roleplaying that tend to accompany the movies that fans are really passionate about (above simply believing that they're great movies).
Anyways, I, too, appreciate Burton's direction more. His movies are always chock full of imagination, whereas Nolan's are rather short on imagination (and long on technique), IMO. Burton can go too far, as you mentioned, and get too creative for the sake of being creative, occasionally hurting the film's flow and character, but, when he's working with the story and on his game, it's some of the best escapism and fun to be found.
Originally Posted by
I was born in 85. So i was too young to have any connection with the 89 version. I have watched it a few times in the past few years. I really don't understand the appeal. So cheesy, it is barely watchable. It didn't age well. Might portray the comic book better, but I have never looked at a comic book.
I suspect that this is a problem with all comic book movies. They just don't age well. They start out cool (Batman and Batman Returns were extremely popular at the time, just as The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises are now), then, 20 years down the line, they're viewed less flatteringly because tastes and technology change. 20 years from now, people (especially the generation to come) will probably consider Nolan's trilogy to be cheesy or dated, too. It may be teased for the slightly goofy-looking batsuit and Bale's silly, gravelly voice when in character, among a few other things. Much like how the '89 and '92 Batman movies held up OK until the Nolan trilogy came around and they suddenly looked cheesy, the Nolan trilogy will hold up until the series is rebooted yet again with 2025 technology and sensibilities, at which point it'll start to look dated and a little cheesy, too.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Osprey