The 1989 Batman has aged remarkably poorly. I never really liked Burton's interpretation of the Batman universe either. It's too... Tim Burton-y for my liking.
Bale's interpretation of Bruce Wayne also far outstrips that of Keaton's, although I can see how people would like Keaton better in the titular role than Bale (who never seemed entirely comfortable playing the superhero element).
I Michael Gough as Alfred, as he provides a gentlemanly, wise demeanour required for the role, but Caine has him beat in that regard too, managing to add a greater emotional levity and also some necessary dry humour. Batman Begins for me and it's an easy choice all things considered. It's pretty much the perfect "origin film" in the genre.
Plus there is a distinct lack of Morgan Freeman in the Burton version.
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, you couldn't have Joker show up in the first movie. By the way, though I like Burton's Batman films to some extent more than Nolan's, I don't think they're the perfect rendition of Batman either (the animated series was much closer to that). Who was the first major villain Batman faced in the comics?
It's Dr. Death, than Hugo Strange, than Catwoman and than the Joker.
Batman Begins was probably the greatest beginning to any superhero film, just as Nolan's take on Batman is widely regarded to revolutionize the superhero industry. Realism and morality at its finest. The good of one person will never be able to prevent all of the evil in the world. And so the task of the 'superhero' is then to inspire others to do good. Nolan gets this.
Nolan creates an intellectual experience. Very few people can match this. See any Marvel film.
Obviously in the minority, but I'm not all that crazy about it either. In his first Baman movie, Burton at least attempted to put the character in a real world setting. Return was set entirely in a Tim Burton world. I was half expecting a cameo from Edward Scissorhands.
Exactly. I didn't know that people actually liked that film. Most everyone I know thought it was dramatically worse than the first one and for much the same reason you mentioned.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
I think Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman and he is the only British Actor to play as Batman
Wayne maybe but Val Kilmer and even George Clooney fared well. Thet had the look of Bruce Wayne more than Michael Keaton though as that Nostalgia Critic video said, Keaton did well in keeping his emotions more inside. Didn't we have poll on this subject before?
Am i the only who one prefers The Dark Knight Trilogies Main Theme Song over the Original song from the first Trilogy?
I'd say you are in the minority. Most people (over 30 at least) can humm or whistle Danny Elfman's theme unlike with Zimmer's theme. I can barely even remember.
Exactly. I didn't know that people actually liked that film. Most everyone I know thought it was dramatically worse than the first one and for much the same reason you mentioned.
It definitely went more darker, goth or noir like. a very Burton-like movie visually. To put it in comic book art terms, it was like going from Jim Lee to Jae Lee. I remember the critics praising the visuals of the movie and how the villains were not all evil but more like twisted or tortured souls. The penguins "burying" The Penguin was a really sad scene. Both Danny De Vito and Michell Pfeiffer gave great performances as The Penguin and Cat woman respectively but the story wasn't the best possible. I checked via Wikipedia some of the reviews and Roger Ebert said while he liked some of it, it still wasn't "the Batman story we all want to see".
A poll would be nice to see but Batman Returns was a bit polarizing at the time though it did get better reviews that Batman.
I was born in '86, so I'm pretty biased with the Nolan series. I liked the older batman, but with my age as it is now, I loved Batman Begins, and it really lead up to one of the greatest movies I've seen ever, in The Dark Knight. It's just like Fellowship of The Ring in the LOTR trilogy. It explained a lot behind the character, and that's something I appreciate greatly, to understand and connect with a character.
It's just like Fellowship of The Ring in the LOTR trilogy. It explained a lot behind the character, and that's something I appreciate greatly, to understand and connect with a character.
IMO a big part of what made the 1989 Batman so interesting was that you knew more about the villain than the hero
I'm of the belief that you take away the Joker's "power" when you give him a backstory. He's an absolute. A spectre. I don't want to know what makes him tick.
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 think Nolan's version tells a more compelling story.
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 enjoy the movies, as opposed to just recognizing how well they're made. It is 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bohlmeister
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.
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.
Uh, "Batman" is being rebooted in less than five years and WB will probably hire a "hack for hire" to tackle the series. They lucked out with Nolan when he came to them back in 2003 and expressed interest in the property.
Now, this is being driven by money opposed to a director's vision. Louis Leterrier anyone?
I was born in '86, so I'm pretty biased with the Nolan series. I liked the older batman, but with my age as it is now, I loved Batman Begins, and it really lead up to one of the greatest movies I've seen ever, in The Dark Knight. It's just like Fellowship of The Ring in the LOTR trilogy. It explained a lot behind the character, and that's something I appreciate greatly, to understand and connect with a character.
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 think Nolan's version tells a more compelling story.
I like the Nolan-verse, but like the last three Bond films they take the subject a little too seriously and I think that's a legitimate issue with comic book adaptations. It needs to be a little fun, a little cheesy-even if it is the "Dark Knight." As for Burton's Batman, I never considered that a true backstory-more of a day in the life or a snapshot of Batman.
