More greatly appreciate Keaton/'89 Batman?

[Superman Prime]

I liked Bale's performance as Batman; and Batman Begins will always be on my top ten list of favorite movies. But since then, many of us have watched 'Batman' from '89, because our interest for Batman filmography was resurrected, so to speak. Now that you have rewatched it, and 'Batman' has officially become a cultural classic among the culture of Bat fans, do you appreciate Michael Keaton now more than you did before 'Begins' came out?

[wootbaby]

michael keaton is one of my favorite actors of the decade (along with bill murray). if you watch Mr Mom or Gung Ho, he plays the perfect vision of the 80's fast-talking everyman hero . rough around the edges but an all-american guy you can count on who refuses to compromise in wacked out situations. if you've seen him on letterman or whatever keaton seems to be that kind of guy IRL. it's a shame his career dried up after the mess with the batman films. although he's had some solid smaller parts in Jackie Brown, out of sight etc

bale is more of an actor's actor. he has a different underlying tension in the role from keaton and bale seems to more fully disappear into his character. after watching him in BR I'd have to say I appreciate Keaton less in batman '89 than before.

keaton has been a favorite of mine for 25 years since I was a kid and watched his other movies but in batman he's basically playing the michael keaton persona as bruce wayne. this sort of odd character who puts on a mask at night and goes out into the city

in BR bale seems fully be playing batman a fully obsessed character bent on vengeful justice. with bruce wayne as a mask/tool to help him get the job done

i got a kick out of the keaton all american smart-assedness in BR '89 like when he tells vicki vale and the photographer discussing (without recognizing keaton is bruce wayne) where some ancient armor in wayne manor originated ...

MK: "it's japanese"
guy: "how do you know?"
MK: "because I bought it in japan

keaton did bring his own trademark intensity as batman (like when he forces the joker to shoot him in order to get out of the room) but overall though I think bale is superior for the emotion he brings to the character. in batman 89 it's not really clear WHY keaton is batman... he's a multi-talented fast talking guy who seems charismatic and decently well adjusted. there's so many ways for a guy like that to impact society or fight crime. i can see him as a politician or anything. bale's batman is a guy who basically has no option but to channel his rage into batman

[Bruce_Wayne29]

That's an interesting post wootbaby. On my part I think it was clear why he fought crime every night but it was a more subtle thing, it's they're in his eye in scenes like when he visits the place where his parents were murdered or when he relives their death.
Keaton was amazing in expressing his pain without many words. And I do feel that he is trapped in his grief and just like he says to Vickie, he feels that he has to do that everynight, he HAS to, because nobody else can and because in his own mind he feels that he's contributing to make the world a little more perfect everytime he does it and avoids that someone like him has to lose another loved one.
It's not a coincidence that in the beginning those 2 thiefs rob a couple and their son a bit like the Wayne's and Bruce years before and Batman appears to bring fear to them and spread the news that that sort of thing isn't going to happen anymore.
As for the question in the thread, I've always apreciated Michael, the Batman I always invisioned when I read comics came to life thanks to him and I'll be forever grateful for him for what he contributed to the character and for sticking up for it years later when Schumacher wanted to turn the movies into comercials for toys.
As for Bale I think he may just be the best Bruce Wayne ever but I still think he has a long way to go as Batman. I think he did great in what was required him to be at this point which was the Year One Batman, the Batman who still makes mistakes and is not completly consumed by his mission. Also I thought his voice as Batman was a bit forced.
I did think he was at his best in the train sequence at the end. That close-up was great and in it he did look more like Batman.
Keaton's version though not yet working alongside the law has been around for some time, an urban legend had already been around concerning Batman and his was a more experienced Batman, he played the established version of the character (which is what Bale will play - hopefully well - in the future films).
And in constrast to Bale's Batman, Keaton's has a more intimidating look and almost mythic presence.
There's a story I always like to relate to this when I write about it, which is in a JLA story when the Blue Beetle is trying to make money out of the league by selling merchandise, he is warned by Martian Man Hunter (a super-powered being !) to stop it, he couldn't care less. All Martian Man Hunter had to say was this: "Do you want me to tell Batman ?"
I think that says all right there, when a guy with no powers can be more intimidating (and we're not talking physical presence) to a super-hero even more than another super-hero.
It makes me go back to the subtlety of Michael's performance and how he conveyed so much with his eyes. He was awesome and he'll forever be Batman in my book.

[SHADOWBAT69]

man, i dont want to post another response for this type of thread, so, ill just say this, i agree with everything you guys just said.

Keaton Forever.

[SHADOWBAT69]

man, i dont want to post another response for this type of thread, so, ill just say this, i agree with everything you guys just said.

Keaton Forever.

[cryptic name]

michael keaton made me a batman fan. he's it, as far as i'm concerned. he is batman to me. i even liked his portrayal of wayne as an emotionally stunted recluse.

[CConn]

Nope, my appreciation for Keaton's never really wavered - I've always been a big fan.

I will say, I think the depth Begins gives to the character of Batman improves B89 as a film, though. It's like I understand the Batman character (in the film) more; have a closer connection than I did before.

[ReptileOrion]

The first two posts did a great job highlighting why Keaton is great. To me Keaton "is" Batman. I was 8 years old when I watched the first film back in 1989. I enjoy his interpretation of the character. After seeing Christian Bale in Begins I feel he excels in a lot of elements of the Batman character. Bale did his homework and was pretty faithful to the comics. Bale won me over in the scene with Flass.

"SWEAR TO ME!!!!"

When I first saw that scene I wanted to scream out "Yeah!!! Somebody's getting it right." in the movie theater...lol :)

[Bruce_Wayne29]

I will say, I think the depth Begins gives to the character of Batman improves B89 as a film, though. It's like I understand the Batman character (in the film) more; have a closer connection than I did before.

Exactly, I feel the same way, the two complete each other. I like to watch Begins and then go watch Batman89. It's great and I think both movies benefit from each other.

[Lazlo Panaflex]

To me Keaton was playing himself trying to act like Bruce Wayne but his Batman was excellent, you wouldn't know that Bats and Bruce were the same guy.

Bale was more pshycological and had a reason to use the Batman disguise.

[The Joker]

Keaton was awesome. He's right up there with Bale IMO.

[tinister]

I watched Batman Begins on DVD last night for the first time. I was traveling when the film was in release - with no access to theaters.

I think the reason the movie works for me is because Nolan actually makes good use of the characters. He tapped all the best character history/traits from the comics. In return - it gives the actors portraying the characters more to work with.

This results in a Batman that you can more easily connect with and understand.

Every time I learn who has been chosen as the new Wayne/Batman - I always question the choice. This was true for every Batman since 1989.

I think it is because I have duo expectations. I expect Batman to be a certain way. And I have different expectations from the same actor's portrayal of Bruce Wayne.

IMO - the best Batman actors manage a good contrast between the two sides. The bad ones simply jump back-and-forth between wearing a Batsuit and an Armani.

So to rank the actors - I need to separate the two personas: (NOTE: I'm including Adam West because I include the 1960's Batman movie based on the tv series)

BEST BATMAN:
First: Keaton
Second: Bale
Third: West
Fourth: Clooney
Last: Kilmer


BEST WAYNE:
First: West
Second: Keaton
Third: Bale
Fourth: Clooney
Last: Kilmer

Kilmer is last on both of my lists because I don't think he really did anything with either personas. He's a great actor - so I think it is just because he was given little to work with by Joel Schumacher. He literally was just there to fill in the two costumes.

George Clooney holds the fourth position on both of my lists because I feel Clooney had a little spark of potential there - both as Batman and as Wayne, but that spark was just smothered in all the crap that was around him. Just that little spark was still more than what Val Kilmer was able to do for me.

Michael Keaton IS Batman for me. There's just something very subtle about his portrayal that made his Batman more convincing. It wasn't anything he said, but more in his actions. It is strange - but it is hard to place why he works so well. But as Wayne - he was simply Michael Keaton. Very likeable, but just simply Keaton instead of Wayne.

Adam West as Batman was a joke. BUT it was meant to be a joke. So in that context - he worked as Batman. He ranks lower than Keaton and Bale only because I'm a child(and fan) of the "Darker" Batman. So it is more a preference choice rather than one based on acting/portrayal. But in my mind - his Bruce Wayne is immensely under-appreciated.

Christian Bale - out of all the actors - has managed the best balance of good qualities between Batman and Wayne. Batman Begins shows us a Batman/Wayne that is conflicted and in transition. Both Batman and Bruce Wayne are unsure about what to do for most of the picture. So if you watch the Wayne scenes - he's almost like a zombie. It's a very subtle accomplishment for Bale to pull this off. To portray a character who is - on one end -questioning everything about his life; and on the other end - anguishing to take action.

I have to wait to see the second Nolan Batman movie (is he directing? Is Bale attached?). I have a feeling that the second movie will allow Bale to fully slip into both the Batman and Wayne roles. And I can't wait to see if he adds any more depth to the two personas.

LOL. My list will probably surprise a few and piss some. But this is a cool discussion.

Any thoughts?

Tin

[Proximo]

Keaton IS and always will be the best Batman, In my opinion.

Keaton Forever...

[Cyrusbales]

Keaton is a fantastic bruce wayne, he is dark and brooding, really showing the trauma of the character! But he was a little bit too weedy for the batman side of things, but I still prefer Batman and Batman Returns to batman begins,. Much greater style in those films, and the characterisation of the villains was supurb and superior to all other comic book film villains!

[Proximo]

Keaton is a fantastic bruce wayne, he is dark and brooding, really showing the trauma of the character! But he was a little bit too weedy for the batman side of things, but I still prefer Batman and Batman Returns to batman begins,. Much greater style in those films, and the characterisation of the villains was supurb and superior to all other comic book film villains!

I agree, I also prefer Batman & Returns more then Begins...
I have probably watched Batman & Returns god knows how many times.... more then 500 times atleast.

And i have watched Begins 2 times, 1 time In theatre, And 1 time when i got the DVD.
Never got intrest to see it anymore, Because it didnt have a big effect on me as Batman and Batman returns does.
Sure i can probably watch it and enjoy it for what it is... But i dont need too :p

[Cyrusbales]

I agree, I also prefer Batman & Returns more then Begins...
I have probably watched Batman & Returns god knows how many times.... more then 500 times atleast.

And i have watched Begins 2 times, 1 time In theatre, And 1 time when i got the DVD.

Yer, I find batman begins is a bit boring, it's not really a comic book film or a btman film, it's a film that just happens to have batman in. The evil plot is kinda weak aswell, surely if the machine boils all water, it boils water in people?

Most people on here prefer begins, which kind of scares me. I just love the sheer visual pleasure you get from batman & returns. I think batman begins 3 will be good, maybe on a par with returns if we're lucky, but I think it's gonna be hard to beat Burton's spectacular vision!

[Proximo]

Yer, I find batman begins is a bit boring, it's not really a comic book film or a btman film, it's a film that just happens to have batman in. The evil plot is kinda weak aswell, surely if the machine boils all water, it boils water in people?

Most people on here prefer begins, which kind of scares me. I just love the sheer visual pleasure you get from batman & returns. I think batman begins 3 will be good, maybe on a par with returns if we're lucky, but I think it's gonna be hard to beat Burton's spectacular vision!

Totally agree, Batman begins is just a normal hollywood action movie whit Batman in it.
I think the realistic approch they went is what kills it.
Burton had some fantasy, batman is a fantasy character.. dont bring in realistic stuff in it... because then the whole story will have plot holes.
Bruce/Batman doesnt live and work in Chicago...He is in Gotham City...

I think no one will be able to beat Burtons awesome Vision of the character's and Gotham City.

[Cyrusbales]

:up: Totally agree, Batman begins is just a normal hollywood action movie whit Batman in it.
I think the realistic approch they went is what kills it.
Burton had some fantasy, batman is a fantasy character.. dont bring in realistic stuff in it... because then the whole story will have plot holes.
Bruce/Batman doesnt live and work in Chicago...He is in Gotham City...

I think no one will be able to beat Burtons awesome Vision of the character's and Gotham City.

[SHADOWBAT69]

Totally agree, Batman begins is just a normal hollywood action movie whit Batman in it.
I think the realistic approch they went is what kills it.
Burton had some fantasy, batman is a fantasy character.. dont bring in realistic stuff in it... because then the whole story will have plot holes.
Bruce/Batman doesnt live and work in Chicago...He is in Gotham City...

I think no one will be able to beat Burtons awesome Vision of the character's and Gotham City.


Markus, this is the best thing ive ever heard you say.:up:

[Proximo]

Markus, this is the best thing ive ever heard you say.:up:

Eric, haha ok:)

[Two-Face]

Totally agree, Batman begins is just a normal hollywood action movie whit Batman in it.
I think the realistic approch they went is what kills it.
Burton had some fantasy, batman is a fantasy character.. dont bring in realistic stuff in it... because then the whole story will have plot holes.
Bruce/Batman doesnt live and work in Chicago...He is in Gotham City...

I think no one will be able to beat Burtons awesome Vision of the character's and Gotham City.

Like Batman 89 didn't have plot holes? :rolleyes:
Yeah Joker killed Bruce's parents :rolleyes:

he's is in Gotham City, Nolan's one different I mean nolan did what Burton did Gotham style then you probably say Nolan copied Burton nothing against Burton I'm glad it was different.

Story wise Batman Begins was the better one.

[Cyrusbales]

Like Batman 89 didn't have plot holes? :rolleyes:
Yeah Joker killed Bruce's parents :rolleyes:

he's is in Gotham City, Nolan's one different I mean nolan did what Burton did Gotham style then you probably say Nolan copied Burton nothing against Burton I'm glad it was different.

Story wise Batman Begins was the better one.

Really? I thought batman begins had a weak story, I like the mystery of batman in burton's flicks, we didn't need to see his originsa as such, he was just the dark knight emerging from the darkness to stop evil. But that's just me

[Proximo]

Like Batman 89 didn't have plot holes? :rolleyes:
Yeah Joker killed Bruce's parents :rolleyes:

he's is in Gotham City, Nolan's one different I mean nolan did what Burton did Gotham style then you probably say Nolan copied Burton nothing against Burton I'm glad it was different.

Story wise Batman Begins was the better one.

Sure batman '89 had plotholes, But not as Begins.
Joker killing Bruce parents, I thought that was a good and diffrent approch Thats what i like whit Burton's vision, Its diffrent then everyone elses.

In begins, Batman is in Chicago, It looks nothing like a fantasy city as Gotham city really is.
Just look on Burtons Gotham... the huge and gothic buildings.
And to be honest, Begins gotham city is much brighter then Burtons.

I havent said Nolan copied Burton, Im saying Nolan took the easy way and used Chicago as Gotham City, Burton did their own Gotham city, a mix whit everything from diffrent time periods, thats what make it so special and more exciting then Chicago, sry Gotham city.

Story wise B'89 Is much stronger, Or do you think water boiling a city is stronger then inviting 100 000's of people in the centrum and relase toxic gas.
Begins pretty much copied the plot from B89, but used the water boiling crap instead. And i dont think any city would make the head water supply through a prison basement, specially that revealed.

Say what you want, I still prefer '89 and Returns over begins.
End of story :p

[Two-Face]

Only reason I prefer BB cos it wasn't all about villains = Joker, Burton could've used Batman: Year One and Y1 was written in 1985 or least show the origin with different style.

Don't getting me wrong I love Burton Bat movies is just that Burton forgot Batman and playing second fiddle to his supporting characters.

[Cyrusbales]

Only reason I prefer BB cos it wasn't all about villains = Joker, Burton could've used Batman: Year One and Y1 was written in 1985 or least show the origin with different style.

Don't getting me wrong I love Burton Bat movies is just that Burton forgot Batman and playing second fiddle to his supporting characters.

when he uses fantastic villains like catwoman, penguin and the joker in the way he did, then I don't mind. I think it adds to the mystery element of batman

[Two-Face]

Yes but don't want to know why? since it Batman is the title of the film

[Cyrusbales]

Yes but don't want to know why? since it Batman is the title of the film

Everyone already knows about batman, that's why I liked the way Burton mixed it up and changed the focus of the film. There is still enough batman in the film , I just enjoy the way that the villains are characters, rather than obstacles in batman's way.

[Proximo]

Plus, the way Burton did it whit less Batman on screen.
Makes him more mysterious, even for us who "know" Batman.
And Batman gets more intimidating by the way he was potrayed by Burton, But thats just what i think.

Damn, i think im gonna go and watch Batman now :)

[Banshee]

I love the Burton movies, but I have to say Begins is Batman for me now. I think everything about it captured parts of the comics never seen on screen before, it had and intelligent plot weaving his training and exile into a gotham plot (good motivation for the villains), and I just thought Bale was awesome. I know this isn't a who was better thread, but I'm just saying Begins has kind of eclipsed Burton's movies for me. To each their own though right.

[SHADOWBAT69]

I love the Burton movies, but I have to say Begins is Batman for me now. I think everything about it captured parts of the comics never seen on screen before, it had and intelligent plot weaving his training and exile into a gotham plot (good motivation for the villains), and I just thought Bale was awesome. I know this isn't a who was better thread, but I'm just saying Begins has kind of eclipsed Burton's movies for me. To each their own though right.

Absolutely. There have been so many different incarnations of Batman over his 60 plus year history, and each one may appeal to someone more so than another. Thats why i really get tired of people who bash everything other than Nolans current movie, its just another interpretation. Its not perfect, by no means, and its not definitive.

[tinister]

I think BB was meant to sort of "clense the pallete" after "Batman & Robin" - which I agree almost was the nail on the coffin for the Batman movie franchise.

So BB was meant to start over fresh. That is why they hired a director who isn't really known to make movies in this genre.

For that purpose - a fresh beginning - I think "Batman Begins" succeeds more than it fails.

Batman and Bruce Wayne - in my opinion wasn't necessarily even the focus of the movie. To me - the movie focused on re-establishing Batman's world and the people who inhabit it - including Batman/Wayne.

So the observation many on this thread have made that the movie is simply a movie that happens to have Batman in it - is a valid point. But I think that was intentional. And actually why I liked the movie.

[Superman Prime]

A good website to visit to learn more about this movie: IMDb (Internet Movie Database,)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0096895/board/thread/48100763

[Bat Attack]

Keaton's my favorite Batman (and best) in my opinion. And no one will ever change that.

[Bat Attack]

A good website to visit to learn more about this movie: IMDb (Internet Movie Database,)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0096895/board/thread/48100763
No no no, IMDb is evil.

[Morgoth]

I liked Bale's performance as Batman; and Batman Begins will always be on my top ten list of favorite movies. But since then, many of us have watched 'Batman' from '89, because our interest for Batman filmography was resurrected, so to speak. Now that you have rewatched it, and 'Batman' has officially become a cultural classic among the culture of Bat fans, do you appreciate Michael Keaton now more than you did before 'Begins' came out?I have loved Keaton as Batman since I first saw him on the big screen when I was ten. I went every weekend, and it wasn't for Nicholson, to me he didn't steal the show, Batman/Keaton did.

Bale is no Batman, his voice is forced and a joke really. He talks like he has a mouth full of spit.

Now when I was ten I didn't know about people thinking it was a strange choice to have Michael as Bruce, but I always thought he looked like my fave comic book hero, still do. It's the eyes and arched eye brows and voice that really captures Batman in Keaton's performance.

[frodawgg]

No no no, IMDb is evil.

no it's not...you are for calling it that:)

[El Payaso]

Like Batman 89 didn't have plot holes? :rolleyes:
Yeah Joker killed Bruce's parents :rolleyes:

How is that a plothole?

[Bat Attack]

no it's not...you are for calling it that:)
Well sorry If I don't like message boards full of trolls and bad info.:o

[Bruce_Wayne29]

I have loved Keaton as Batman since I first saw him on the big screen when I was ten. I went every weekend, and it wasn't for Nicholson, to me he didn't steal the show, Batman/Keaton did.

Bale is no Batman, his voice is forced and a joke really. He talks like he has a mouth full of spit.

Now when I was ten I didn't know about people thinking it was a strange choice to have Michael as Bruce, but I always thought he looked like my fave comic book hero, still do. It's the eyes and arched eye brows and voice that really captures Batman in Keaton's performance.

Nice post. I have similar thoughts.

[TheGrayGhost]

I despise Tim Burton's portrayal of Batman with a passion. I think Keaton did a good job with what what his given to him, but I just can't warm up to that interpretation of the character. It's not even Batman. It's something else.

[Mr_Mortis]

OK, I am sorry guys if I sound ignorant but I really didn't see the brilliance in '89 Batman.

I've watched Batman Begins multiple times and I enjoyed it a lot each time. My brother lent me Batman and I watched it feeling completely underwhelmed and a bit annoyed.

After reading all the threads on this forum about how "'89 is the best" I was expecting something on par, or better than Begins. Instead I found something very cartoony and very similar to the other Batman films.

I think it was just the style of Gotham being a bit fake and stuff, or maybe it was because I wanted a traditional Joker, or maybe it was because I preferred the Batman Begins suit, it all just seemed a slightly poor version of Begins' realism.

Sorry if I sound like some punk kid who has only seen Begins, and thats ALL he knows about Batman. This is not true.

[JLBats]

Yeah, I secretly suspect most of the B89 love comes from nostalgia and childhood hero worship. People saw it as kids and like it because of that.

[El Payaso]

Instead I found something very cartoony and very similar to the other Batman films.

What other Batman films? Because Returns, Forever, B&R and Begins were all influenced by B89 since it started it all. Should I assume you refer to the Tv series?

I think it was just the style of Gotham being a bit fake and stuff, or maybe it was because I wanted a traditional Joker, or maybe it was because I preferred the Batman Begins suit, it all just seemed a slightly poor version of Begins' realism.

Traditional Joker? How Nicholson was not a "traditional" Joker?

And btw, Nolan (and Schumacher for that matter) wouldn't have had the black rubber suit if it wasn't for B89. Of course after 15 years it's not hard to copy and improve.

[Mr_Mortis]

Thats what I was going to suggest, but I thought it would be rude since it's my first time on this thread. :)

[El Payaso]

Yeah, I secretly suspect most of the B89 love comes from nostalgia and childhood hero worship. People saw it as kids and like it because of that.

I saw Batman Tv series as a kid and I think it stinks.

[Mr_Mortis]

El Payaso, look. All I am saying is, I think Batman Begins is a far more enjoyable and believable Batman film to watch. I don't care about "which came first" or "how Batman'89 influenced Begins" - I am sure it did. But Begins did a much better job of portraying Batman AND Bruce Wayne.

When I refer to the suit, the Begins suit shows much more emotion on the face, Batman is part of the suit whereas I felt in '89, the suit looked really rigid and as if it wasn't flexible.

[Mr_Mortis]

Oh and about the Joker and Jack N. When I say traditional I would prefer a thin faced long nosed Joker, rather than Jack's podgy "Batman TV series" Joker. Thats just the impression I got. The Joker's personality in '89 was ace though.

[Cyrusbales]

I think B89 is a more nostalgic and intense film as is batman returns. BB however is a lot more pleasing to the masses, it's faster paced(although i found it not as engaging as B89 & returns) and has more action and tongue in cheek humour geared for a main stream audience, where i see batman as a dark character, like keaton, who doesn't make jokes, as he's suffered a lot and has dedicated himself to crime fighting.

BB is good, but B89 is better. Although I can't wait to see two face doen properly, but that's years away......

[JLBats]

I think B89 is a more nostalgic and intense film as is batman returns. BB however is a lot more pleasing to the masses, it's faster paced(although i found it not as engaging as B89 & returns) and has more action and tongue in cheek humour geared for a main stream audience, where i see batman as a dark character, like keaton, who doesn't make jokes, as he's suffered a lot and has dedicated himself to crime fighting.

BB is good, but B89 is better. Although I can't wait to see two face doen properly, but that's years away......

I can't believe you of all people would say this:down:confused:

[Cyrusbales]

I can't believe you of all people would say this:down:confused:

me of all people? And what is it I said? You've got my spidey-curiosity sense tingling! What's wrong with liking B89 and returns over BB? It's a lot more enjoyable to watch, not to mention the extra artistic merit.(I'm not on eof those crazy burton fans either, he's ok, overrated though)

[Bat Attack]

I think B89 is a more nostalgic and intense film as is batman returns. BB however is a lot more pleasing to the masses, it's faster paced(although i found it not as engaging as B89 & returns) and has more action and tongue in cheek humour geared for a main stream audience, where i see batman as a dark character, like keaton, who doesn't make jokes, as he's suffered a lot and has dedicated himself to crime fighting.

BB is good, but B89 is better. Although I can't wait to see two face doen properly, but that's years away......
:up: :up:

[Cyrusbales]

:up: :up:

good good, nice to hear:)

[CConn]

Yeah, I secretly suspect most of the B89 love comes from nostalgia and childhood hero worship. People saw it as kids and like it because of that.That's an extremely condescending belief to have.

[JLBats]

That's an extremely condescending belief to have.

Hey, call it condescending if you want, it's just how I feel. I apologise for it, but I do.

I'll reiterate my own feelings on Batman: The first act of the film is brilliant. It looks brilliant, it feels brilliant and it nicely sets up Batman as a mysterioso figure. However, I feel the quality of the film becomes erratic after Joker's fall. However, it still contains many brilliant moments, such as Joker's entrance and some of the museum and the chase afterwards. However, and this is one of the problems I have with Burton films in general, it never quite hangs together as well as I like it to, and a lot of the great, dark timeless feel gets lost in some scenes towards the end, particularly in the slow, non-sensical climax and in the ridiculousness of Prince music playing.

Still a brilliant look to the film, and the great moments definitely make it worth watching.

[The Chairman]

I'll reiterate my own feelings on Batman: The first act of the film is brilliant. It looks brilliant, it feels brilliant and it nicely sets up Batman as a mysterioso figure. However, I feel the quality of the film becomes erratic after Joker's fall. However, it still contains many brilliant moments, such as Joker's entrance and some of the museum and the chase afterwards. However, and this is one of the problems I have with Burton films in general, it never quite hangs together as well as I like it to, and a lot of the great, dark timeless feel gets lost in some scenes towards the end, particularly in the slow, non-sensical climax and in the ridiculousness of Prince music playing.

Still a brilliant look to the film, and the great moments definitely make it worth watching.

I respect your viewpoint, and you bring up a good argument (you often do). I agree that the first half of the movie is undoubtedly more cohesive in establishing the mythos. The second half is the more entertaining section of the film, but it does ignore some important aspects of the mythos that could've been fleshed out.

Anyway, here are my thoughts, which I've been trying to put together in a cohesive manner for days.

Qualitywise, there is no denying that Batman Begins is the better movie. Better direction, better overall casting, better writing, better translation of the mythos, etc.

But in terms of pure entertainment, the Burton films win easily. They're a thrill to watch and have far more memorable scenes and performances. I find that they hold up better as far as repeated viewings go than BB does. Not that Begins isn't an excellent movie (as I said it's superior, and it is in my Top 100), but I feel it's too nuanced and slowly paced for repeated viewings. Not that that's a bad thing (the pacing allows you to let the film's many key plot points and nuances sink in in a more structured manner).

BB actually did help me find a greater appreciation for the Burton films as well as Batman in general. I used to love the character as a kid, but grew out of him as I grew older. When I saw BB, my interest was renewed, and I checked out the Burton flicks for the first time in what had to be years. By establishing Batman's motivations and obessions in BB, I find B89 a much more satisfying viewing becaue BB actually lends it more substance in that you now
get a much deeper understanding of the Batman in Burton's movie.

So, in hindsight, Batman makes me appreciate [I]BB] more.

At this point, I'm rambling, and even I'm confused on waht I mean, but **** it, I'm tired.

[JLBats]

I respect your viewpoint, and you birng up a good argument (you often do). I agree that the first half of the movie is undoubtedly more cohesive in establishing the mythos. The second half is the more entertaining section of the film, but it does ignore some important aspects of the mythos that could've been fleshed out.

Anyway, here are my thoughts, which I've been trying to put together in a cohesive manner for days.

Qualitywise, there is no denying that Batman Begins is the better movie. Better direction, better overall casting, better writing, better translation of the mythos, etc.

But in terms of pure entertainment, the Burton films win easily. They're a thrill to watch and have far more memorable scenes and performances. I find that they hold up better as far as repeated viewings go than BB does. Not that Begins isn't an excellent movie (as I said it's superior, and it is in my Top 100), but I feel it's too nuanced and slowly paced for repeated viewings. Not that that's a bad thing (the pacing allows you to let the film's many key plot points and nuances sink in in a more structured manner).

I have trouble putting my many more thoughts about this argument together, but this is basically my thoughts on the films.

See, I even have to disagree with the entertainment factor. I feel like Batman's big climax at the end of the movie, which occurs in the Cathedral, is a little too slow and too boring, and Joker's death feels really anti-climactic to me. The film is a thrill for the eyes, but it's a little too static for me.

And believe me, I don't think Begins is perfect. I've criticised it a few times in the Safe Haven threads. I still don't think the perfect Batman film has been made. The closest thing to it is BTAS.

[The Chairman]

See, I even have to disagree with the entertainment factor. I feel like Batman's big climax at the end of the movie, which occurs in the Cathedral, is a little too slow and too boring, and Joker's death feels really anti-climactic to me. The film is a thrill for the eyes, but it's a little too static for me.

And believe me, I don't think Begins is perfect. I've criticised it a few times in the Safe Haven threads. I still don't think the perfect Batman film has been made. The closest thing to it is BTAS.

I don't think there will ever be a better interpretation of Bats than B: TAS. It's what turned me on to the character, and for me it's my ideal interpretation of the character.

[Stupify_me]

89 was my favirote and I was a huge complainer before begins came out. I saw begins fell in love re watched 89 and was very disapointed by out I still think 89 had the best suit and batmobile and Keaton is now to me the second best batman perfomance but the rest of the movie was very disapointing.

[Cyrusbales]

I respect your viewpoint, and you bring up a good argument (you often do). I agree that the first half of the movie is undoubtedly more cohesive in establishing the mythos. The second half is the more entertaining section of the film, but it does ignore some important aspects of the mythos that could've been fleshed out.

Anyway, here are my thoughts, which I've been trying to put together in a cohesive manner for days.

Qualitywise, there is no denying that Batman Begins is the better movie. Better direction, better overall casting, better writing, better translation of the mythos, etc.

But in terms of pure entertainment, the Burton films win easily. They're a thrill to watch and have far more memorable scenes and performances. I find that they hold up better as far as repeated viewings go than BB does. Not that Begins isn't an excellent movie (as I said it's superior, and it is in my Top 100), but I feel it's too nuanced and slowly paced for repeated viewings. Not that that's a bad thing (the pacing allows you to let the film's many key plot points and nuances sink in in a more structured manner).

BB actually did help me find a greater appreciation for the Burton films as well as Batman in general. I used to love the character as a kid, but grew out of him as I grew older. When I saw BB, my interest was renewed, and I checked out the Burton flicks for the first time in what had to be years. By establishing Batman's motivations and obessions in BB, I find B89 a much more satisfying viewing becaue BB actually lends it more substance in that you now
get a much deeper understanding of the Batman in Burton's movie.

So, in hindsight, Batman makes me appreciate [i]BB] more.

At this point, I'm rambling, and even I'm confused on waht I mean, but **** it, I'm tired.

I would disagree with quality, the attention to details in Burton's batman's was much higher. The set design was a lot more crucial for him, lining up each shot and frame with greater precision, I'm not a Burton fan though, but I do prefer his batman films to BB.

[Stupify_me]

I would disagree with quality, the attention to details in Burton's batman's was much higher. The set design was a lot more crucial for him, lining up each shot and frame with greater precision, I'm not a Burton fan though, but I do prefer his batman films to BB.
So you prefer the childish and cartoon like Batman

[CConn]

So you prefer the childish and cartoon like BatmanI'd hardly call Burton's interpretation of Batman childish.

And his visual direction cartoonish? If you honestly think giving a Batman film a gothic and Noir-ish backdrop is a bad thing, you must not be very familiar with Batman outside of Begins.

[Stupify_me]

I'd hardly call Burton's interpretation of Batman childish.

And his visual direction cartoonish? If you honestly think giving a Batman film a gothic and Noir-ish backdrop is a bad thing, you must not be very familiar with Batman outside of Begins.
I am very familar with Batman but things look differant in comics differant visuals work differantly for comics and film. Saying that Burton paid attention to detail is almost a joke he basically used the same vision he uses in every thing he does. You can watch Batman 89 and Return and you know exactly who directed I was wondering where the hell was Jack Skelington and Edward seriously the only thing missing from that movie was Johnny Depp. The gothic unrealistic look works when it is ink and paper but not on film with real people. Of course it was cartoonish I mean they were more over the top in the movie then they are in the comics the worst part of the movie the scenes all involved the Joker I mean he was walking around with a bom box and a button hat. I loved the movie my entire life until I watch begins and I went back to 89 and almost cried.

[CConn]

I am very familar with Batman but things look differant in comics differant visuals work differantly for comics and film. Saying that Burton paid attention to detail is almost a joke he basically used the same vision he uses in every thing he does. You can watch Batman 89 and Return and you know exactly who directed I was wondering where the hell was Jack Skelington and Edward seriously the only thing missing from that movie was Johnny Depp.You really aren't very observant then. B89's art direction was totally different from Returns. Let alone the Nightmare Before Christmas (which didn't even feature real people :confused: ) and Edward Scissorhands. They were all Gothic - to be sure - but it's pretty obviously all of them featured different characteristics and artistic styles.
The gothic unrealistic look works when it is ink and paper but not on film with real people.In your opinion.
Of course it was cartoonish I mean they were more over the top in the movie then they are in the comics the worst part of the movie the scenes all involved the Joker I mean he was walking around with a bom box and a button hat.I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word of that.
I loved the movie my entire life until I watch begins and I went back to 89 and almost cried.You're much too much sensative then.

[Stupify_me]

You really aren't very observant then. B89's art direction was totally different from Returns. Let alone the Nightmare Before Christmas (which didn't even feature real people :confused: ) and Edward Scissorhands. They were all Gothic - to be sure - but it's pretty obviously all of them featured different characteristics and artistic styles.
In your opinion.
I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word of that.
You're much too much sensative then.

Don't tell me I have to post the meaning of the word exaggerate I simply meant I was disapointed with the quality of 89 after watching begins.

Oh and never once did I say that Nighmare had real people in it I am not even sure where you came up with that. This is just getting pointless you liked 89 better in my opinion it was to cartoonie and over the top sorry we disagree but do you have to get so defensive?

[CConn]

Don't tell me I have to post the meaning of the word exaggerate I simply meant I was disapointed with the quality of 89 after watching begins.

Oh and never once did I say that Nighmare had real people in it I am not even sure where you came up with that. This is just getting pointless you liked 89 better in my opinion it was to cartoonie and over the top sorry we disagree but do you have to get so defensive?I wasn't being defensive. :confused: You posted something that didn't make sense to me, so I argued it...that's what the Hype's for.

Well, that and the TMNT forum.

[Stupify_me]

I wasn't being defensive. :confused: You posted something that didn't make sense to me, so I argued it...that's what the Hype's for.

Well, that and the TMNT forum.
Sorry it seemed defensive to me.

Look it's simple I though the 89 version was very cartoonie while I can still watch it there are to many things that make me cringe for me to enjoy it anymore:

Perma Smile
The scene where he has on the french hat na dis dancing around (Joker)
The lack of chemistry with Batman and Gordon
The very Burton Esc look and feel I mean I can tell it is burton simply by looking at the trees
The Bat Jet which is something that I hope to never see in Nolans movies
The strong lack of substance
The joy buzzer turning a guy in to a skellaton (seriously WTF?)
The annoying reporter who hangs with Vikie Vale
and other things but this is far longer then I wantas it is and don't get me started on returns I really hated that one.

It's just not for me I love Begins for the realistic nature that Nolan used. I also enjoy the strong story and the fact that he didn't depend to much on action and being over the top to tell his story. Christian Bale is an amazing actor and did an even better job than Keaton which I didn't think was possible because Keaton was great. I just loved the movie. Sorry we disagree but hopefully we can agree to disagree and I can go to bed because im tired.

[El Payaso]

Saying that Burton paid attention to detail is almost a joke he basically used the same vision he uses in every thing he does.

As every director with a style does.

You can watch Batman 89 and Return and you know exactly who directed

Which happens with artist with a style. They're recognizable becauise of the personal seal.

I was wondering where the hell was Jack Skelington and Edward seriously the only thing missing from that movie was Johnny Depp.

And even if you have those kind of hallucinations... is it bad?

Well I saw Taxi Driver the other night and I was wondering where was Spiderman... you know... it's New York.

The gothic unrealistic look works when it is ink and paper but not on film with real people.

Yeah, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari sucks.

(you were trying to stupifying us right?)

Of course it was cartoonish I mean they were more over the top in the movie then they are in the comics

Really? There were giant typewriters and all like in the old comic books?

I loved the movie my entire life until I watch begins and I went back to 89 and almost cried.

So basically you don't have any idea of what you like.

[Stupify_me]

As every director with a style does.



Which happens with artist with a style. They're recognizable becauise of the personal seal.



And even if you have those kind of hallucinations... is it bad?

Well I saw Taxi Driver the other night and I was wondering where was Spiderman... you know... it's New York.



Yeah, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari sucks.

(you were trying to stupifying us right?)



Really? There were giant typewriters and all like in the old comic books?



So basically you don't have any idea of what you like.

IM in a hurry and have to go to work so the bold part is all I have time for.

I was about 5 when Batman 89 came out and the last time I had seen it before begins came out was when I was 11 Sorry my memory didn't have a perfect vission of Batman 89 when I was 21 10 years seems to mess with your memoreys.

[Cyrusbales]

B89 and returns are both more pleasing to watch than BB. You can pause burton's films at any point and marvel at his wonderous mise-en-scene. Each frame is like a painting, and I agree that some bits are a little odd, like the killer buzzer, that to me seemed like the joker, but not jack nicholson's joker, but I am willing to forgive this due to the high quality of the rest of the film.

BB is bland in my opinion, It's an OK action flick, as comic book films go(since 89), i'd rate it about a quarter or a third down the list. There's no spectacular images, and the car chase is soooo bad, he turns his lights off to 'disapear' only to reappear seconds later, pointless! The badguy's scheme also was rather silly, Nolan's 'realism' is defunkt when a microwave dosn't boil the water in people!

I am still looking forward to BB2, (and especially BB3 with two face!) but I am not expecting it to be as classy as burtons, although I will keep an open mind!

[mister Lennon]

As every director with a style does.



Which happens with artist with a style. They're recognizable becauise of the personal seal.



And even if you have those kind of hallucinations... is it bad?

Well I saw Taxi Driver the other night and I was wondering where was Spiderman... you know... it's New York.



Yeah, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari sucks.

(you were trying to stupifying us right?)



Really? There were giant typewriters and all like in the old comic books?



So basically you don't have any idea of what you like.

Most demagogue post ever.

[El Payaso]

^ Sometimes having all those stalkers is creepy.

[XCharlieX]

a lot of the great, dark timeless feel gets lost in some scenes towards the end, particularly in the slow, non-sensical climax and in the ridiculousness of Prince music playing.

You mean the mock parade joker makes to become the most vicious mobster of all time? That was quite a scene with him throwing money at everyone just to gas them. Dark indeed. I found that scene pretty perfect for the film.

[Cyrusbales]

You mean the mock parade joker makes to become the most vicious mobster of all time? That was quite a scene with him throwing money at everyone just to gas them. Dark indeed. I found that scene pretty perfect for the film.

I agree, a very poigniant social comment!

[XCharlieX]

Yes however i do like batman begins as nolan looked back at these films and decided to make a new school formula with even less zany-ness than Burtons which i found a true sucessor to Burtons. Seems to me Nolan saw the over the top-ness of both Schumacher and then Burtons gothic and fetish style particularly in Batman Returns and reacted to it. When I walked out of the theater for BB i knew the man did his homework on how to solidify Batman and keep it from being stretched askew by gothic orcartoony influences.

[Cyrusbales]

I'm glad to see something new, I just prefered burton's version.

[El Payaso]

Yes however i do like batman begins as nolan looked back at these films and decided to make a new school formula with even less zany-ness than Burtons which i found a true sucessor to Burtons. Seems to me Nolan saw the over the top-ness of both Schumacher and then Burtons gothic and fetish style particularly in Batman Returns and reacted to it. When I walked out of the theater for BB i knew the man did his homework on how to solidify Batman and keep it from being stretched askew by gothic orcartoony influences.

Totally agree.

[JLBats]

I'd hardly call Burton's interpretation of Batman childish.

And his visual direction cartoonish? If you honestly think giving a Batman film a gothic and Noir-ish backdrop is a bad thing, you must not be very familiar with Batman outside of Begins.

Here's my thing. I think Burton's films look very noir, but they don't have a noir soul. It's very emblematic of my problem with Burton on the whole. Just because you make the film look the style you're going for, doesn't make it that style. You can do a Western that looks exactly classic Westerns, but has none of the thematic or story elements of classic Western. To me, tonally, Burton's films have this edge of goofiness that the comics don't, and that the Animated Series eschewed.

As well, I think Burton was constrained by the size of his sets. While there is a lot of attention to detail paid, it always feels like we're in a big warehouse.

[Stupify_me]

B89 and returns are both more pleasing to watch than BB. You can pause burton's films at any point and marvel at his wonderous mise-en-scene. Each frame is like a painting, and I agree that some bits are a little odd, like the killer buzzer, that to me seemed like the joker, but not jack nicholson's joker, but I am willing to forgive this due to the high quality of the rest of the film.

BB is bland in my opinion, It's an OK action flick, as comic book films go(since 89), i'd rate it about a quarter or a third down the list. There's no spectacular images, and the car chase is soooo bad, he turns his lights off to 'disapear' only to reappear seconds later, pointless! The badguy's scheme also was rather silly, Nolan's 'realism' is defunkt when a microwave dosn't boil the water in people!

I am still looking forward to BB2, (and especially BB3 with two face!) but I am not expecting it to be as classy as burtons, although I will keep an open mind!
I guess there is a big differance between us I want a good storyline I couldn't care less what the buildings or trees look like.

[tinister]

Yeah, I secretly suspect most of the B89 love comes from nostalgia and childhood hero worship. People saw it as kids and like it because of that.

I think you're right. That's definitely the case for a lot of long time Batman fans.

But for me - I like the 89 Tim Burton Batman (flaws and all) - for two main reasons:

1) Michael Keaton, and
2) Tim Burton's visualization of Batman's Gotham.

It was brilliant of Tim Burton to create a new world for Batman - instead of presenting him as just a superhero in a world that is representative of "reality". Burton's Gotham was both exciting and completely new - and at the same time familiar.

He started to get carried away with this version of Gotham in Batman Returns, and Joel Schummacher completely perverted that world in Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.

The world that was present in Batman Begins - in my opinion - was sort of inconsistant. There was some shots of Gotham that was reminescent of Burton's, but then there was some scenes that looked like it was present day.

Tim Burton's 89 Gotham was nearly perfect.

[kpjoon]

The three things I liked about Burton's Batman...

1. Keaton
2. Elfman
3. Style

To be honest, I did not like Nicholson's Joker.

[Stupify_me]

I will give credit where it is due I thing Keaton was a very good Batman I would say he is the second best and The music was amazing.

[Cyrusbales]

What was wrong with the storylines in B89 and returns? They had intricate plots fitting for the worlds greatest detective!

[Stupify_me]

What was wrong with the storylines in B89 and returns? They had intricate plots fitting for the worlds greatest detective!
How? Where was there any thing fitting for a detective in there ?

[Cyrusbales]

Did you know exactly what the Joker or the penguin were going to do? I think not, hence enigma, which is surely the core of any detective based story!

[Stupify_me]

Did you know exactly what the Joker or the penguin were going to do? I think not, hence enigma, which is surely the core of any detective based story!
But where was the Detective work? He hardly did anything and the storys were just so cheesy to me. Look you liked thats cool im just telling you I did't see any detective work and to me the movies were just kind of cheesy

[Cyrusbales]

But where was the Detective work? He hardly did anything and the storys were just so cheesy to me. Look you liked thats cool im just telling you I did't see any detective work and to me the movies were just kind of cheesy

I love the way that we find the joker(who kills lots of people) almost lovable. That's far sicker than him being a monster. I love the perverse irony.

As for detecting stuff, batman has to analyse all the prodcust etc, and in returns, he finds out what the penguin is really doing using spying technology and recording what he says. I can see why people might find bits cheesey, but personally, I find them very dark and subtley disturbing. The characterisation is better than in Nolan's film, we don't spend enough time with the scarecrow in BB(which is a shame), also B89 and returns are just so glorious to behold.

[Stupify_me]

I love the way that we find the joker(who kills lots of people) almost lovable. That's far sicker than him being a monster. I love the perverse irony.

As for detecting stuff, batman has to analyse all the prodcust etc, and in returns, he finds out what the penguin is really doing using spying technology and recording what he says. I can see why people might find bits cheesey, but personally, I find them very dark and subtley disturbing. The characterisation is better than in Nolan's film, we don't spend enough time with the scarecrow in BB(which is a shame), also B89 and returns are just so glorious to behold.
I guess there is just no agreeing for us lol. I thought we spent plenty of time with Scarecrow I didn't see any need for him to have more time. I thought 89 and returns were just ugly to watch, Cheesy and didn't do batman justice at all don't get me started on returns I really hated that one I would rather watch Batman and Friggen robin than returns I hated that movie. I can enjoy the 89 version from time to time it just wasnt very good to me.

[Cyrusbales]

I guess there is just no agreeing for us lol. I thought we spent plenty of time with Scarecrow I didn't see any need for him to have more time. I thought 89 and returns were just ugly to watch, Cheesy and didn't do batman justice at all don't get me started on returns I really hated that one I would rather watch Batman and Friggen robin than returns I hated that movie. I can enjoy the 89 version from time to time it just wasnt very good to me.

batman and robin, eek! I thought we spent time with crane, but not enough with the actual scarecrow, still liked BB, but i thought cillian murphy made the film, when he wasn't on screen it felt a bit empty to me.

[Stupify_me]

batman and robin, eek! I thought we spent time with crane, but not enough with the actual scarecrow, still liked BB, but i thought cillian murphy made the film, when he wasn't on screen it felt a bit empty to me.
Lol we couldn't be more opposite I thought Cillian was one of the weaker parts of the film lol. I thought there was plenty of scarecrow and I thought it was a good introdcution to him they made it more believable and made it seem like there was good reason to not see him more. I think they left it open for there to be more of him and if they bring him back I would bet there would be more scarecrow now that it is all he has anymore because he can't be a doctor now.

[Cyrusbales]

Lol we couldn't be more opposite I thought Cillian was one of the weaker parts of the film lol. I thought there was plenty of scarecrow and I thought it was a good introdcution to him they made it more believable and made it seem like there was good reason to not see him more. I think they left it open for there to be more of him and if they bring him back I would bet there would be more scarecrow now that it is all he has anymore because he can't be a doctor now.

Okies, I'm lost for words, we'll just agree to disagree on this one:)

[JLBats]

What was wrong with the storylines in B89 and returns? They had intricate plots fitting for the worlds greatest detective!

Um... not really. The plot structure in BR is extremely clumsy and the narrative in B89 is very uncertain who the movie is actually about. I don't mind if you make a Batman movie about the Joker, just as long as you actually decide to make it about him.

[Cyrusbales]

i thought it was fairly balanced to maintain the mystery of batman, whilst being enough about him and his arch nemesis

[JLBats]

i thought it was fairly balanced to maintain the mystery of batman, whilst being enough about him and his arch nemesis

I wouldn't mind if he had constructed two parallel narratives, but as is, he would have failed screenwriting 101 for Batman. It wasn't even messy in a creative way.

[XCharlieX]

I thought the joker story was pretty tight, of course some of the scenes leaned a tad toward the silly but it always leaned back toward realistic at very good times i found.

One thing missing in 89s batman is the cause of the criminality in gotham that Begins brought out, which was a very inbalanced system. At least we saw that the economy was caput in 89s as they couldnt afford swat or the festival lol

[The Sage]

I love what Bale did, he's the Batman of this era. I love Batman Begins and it's the best Batman movie to date.

That being said, Keaton's my hero. He was my first exposure to a serious Batman. He was excellent and dismantled whatever naysayers had against him. What he lacked in the look of Bruce Wayne he made up in his acting. To date, I don't think a single live Batman actor has a better "eye stare" than him. While Bale's Batman is exudes anger, Keaton's exuded coldness. Also, every Batman after him, be it live or in cartoon, has taken cues from him, as he was (unless proven otherwise) the first person to give Batman a raspy voice.

And what I'm about to say is probably going to piss some people off, but whatever: I think Keaton worked harder than Bale. He didn't have a fanbase worshipping him before he got the role, nor did he have a light and more flexible suit. Keaton climbed over the naysayers and had to work in a 40 pound muscle suit (and he's got the bad hip to show it). That's not taking anything away from Bale, but Keaton had to put in more effort.

Also, while I think Batman Begins is the better movie, Batman 1989 is more fun to watch. Why? Because it's fun. BB was fun, just not as much.

To add, B89 has the "Descent into Mystery" scene, which in my mind is the best Batman scene on film to date.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

That being said, Keaton's my hero. He was my first exposure to a serious Batman. He was excellent and dismantled whatever naysayers had against him. What he lacked in the look of Bruce Wayne he made up in his acting. To date, I don't think a single live Batman actor has a better "eye stare" than him. While Bale's Batman is exudes anger, Keaton's exuded coldness. Also, every Batman after him, be it live or in cartoon, has taken cues from him, as he was (unless proven otherwise) the first person to give Batman a raspy voice.

And what I'm about to say is probably going to piss some people off, but whatever: I think Keaton worked harder than Bale. He didn't have a fanbase worshipping him before he got the role, nor did he have a light and more flexible suit. Keaton climbed over the naysayers and had to work in a 40 pound muscle suit (and he's got the bad hip to show it). That's not taking anything away from Bale, but Keaton had to put in more effort.

Also, while I think Batman Begins is the better movie, Batman 1989 is more fun to watch. Why? Because it's fun. BB was fun, just not as much.

To add, B89 has the "Descent into Mystery" scene, which in my mind is the best Batman scene on film to date.

Awesome post.
Hey I missed your posts. Where have you been ?

[The Sage]

Awesome post.
Hey I missed your posts. Where have you been ?

Around.:up:

[Bat Attack]

I love what Bale did, he's the Batman of this era. I love Batman Begins and it's the best Batman movie to date.

That being said, Keaton's my hero. He was my first exposure to a serious Batman. He was excellent and dismantled whatever naysayers had against him. What he lacked in the look of Bruce Wayne he made up in his acting. To date, I don't think a single live Batman actor has a better "eye stare" than him. While Bale's Batman is exudes anger, Keaton's exuded coldness. Also, every Batman after him, be it live or in cartoon, has taken cues from him, as he was (unless proven otherwise) the first person to give Batman a raspy voice.

And what I'm about to say is probably going to piss some people off, but whatever: I think Keaton worked harder than Bale. He didn't have a fanbase worshipping him before he got the role, nor did he have a light and more flexible suit. Keaton climbed over the naysayers and had to work in a 40 pound muscle suit (and he's got the bad hip to show it). That's not taking anything away from Bale, but Keaton had to put in more effort.

Also, while I think Batman Begins is the better movie, Batman 1989 is more fun to watch. Why? Because it's fun. BB was fun, just not as much.

To add, B89 has the "Descent into Mystery" scene, which in my mind is the best Batman scene on film to date.
:up: :up: I agree.

[The Batman]

Keatons Batman was a much better character than Bales.

Keatons Batman was cold and calculated. To the point. Mysterious. The way he moved and talked was badass.

Bales Batman has some flaws, but his Bruce Wayne is excellent.

and B89 is somewhat more entertaining. I guess the general audience agree as well, cause its still the highest grossing batflick.

[Stupify_me]

Keatons Batman was a much better character than Bales.

Keatons Batman was cold and calculated. To the point. Mysterious. The way he moved and talked was badass.

Bales Batman has some flaws, but his Bruce Wayne is excellent.

and B89 is somewhat more entertaining. I guess the general audience agree as well, cause its still the highest grossing batflick.


I disagree.

Keaton did a great batman but I thought Bale was much better he was darker and I like the way he just vanished on Gordon like he always does. Don't get me wrong I loved Keaton as Batman but I thought Bale was even better not by much but still better.

I thought BB was leaps and bounds better than 89 though 89 was just to cheesy for me and Joker just ruined it for me I am not a fan of Jacks Joker.

[the_scream]

There's a place for both Batman films. I think we are lucky to have seen the vision of three completely different directors:

Burton
Schumacher
Nolan

Batman 89 and Returns was a bizzare, depressing freak show with a nice energetic score and cool gadgets. It was fun and with a style that has become Burton's tradmark. But Keaton was wrong for the part. He doesn't have any presence as Wayne. He pulls off the brooding but not the charisma and force. I like Keaton but he is NOT right for the role.

Forever and BR are both as camp as they come. They can't be redeemed but at least they are kind of interesting in how awful they are.

BB is a truly great Batman flick. It treats the characters and relationships with care and respect. It is not afraid to build and build and build to its climax and it shows Batman as: a detective, ninja, angry powerhouse that Batman can be.

[Stupify_me]

There's a place for both Batman films. I think we are lucky to have seen the vision of three completely different directors:

Burton
Schumacher
Nolan

Batman 89 and Returns was a bizzare, depressing freak show with a nice energetic score and cool gadgets. It was fun and with a style that has become Burton's tradmark. But Keaton was wrong for the part. He doesn't have any presence as Wayne. He pulls off the brooding but not the charisma and force. I like Keaton but he is NOT right for the role.

Forever and BR are both as camp as they come. They can't be redeemed but at least they are kind of interesting in how awful they are.

BB is a truly great Batman flick. It treats the characters and relationships with care and respect. It is not afraid to build and build and build to its climax and it shows Batman as: a detective, ninja, angry powerhouse that Batman can be.
I can sometimes enjoy 89 when I am in the mood but I still cringe at certain points. I love BB though. Hell I even kind of like Forever

but I see nothing about being blessed when it comes to B&R that was just crap

[JTStarkiller]

That's a great point you bring up, LordofHypertime. I like the idea that B89 and Batman begins complement each other (and part of me sees that in retrospect), but I can't help but be disppointed in B89 after seeing Begins. The flaws are much more evident after seeing another film get it right.

I wonder if my opinion will change further after seeing TDK. I've never been the biggest fan of Nicholson as The Joker, so we'll see.

[Stupify_me]

That's a great point you bring up, LordofHypertime. I like the idea that B89 and Batman begins complement each other (and part of me sees that in retrospect), but I can't help but be disppointed in B89 after seeing Begins. The flaws are much more evident after seeing another film get it right.

I wonder if my opinion will change further after seeing TDK. I've never been the biggest fan of Nicholson as The Joker, so we'll see.
We are in perfect agreement. I use to love 89 when I was a child but when I grew up and when I saw BB I realized how flawed 89 was.

[Bat Attack]

I loved Batman 1989 as a child. Grew up. Saw Batman Begins. Still love Batman (1989) despite its flaws.

[XCharlieX]

Batman 89 paved the way for Batman Begins. I think it was very classy of Nolan to homage 89 here and there.

[Robin91939]

BEST BATMAN:
First: Keaton
Second: Bale
Third: West
Fourth: Clooney
Last: Kilmer


BEST WAYNE:
First: West
Second: Keaton
Third: Bale
Fourth: Clooney
Last: Kilmer



This is by far the worst list I've ever seen. How can you claim that West was the best Bruce Wayne? Or that Clooney and West were better Batmans than Kilmer? And how can you say that Bale isn't the best Wayne? His performance in BATMAN BEGINS was the most diffinitive story of Bruce Wayne on film. It actually featured him as a character unlike the movies with Keaton, Kilmer, West and Clooney.
Did you actually watch any of the movies?

My list:

BATMAN:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) Clooney
5.) West

Wayne:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) West
5.) Clooney

-R

[Two-Face]

This is by far the worst list I've ever seen. How can you claim that West was the best Bruce Wayne? Or that Clooney and West were better Batmans than Kilmer? And how can you say that Bale isn't the best Wayne? His performance in BATMAN BEGINS was the most diffinitive story of Bruce Wayne on film. It actually featured him as a character unlike the movies with Keaton, Kilmer, West and Clooney.
Did you actually watch any of the movies?

My list:

BATMAN:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) Clooney
5.) West

Wayne:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) West
5.) Clooney

-R

i like your list much better but I would only change is Clooney's Batman to last.

[XCharlieX]

Bale = king of New school
Keaton = king of old school

Thats all i have to say.

[El Payaso]

I saw both B89 and Begins last weekend and it was frustrating to see how what is great in one fails totally in the other. Maybe not everything but many things. Some things remains the same (poor love interests.)

[Dark Guardian]

My list:
Batman:
1)Keaton (I'm sorry, but he was just the embodiement of Batman, watch the scene at Axis Chemicals and in the Belltower again and you'll see what I mean)

2)Bale (He makes a very...VERY close second to Keaton, but he just can't quite match up to Keatons deep face while in the suit.)

3)Kilmer (You can tell he tried, but the lines were poorly written and Schumaker ruined the atmosphere)

4)West (He at least knew he was being camp and tried to make the best of it)

5)Clooney (He did...ok, but again, Schumaker ruined the entire atmosphere and the script.

Bruce Wayne:
1)Bale (He was definitely the deeper Wayne. Just watch his face after Ra's invades Wayne Manor. He was perfect.)

2)Keaton (He was a little odd in some scenes so he didn't get #1, but the scene in Returns when both Selina and him realise their dual identities, is perfect. He takes a step back and his face changes into that classic Batman face)

3)Clooney (He made a better Wayne than Batman.)

4) Kilmer (He fought Two Faces goons in the circus without putting on the costume, I'm sorry, but Bruce Wayne would never be that dumb.)

5) West (Yeah, he did alright, he certainly portrayed the socialite well)

And of course, Conroy's voice owns all.

[JTStarkiller]

And of course, Conroy's voice owns all.

I'm reminded of the very first B:TAS episode from '92, On Leather Wings. Bruce gets a phone call from the Doctor and, still in his cowl, says "hey, what's up, doc?" in his Bruce Wayne voice.

Fan-****ing-tastic. :batman: :batty:

[Bat Attack]

My list. (Live-Action wise).

Batman
1. Keaton

Bruce Wayne
1. Bale



The rest can suck it (except conroy becaue he was awesome).

[Stupify_me]

Batman

Bale
Keaton
Kilmer
Clooney
West

Bruce
Kilmer
Clooney
Bale
West
Keaton

[Cyrusbales]

Wayne:
Keaton
Bale
Kilmer
West
Clooney

Batman:
Bale
Keaton
Kilmer
West
Clooney

[The Batman]

Adam West is probably the most faithful batman we've seen thusfar...

[Stupify_me]

Adam West is probably the most faithful batman we've seen thusfar...
Please tell me that was a joke

[Bat Attack]

He has a point. Adam West was a perfect translation of the Batman comics of the early-mid 1960's.

[Bathead]

That's partially correct. As a matter of fact, a few of the show's stories from the first season were taken directly from the comics. The only real difference was the TV show turned them into comedies.

[The Batman]

im not joking. Anyone who uh, actually KNOWS their batman history knows that West was pretty damn faithful to what batman was at the time.

"Please tell me yor joking". only if yourea bat newb who decided only the last twenty years were worth reading

[The Sage]

Wow, The Batman has a point.

[Bat Attack]

im not joking. Anyone who uh, actually KNOWS their batman history knows that West was pretty damn faithful to what batman was at the time.

"Please tell me yor joking". only if yourea bat newb who decided only the last twenty years were worth reading
:up: :batman:

[SHADOWBAT69]

im not joking. Anyone who uh, actually KNOWS their batman history knows that West was pretty damn faithful to what batman was at the time.

"Please tell me yor joking". only if yourea bat newb who decided only the last twenty years were worth reading


Unfortunatley, there is a large portion of posters on here who could care less about the gold and silver history of Batman. :(

[El Payaso]

Adam West is probably the most faithful batman we've seen thusfar...

Thank God for changes in comic books.

[Stupify_me]

im not joking. Anyone who uh, actually KNOWS their batman history knows that West was pretty damn faithful to what batman was at the time.

"Please tell me yor joking". only if yourea bat newb who decided only the last twenty years were worth reading
Actually the last 30 years all are that is worth reading. Batman before the mid 70's was just horrible. I have read Batman comics from before that time period and it was just patetic. By the way you don't have to be a jerk about it. I was just asking if you were kidding or not. Seriuosly why are you being such an ass about it?

[The Batman]

Unfortunatley, there is a large portion of posters on here who could care less about the gold and silver history of Batman. :(

Yup. They think all of it just like the adam west series. People dont realize that a move toward more serious stories had been happening as early as 1964.

[The Batman]

Thank God for changes in comic books.

That still dosent change the fact that after 60+ years, the most faithful batman is the one fans like to ridicule.

[El Payaso]

Which proves the futility of faithfulness as a way to make good things and that the aphorism "The more faithfull the better" is not always right. Faithfulness is totally independent of the quality. Maybe it works, maybe not.

[Stupify_me]

That still dosent change the fact that after 60+ years, the most faithful batman is the one fans like to ridicule.
Yea it was faithful to a horrible time period for the comic. It's faithful to the period where Batman comics sucked. Yay for it.

[Ceb-Man]

Batman 1989 is my favorte film next to Batman Begins. I really Liked Keaton and Nicholson. I really did not like that The Joker/ Jack Napier was the killer of The Waynes.
I just loved the music, The Anton Furst Gotham City design, and the actors did a very good job.
Up until Bale, Michael Keaton ruled for me as Batman ( as far as live action).
You know I remember the hooplah that Keaton got and people were writting WB letters. but Michael Keaton showed versatility as an actor and gave me a fine performance as Batman.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Keaton was good, but Bale was better IMO. Keatons was a more subtle portrayal, calm and calculated, but not the type to strike fear into criminals IMO. But Bale's in your face, creature like, stalker of the night Batman WOULD scare the **** out of criminals IMO.

[JLBats]

Wayne:
Keaton
Bale
Kilmer
West
Clooney

Batman:
Bale
Keaton
Kilmer
West
Clooney

I think most people would probably do this the other way around.

I felt Bale was a dead on Wayne, but his Batman was lacking. I felt Keaton was a dead on Batman, but I hated his Wayne with a violent passion.

[Cyrusbales]

I think most people would probably do this the other way around.

I felt Bale was a dead on Wayne, but his Batman was lacking. I felt Keaton was a dead on Batman, but I hated his Wayne with a violent passion.

Bale's wayne was too happy, batman is an unsociable dark character, wayne is the ponderous guy who isn't a playboy, that's why i didn't like bale's performance, more a problem with writing for me.

[JLBats]

Bale's wayne was too happy, batman is an unsociable dark character, wayne is the ponderous guy who isn't a playboy, that's why i didn't like bale's performance, more a problem with writing for me.

I disagree. In the comics and BTAS, Wayne has always been considered a playboy. Look at the scene in MotP where a woman throws a glass of water in Bruce's face and warns a group of women against him for his womanising ways. Not only that, but I've never seen Wayne as particularly "happy" in Begins, except when he was playing playboy.

[Cyrusbales]

I disagree. In the comics and BTAS, Wayne has always been considered a playboy. Look at the scene in MotP where a woman throws a glass of water in Bruce's face and warns a group of women against him for his womanising ways. Not only that, but I've never seen Wayne as particularly "happy" in Begins, except when he was playing playboy.

I see what you mean, but i think wayne works well as a reclusive brooding character, not an in your face(and in your restaurant pool) kinda guy!

[Stupify_me]

I see what you mean, but i think wayne works well as a reclusive brooding character, not an in your face(and in your restaurant pool) kinda guy!
How? I think Wayne in private works great your way but in public he needs to be out of control he needs to be spoiled playboy. He has always been even in the comics he is very playboy.

[Cyrusbales]

How? I think Wayne in private works great your way but in public he needs to be out of control he needs to be spoiled playboy. He has always been even in the comics he is very playboy.

Fair enuff, but the films aren't comics. I find the brooding dark nature is better than the playboy, even if pretend. Call me a depressing cynic, but Keaton was more brooding and a more depressive character, which is what appeals to me.

[Stupify_me]

Fair enuff, but the films aren't comics. I find the brooding dark nature is better than the playboy, even if pretend. Call me a depressing cynic, but Keaton was more brooding and a more depressive character, which is what appeals to me.
I think it makes more sense if he acts like a playbo. I mean it isn't like he is just acting that way for the hell of it he is doing it to throw people off he is using it as a cover for who he really is.

[Cyrusbales]

I think it makes more sense if he acts like a playbo. I mean it isn't like he is just acting that way for the hell of it he is doing it to throw people off he is using it as a cover for who he really is.

The whole batman begins character just doesn't work for me, it just doesn't seem quite....batman to me, I know it's impossible to sway people to another opinion, but I personally just feel that Wayne, having suffered lots of trauma, would be reclusive, it adds to the whole dark knight sorta thing for me.

[Stupify_me]

The whole batman begins character just doesn't work for me, it just doesn't seem quite....batman to me, I know it's impossible to sway people to another opinion, but I personally just feel that Wayne, having suffered lots of trauma, would be reclusive, it adds to the whole dark knight sorta thing for me.
What I am trying to explain to you though is that this is not the Batman Begins charecter this is the Batman charecter. In Batman TAS in all of the comics in The Batman cartoon in all of these he has always been a playboy in the publics eye. Aside from Burton's movies he has been a playboy. This isn't just the Begins Vision. If you don't like that it is fine I am just trying to tell you that this is the charecter this is how he has always been aside from a couple of movies.

[JLBats]

The whole batman begins character just doesn't work for me, it just doesn't seem quite....batman to me, I know it's impossible to sway people to another opinion, but I personally just feel that Wayne, having suffered lots of trauma, would be reclusive, it adds to the whole dark knight sorta thing for me.

...:confused:

I sure wish Scottie had slapped a hoe in Vertigo:confused:

[CConn]

What I am trying to explain to you though is that this is not the Batman Begins charecter this is the Batman charecter. In Batman TAS in all of the comics in The Batman cartoon in all of these he has always been a playboy in the publics eye. Aside from Burton's movies he has been a playboy. This isn't just the Begins Vision. If you don't like that it is fine I am just trying to tell you that this is the charecter this is how he has always been aside from a couple of movies.
I find I must agree with Captain Stupid.

(yes, I realize that isn't your real name, but it popped into my head while clicking the quote button, and I decided to roll with it.)

[The Sage]

After thinking about it, I think Keaton and Bale are equal in terms of Batman, but Bale has the better Bruce Wayne.

[Stupify_me]

I find I must agree with Captain Stupid.

(yes, I realize that isn't your real name, but it popped into my head while clicking the quote button, and I decided to roll with it.)
Umm ....Screw you

[SHADOWBAT69]

Yea it was faithful to a horrible time period for the comic. It's faithful to the period where Batman comics sucked. Yay for it.


You may think it was a terrible time period for the comic and that they sucked. However it is still a period of highly sought after books by comic collectors. You have to look at the simplicity of the books for that period. Simple sci-fi stories meant to entertain kids. Also, as said above, there was also a movement towards the more "back to basics" crime stories as well. Just dont look at covers to judge the entire content of the comics, there were usualy more than one story in an issue back then.

[Stupify_me]

You may think it was a terrible time period for the comic and that they sucked. However it is still a period of highly sought after books by comic collectors. You have to look at the simplicity of the books for that period. Simple sci-fi stories meant to entertain kids. Also, as said above, there was also a movement towards the more "back to basics" crime stories as well. Just dont look at covers to judge the entire content of the comics, there were usualy more than one story in an issue back then.
I am not just looking at the covers and judging the stories lack depth. Very weak stories with very little to no complexity. The reason those comics are so sought after for the most part is because they are old and older comics are usually more sought after. I am willing to admit that there are people who prefer those stories because they prefer the simple comics. I however am not one of those people I think they are pathetic and If I was alive 40 to 50 years ago I probably never would of been a comic fan. Lucky for me these days we get stories that are a little more complex and actually have some depth to them.

[El Payaso]

It is depth what attracts people to comic books?

[Cyrusbales]

It is depth what attracts people to comic books?

These days more so, for instance Spawn is soooooo deep it's amazing! And the original pulp comics commented a great deal on society, like the spider and shadow, so that's pretty deep! I like good art work, depth and a good story, don't we all want that?

[El Payaso]

Maybe after we become fans.

In a movie... of course.

[Cyrusbales]

I became interested in comics, and comic movies, but it was comic book movies that really turned me to the geek side, then i indulged in comics! So i always see movies as something slightly different, and being in the industry myself, I take more interest in the movie side.

[The Sage]

Eyes of the Batman:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/sage1047/vlcsnap-41219.jpg

[The Sage]

Was watching the Special Edition of B89 and the behind the scenes footage. Some awesome shots of Keaton's Batman.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/sage1047/vlcsnap-49798.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/sage1047/vlcsnap-53804.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/sage1047/vlcsnap-54191.jpg

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Was watching the Special Edition of B89 and the behind the scenes footage. Some awesome shots of Keaton's Batman.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/sage1047/vlcsnap-49798.jpg



This is was the image I loved the most while watching the special editions because I had never seen it. Is is so awesome and it just screams Batman...

[The Sage]

I'd dare say it's the best shot of Batman in all of the Batman films.

[Bat Attack]

That is a really cool picture. :up:

[Palpadious]

Keaton is Batman. End of story. :batman:

[Two-Face]

Was.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Still is, always gonna be.
Would love to get that shot as a poster or as a cardboad like they had in the interviews...
I love how you don't see his eyes...

[The Sage]

Was.

Is. Was. Always.:up:

[Two-Face]

Bale is Batman not Keaton not anymore... :o

[Stupify_me]

Keaton was good as Batman but I think Bale is just a little bit better.

[Cyrusbales]

Keaton IS batman, Bale is an action hero who just happens to be called batman

[Stupify_me]

Keaton IS batman, Bale is an action hero who just happens to be called batman
I would have to disagree. The only thing that made Keaton Batman was when he said "I am Batman".

Bale's entire performance just screamed Batman he seemed like Batman. Keaton just didn't act like Batman at all he just had a good Batman voice.

[The Sage]

Bale is Batman not Keaton not anymore... :o

Keaton built the throne Bale is sitting on right now. Bale is the torch bearer now, but Keaton will always be Batman as well.

Bale's entire performance just screamed Batman he seemed like Batman. Keaton just didn't act like Batman at all he just had a good Batman voice.

Explain what you mean by "he didn't act like Batman".

[Two-Face]

Keaton IS batman, Bale is an action hero who just happens to be called batman


Bale had the Bruce playboy/serious as well the way Bruce is in comics as Batman had different voice he seemed getting pissed off for kicking bad guy's ass.


Keaton was great Batman but was poor Bruce Wayne.

[Stupify_me]

Keaton built the throne Bale is sitting on right now. Bale is the torch bearer now, but Keaton will always be Batman as well.



Explain what you mean by "he didn't act like Batman".
Keaton just wasn't that dark. He deepend his voice other then that he was just a guy in a cape and Batsuit.

[The Sage]

Keaton just wasn't that dark. He deepend his voice other then that he was just a guy in a cape and Batsuit.

You basically described every actor who put on a Batsuit and cape, minus George Clooney and Adam West.

How was Keaton not that dark?

[Stupify_me]

You basically described every actor who put on a Batsuit and cape, minus George Clooney and Adam West.

How was Keaton not that dark?
Bale did more than just put on a cape. Bale was actually acting Bale.

Keaton was in the batsuit and then just ran to save the day.How could you think he was dark? Unless you think dark just means his suit was black and the set was dark. He seemed like just another guy ad not someone who had a purpose or reason for what he was doing. He ran around like this was nothing just a little hobbie on the side. Look it is obvious we don't agree here it's probably best to just not dicuss it anymore. I know how these boards work we will get in to this more and either you or some one who agree with you will come in and start insulting me because I don't think Keaton was the greatest Batman ever. I just don't feel like dealing with it right now.

[Cyrusbales]

Keaton was much darker and brooding than Bale, not just voice, but manerisms and even slight movements.

[Stupify_me]

Keaton was much darker and brooding than Bale, not just voice, but manerisms and even slight movements.
If you say so I would just suggest watching the movie again. Either way I am just going to drop this neither one of us will change our minds and all it will turn in to eventually is "Your wrong" "No Your wrong"

[CConn]

Bale is Batman not Keaton not anymore... :oJust because a person no longer plays a character doesn't mean they don't still embody that character.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Keaton is the epitomy of dark.
Two more of my favourite pics of him:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/theartist29/Batman13.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/theartist29/Batman16.jpg

[El Payaso]

Bale did more than just put on a cape. Bale was actually acting Bale.

Keaton was in the batsuit and then just ran to save the day.How could you think he was dark? Unless you think dark just means his suit was black and the set was dark. He seemed like just another guy ad not someone who had a purpose or reason for what he was doing. He ran around like this was nothing just a little hobbie on the side.

The darkness in Keaton was about he might kill you if you're breaking the law, not just to scare you. His purpose was vengeance not universal Justice. If you follow a higher ideal beyond yourself like Justice, Truth, etc that makes it noble and inspiring and enlightening. If you follow a personal bitter vengeance that is after just the personal feeling of the revenge, then I would say it's darker than the first option. And please I'm not saying for a second what's the better Batman or more faithful or even that the darker the better movie etc etc. B Begins got the justice-maker Batman quite right. But Keaton's Batman nailed the bitter nihilist Batman and that's that too.

[Bat Attack]

Keaton was much darker and brooding than Bale, not just voice, but manerisms and even slight movements.
Yep, :up::batman:

[The Sage]

Bale did more than just put on a cape. Bale was actually acting Bale.


So Bale was acting like Bale? How does that make him dark?


Keaton was in the batsuit and then just ran to save the day.How could you think he was dark? Unless you think dark just means his suit was black and the set was dark. He seemed like just another guy ad not someone who had a purpose or reason for what he was doing.


He was driven by his need for revenge. That was his purpose.


He ran around like this was nothing just a little hobbie on the side. Look it is obvious we don't agree here it's probably best to just not dicuss it anymore. I know how these boards work we will get in to this more and either you or some one who agree with you will come in and start insulting me because I don't think Keaton was the greatest Batman ever. I just don't feel like dealing with it right now.

Thanks for wasting my time. I was looking for a good debate here.:mad:

[Super_Ludacris]

Bale surpassed Keaton in every way. Yeah Batman is a classic to a lot of people growing up but when you look back now, you sorta get the idea that it is pretty inferior to the stuff people like Marvel, Vertigo, Frank Miller and New DC adaptations have come with in the past 7 years. Keaton is a product of that, he fit well in a Tim Burton world (which is what it was, it was Burton's re-imagining of a Batman world). But looking back now those were Tim Burton movies rather than Batman movies. He created his own world and subsequently Keaton was the Batman he wanted even though he didnt have a striking prescence as Batman. This may sound weird but almost like the suit overwhelmed him. He did a good job dont get me wrong but he aint the best. This really aint Keaton passing the torch to Bale or Bale sitting in his thronw. Bale took that **** and made his own, he just happen to have the menancing look and beastly aura that hard core Batman fans of the comics can identify with closer. Keaton was Bob Cousy, Bale was Michael Jordan.

[The Sage]

Bale surpassed Keaton in every way. Yeah Batman is a classic to a lot of people growing up but when you look back now, you sorta get the idea that it is pretty inferior to the stuff people like Marvel, Vertigo, Frank Miller and New DC adaptations have come with in the past 7 years. Keaton is a product of that, he fit well in a Tim Burton world (which is what it was, it was Burton's re-imagining of a Batman world). But looking back now those were Tim Burton movies rather than Batman movies. He created his own world and subsequently Keaton was the Batman he wanted even though he didnt have a striking prescence as Batman. This may sound weird but almost like the suit overwhelmed him. He did a good job dont get me wrong but he aint the best. This really aint Keaton passing the torch to Bale or Bale sitting in his thronw. Bale took that **** and made his own, he just happen to have the menancing look and beastly aura that hard core Batman fans of the comics can identify with closer. Keaton was Bob Cousy, Bale was Michael Jordan.

Good points. But I don't think Bale surpassed Keaton, but rather matched him. Bale may have physically looked more like Bruce Wayne, but Keaton had a lot of things that made him a great Batman. Keaton's eyes gave him a colder edge while Bale had an angrier edge to his.

But I'll concede with the Bob Cousy and MJ comparison. While I think their Batmans matched, Bale was a better Bruce Wayne.

B89 itself though, I don't think it's inferior to any of the stuff being put out now and it's a great representation of the early Batman stories.

[Super_Ludacris]

I feel because he played Bruce Wayne a lot more crisper and his Batman was focused from a detective and menacing side that that was the decider.

Bale's speech in the plane to alfred>>>>> Keaton in both other joints

[E-Mack]

The "As a man, I'm flesh and blood.." speech was a great throwback to the narration in Det. 27, but it's a bit unfair comparing that to anything of Keaton. In Burton's films, Batman was already established, and the only hint of his origin, is the murder of his parents.

[The Sage]

I don't know, I think Keaton's Batman showed hints of the detective, particularly in cracking the Joker's poison code in the products.

I also think Bruce's talk with Alfred when he arrived home after the Joker's shooting in downtown Gotham was just as good. It wasn't as wordy, but it was different circumstances. In BB, Bruce hadn't spoken to Alfred in years so they caught up and Bruce revealed his plans for the future. In B89, Bruce is talking about the possibility of being with Vicki, and immediately changes his mind to regain focus on his mission. Just great dialogue in both films.

[darknight7]

The whole batman begins character just doesn't work for me, it just doesn't seem quite....batman to me, I know it's impossible to sway people to another opinion, but I personally just feel that Wayne, having suffered lots of trauma, would be reclusive, it adds to the whole dark knight sorta thing for me.

Dude, what do you call Batman?

Do you not call that suffereing. lol. Wayne no matter what has ALWAYS ALWAYS been a Playboy. Read some comics and watch some cartoons. I even have a shirt that says BILLIONAIRE PLAYBOY, with Bruce Wayne on it LOL. Bruce Wayne broods on his own time, with Alfred who has to put up with his poor mood swings. Batman is the angry quiet brooding vigilante. Bruce Wayne is the disguise bro, not Batman.

--dk7

[darknight7]

Keaton was much darker and brooding than Bale, not just voice, but manerisms and even slight movements.

Also rememember: Tim Burton directed this movie. Look at him and his movies, they are all dark and twisted. Check out Edward Scissorhands...most damn depressing movie EVER! lol. Point is, 2 different directors, 2 different styles, 2 different times. Keaton did the brooding Wayne perfectly. Bale's brooding Bruce hasn't kicked in yet.

Read Year One. Bruce is a fake playboy. Exactly what Bale was. The only time he broods, is in the cave. And as Batman.

The guy was pissed off enough to leave Gotham, travel the world, and train with ninjas. If that isn't brooding and isolated enough for you, I don't know what is.

Don't forget he turns into a dark vigilante, who takes beatings, and gives beatings.

His Bruce was perfect. Keaton's was terrible, except for the scene when he drops off the roses, and broods in the cave.

Once again, he was portrayed as an older Bruce. Bale is a younger one. That burden, that mantel of the bat, is what destroys Bruce Wayne. That's what makes him so brooding. It becomes his life, it swallows him, he becomes Batman, and Bruce Wayne fades away. That is when you see the more dark depressed Bruce.

--dk7

[Stupify_me]

Bale surpassed Keaton in every way. Yeah Batman is a classic to a lot of people growing up but when you look back now, you sorta get the idea that it is pretty inferior to the stuff people like Marvel, Vertigo, Frank Miller and New DC adaptations have come with in the past 7 years. Keaton is a product of that, he fit well in a Tim Burton world (which is what it was, it was Burton's re-imagining of a Batman world). But looking back now those were Tim Burton movies rather than Batman movies. He created his own world and subsequently Keaton was the Batman he wanted even though he didnt have a striking prescence as Batman. This may sound weird but almost like the suit overwhelmed him. He did a good job dont get me wrong but he aint the best. This really aint Keaton passing the torch to Bale or Bale sitting in his thronw. Bale took that **** and made his own, he just happen to have the menancing look and beastly aura that hard core Batman fans of the comics can identify with closer. Keaton was Bob Cousy, Bale was Michael Jordan.
I couldn't agree more. In fact I have made that comment about it being a Burton movie. You can look at the movie and tell every thing about it you can watch a 5 secdond clip and tell that Burton did it He does similar things in all of his movies.

[The Sage]

I couldn't agree more. In fact I have made that comment about it being a Burton movie. You can look at the movie and tell every thing about it you can watch a 5 secdond clip and tell that Burton did it He does similar things in all of his movies.

As much as it was a Burton movie, it was also a Batman movie.

[Super_Ludacris]

"Anyone who knows anything about me knows I dont read comic books"-Tim Burton (2001)

[E-Mack]

Well since I'm such a huge Burton dickrider, I'll just say on his defense that you don't exactly need to read the comics to understand the character. :o

[The Sage]

Sam Hamm brought the comicbook knowledge in writing the script (He also wrote Blind Justice, the story that featured Henri Ducard heavily) while Burton brought the atmosphere, visuals, direction, and understanding of the character.

[Super_Ludacris]

But you really wanna nail down the soul of a character you gotta. Especially with someone like Batman, he's had tons of interpretations including really like (Adam West) to the extreme (Dark Knight Returns) and what seperates your **** from the others is if you just nail down the basic and focus on the basics (tormented man, embracing his fear, detective, innovative specialist when finding gadgets).
When you watch a Tim Burton joint you feel he focuses so much on the style rather than the substance (albiet defintive style). There's so much focusness on the sets looking gothic, the music being OTT (even for Elfman, see Batman Returns) and so much emphasis on the kookiness and style of the villans that Batman feels souless in comparison.
With Nolan, he may not have what Burton has but he focuses on what counts which is Batman/Bruce Wayne himself and in the end that proves to carry a great story. Other superhero films can follow Burton's formula. Batman tried that, this new style created definition which is hard to for a character who's been around so long and potrayled so many ways but there was still a defintive image and Nolan nailed it, Burton just shrouded it with his own gothic circus.

[E-Mack]

But you really wanna nail down the soul of a character you gotta. Especially with someone like Batman, he's had tons of interpretations including really like (Adam West) to the extreme (Dark Knight Returns) and what seperates your **** from the others is if you just nail down the basic and focus on the basics (tormented man, embracing his fear, detective, innovative specialist when finding gadgets).
When you watch a Tim Burton joint you feel he focuses so much on the style rather than the substance (albiet defintive style). There's so much focusness on the sets looking gothic, the music being OTT (even for Elfman, see Batman Returns) and so much emphasis on the kookiness and style of the villans that Batman feels souless in comparison.
With Nolan, he may not have what Burton has but he focuses on what counts which is Batman/Bruce Wayne himself and in the end that proves to carry a great story. Other superhero films can follow Burton's formula. Batman tried that, this new style created definition which is hard to for a character who's been around so long and potrayled so many ways but there was still a defintive image and Nolan nailed it, Burton just shrouded it with his own gothic circus.
You make it sound as if Burton totally butchered Bruce. :confused:

Imo, what Burton wanted to convey with the character is one seriously f'ed up individual, who is haunted by his parents' death every day of his life. And as such, he puts on that cape and cowl to ease the pain, by making sure no one else has to go through the suffering he has endured.

The scene in BR with Bruce idly waiting for a signal speaks volumes of the character. This isn't the Bruce that's starting off, but a Bruce that is focused on one thing only, justice. He's living for the sake of helping others, the most selfless act anyone can do. I don't see how any of this steps on the foundations of what Batman is.




P.S. Screw you for even thinking that Elfman's theme was OTT. That ish is and always will be the Batman theme. :o

[The Sage]

You make it sound as if Burton totally butchered Bruce. :confused:

Imo, what Burton wanted to convey with the character is one seriously f'ed up individual, who is haunted by his parents' death every day of his life. And as such, he puts on that cape and cowl to ease the pain, by making sure no one else has to go through the suffering he has endured.

The scene in BR with Bruce idly waiting for a signal speaks volumes of the character. This isn't the Bruce that's starting off, but a Bruce that is focused on one thing only, justice. He's living for the sake of helping others, the most selfless act anyone can do. I don't see how any of this steps on the foundations of what Batman is.




P.S. Screw you for even thinking that Elfman's theme was OTT. That ish is and always will be the Batman theme. :o

Exactly.

Nolan focused on the hero side of Batman, while Burton focused on the obsessed, tortured soul, who at times gets distracted by the chance of having a normal life (Vicki Vale).

Someone had made a post about how B89 is about the mystery of Batman, mainly what kind of hero is he.

Vicki: Some people think you're just as crazy as the Joker.

Batman: He's psychotic.

Vicki: Some people the say the same thing about you.

Newscaster: "And of all of Gotham are wondering what to think of Batman. Friend, or foe?"

Other things too. Although Joker killing Batman's parents is a drastic change, what it does is create an interesting dynamic. Jack Napier kills the Waynes, killing Bruce Wayne in process and creating Batman. Later on, Batman (purposely or accidentally) drops Jack Napier into the vat of chemicals, killing him and creating the Joker. Darkness creating darkness. Insanity creating insanity.

I didn't understand B89 when I was kid, but now when I look back at it, I realize how it's a brilliant piece of film. It's not as surface-level as BB, which is why some of it gets missed. But I love it.

[Super_Ludacris]

You make it sound as if Burton totally butchered Bruce. :confused:

I didnt say he Butchered, he just focused on the villians more. He's clearly the dude who finds more intrugie in the villans and that's cool but it's a Batman movie and there wasnt that focusness on Batman. Keaton just sitting around thinking with a forced brooding look.

Imo, what Burton wanted to convey with the character is one seriously f'ed up individual, who is haunted by his parents' death every day of his life. And as such, he puts on that cape and cowl to ease the pain, by making sure no one else has to go through the suffering he has endured.

I wish he did, but when I watched I never felt it one bit. Like with Batman Begins you got the definition of why. With Burton's films you never got that, it was just like "this is Batman, **** it let's go to Johnny I mean Joker"


The scene in BR with Bruce idly waiting for a signal speaks volumes of the character. This isn't the Bruce that's starting off, but a Bruce that is focused on one thing only, justice. He's living for the sake of helping others, the most selfless act anyone can do. I don't see how any of this steps on the foundations of what Batman is.

See I'm glad you brought that up because that's one scene that makes me cringe everytime. If Bruce is focused on dedicating his life to fighting crime, then as a director try to capture that especially when it's a sequel and you want re-introduce the character to the audience picking him up where he left off. Show him in the cave developing something, or on the Bat-computer running files on convicts and crime bosses. Or show up in the library him reading some stuff or researching. Instead he doesnt even look comptemplative on that chair. Dude looks straight up akward almost looking bored like "sigh...c'mon where the signal at?". And if you wanna show him sitting down contemplating....capture that mood for a minute or two. Focus on the eyes, maybe through a flashback (but I wouldnt really reccomend it too much), or ultise Elfman's music to capture a diagetic feel to where Bruce is at in his life. But he just look akward as **** looking bored and then springing (almost unethusastically and forced) at the signal. Basically Burton wanted to capture a surreal image to look real with the signal shinning on the books in the dark room. That's Burton's style but in the context it's seems like a forced style shot.


P.S. Screw you for even thinking that Elfman's theme was OTT. That ish is and always will be the Batman theme. :o

Stop catching feelings, Elfman aint Primo lol. I said his running score in Batman Returns. It sounded OTT with the little choir singing, **** sounded like Nightmare before Christmas beats. The main score is dope but you gotta admit that was more focus on style OTT. And for the record Hans Zimmer's theme was heat. They messed up by not putting on the Batman Begins soundtrack (the main score at the end) but it's heat, so much so I'm feeling it more than the orginal theme (even Detroit and Cleveland use it for intros) dont sleep. It feels like "yo I aint bull****ing around here" lol

[Cyrusbales]

Dude, what do you call Batman?

Do you not call that suffereing. lol. Wayne no matter what has ALWAYS ALWAYS been a Playboy. Read some comics and watch some cartoons. I even have a shirt that says BILLIONAIRE PLAYBOY, with Bruce Wayne on it LOL. Bruce Wayne broods on his own time, with Alfred who has to put up with his poor mood swings. Batman is the angry quiet brooding vigilante. Bruce Wayne is the disguise bro, not Batman.

--dk7

OK, let me simplify what I mean, Yes Bruce can be a playboy all he wants, but when he's on his own, or just with alfred, he isn't all laughy smiley, IN PUBLIC he is a playboy, but in solitude he isn't, yet in Nolan's film, he always seems happy and cracking little jokes to alfred and stuff, not exactly dark or traumatised!

[Super_Ludacris]

But in the comics and animated series Bruce Wayne always had to put on a front as a charming playboy. Bruce cant be traumatised 24/7. If he traumatised he would be shook to even be Batman. Alfred's all the family he's got, so of course he's comfortable with him. That man was there when his parents. And they just grin and quip little wit remarks here and there. There's a bond there, he cant be morbid all his life. Dont confused being driven with morbidness.
It aint like there teaing up laughing giving each other pounds smoking up that bomb endo in the bat cave ( I would pay to see that though....I WOULD pay to see that)

[Cyrusbales]

I can't see Bale as being moved at all by his parents death, as soon as he comes back from his 'trip', he doesn't seem to care much, in TAS for example, bruce was regularly haunted by memories of his parents, the scarecrow episode for example, his greatest fear is disapointing his parents!

[JLBats]

OK, let me simplify what I mean, Yes Bruce can be a playboy all he wants, but when he's on his own, or just with alfred, he isn't all laughy smiley, IN PUBLIC he is a playboy, but in solitude he isn't, yet in Nolan's film, he always seems happy and cracking little jokes to alfred and stuff, not exactly dark or traumatised!

In TAS he joked with Alfred all the time.

I've never liked the interpretation of Batman as a totally sombre character. It takes the fun, filmic Chandler dark humour element out of the picture.

[Cyrusbales]

In TAS he joked with Alfred all the time.

I've never liked the interpretation of Batman as a totally sombre character. It takes the fun, filmic Chandler dark humour element out of the picture.

there was dark and subtle humour in Batman and Batman returns, 'I bought it in Japan', and the whole catwoman-wayne relationship was humourous without rsorting to one liners and such like! I think this more sophisticated style of humour suits batman more than what Nolan brought to the character

[Super_Ludacris]

I can't see Bale as being moved at all by his parents death, as soon as he comes back from his 'trip', he doesn't seem to care much, in TAS for example, bruce was regularly haunted by memories of his parents, the scarecrow episode for example, his greatest fear is disapointing his parents!

You sound like you want to be shook all his life by it. He still is but that doesnt mean we gotta constantly show it. He has a lotta fears (Bats, Parents death, letting Gotham down, losing alfred) but he's a deep man who withstands all that and soliders on. The fact that he is Batman proves he's moved by his parents death and wants to avenge them. That's the basic Batman theme and it's highlighted as the template of the movie.

[The Sage]

You sound like you want to be shook all his life by it. He still is but that doesnt mean we gotta constantly show it. He has a lotta fears (Bats, Parents death, letting Gotham down, losing alfred) but he's a deep man who withstands all that and soliders on. The fact that he is Batman proves he's moved by his parents death and wants to avenge them. That's the basic Batman theme and it's highlighted as the template of the movie.

And this isn't shown in the B89 film? That his parents' death led to him to wanting revenge?

[The Sage]

In TAS he joked with Alfred all the time.

I've never liked the interpretation of Batman as a totally sombre character. It takes the fun, filmic Chandler dark humour element out of the picture.

I agree. But I prefer a mix of fun along with the brooding. Personally I think B89 and BB was lacking some of what the other had.

[E-Mack]

I wish he did, but when I watched I never felt it one bit. Like with Batman Begins you got the definition of why. With Burton's films you never got that, it was just like "this is Batman, **** it let's go to Johnny I mean Joker"
Did you really have to be told why Bruce was the way he was? You couldn't tell by how he shrugs off Vicki, in order to spend the day mourning the death of his parents? Or by how many damn flashbacks of the pearls falling, and the gunshot? It was clear as day to me that Bruce was disturbed. I didn't need to hear "My parents have been shot, so I think I will sit in this chair and think about it for a while".

See I'm glad you brought that up because that's one scene that makes me cringe everytime. If Bruce is focused on dedicating his life to fighting crime, then as a director try to capture that especially when it's a sequel and you want re-introduce the character to the audience picking him up where he left off. Show him in the cave developing something, or on the Bat-computer running files on convicts and crime bosses. Or show up in the library him reading some stuff or researching. Instead he doesnt even look comptemplative on that chair. Dude looks straight up akward almost looking bored like "sigh...c'mon where the signal at?". And if you wanna show him sitting down contemplating....capture that mood for a minute or two. Focus on the eyes, maybe through a flashback (but I wouldnt really reccomend it too much), or ultise Elfman's music to capture a diagetic feel to where Bruce is at in his life. But he just look akward as **** looking bored and then springing (almost unethusastically and forced) at the signal. Basically Burton wanted to capture a surreal image to look real with the signal shinning on the books in the dark room. That's Burton's style but in the context it's seems like a forced style shot.
It is a style shot, but it did have meaning. While the above suggestions you made would've worked as well, imo it wouldn't have the same impact as the shot Burton chose. The man is busy enough as is dressed up like Batman, you can't blame him for having some free time to himself doing nothing, lol. You telling me you just never wanted to sit/lay down and just..."think"? Everyone has those moments.

Stop catching feelings, Elfman aint Primo lol. I said his running score in Batman Returns. It sounded OTT with the little choir singing, **** sounded like Nightmare before Christmas beats. The main score is dope but you gotta admit that was more focus on style OTT.
If by style you mean "sounds good", then ok, lol. Idk how exactly the whole "style over substance" thing can be applied to instrumentals. Point is, the theme sounded like Batman. The fact that most batfans today, says something about Elfman's music.

[Super_Ludacris]

And this isn't shown in the B89 film? That his parents' death led to him to wanting revenge?

Well you cant have a Batman film without his parents death but with Batman Begins they made you see and capture the depth of how there death effected him and his upbriging and creation. They took that to a definitve level which is much more believeable.

You saw the pain he was in when his parents died, his dads last words that ring true to his whole life
You saw how it how he felt guilty about his fear leading to there death
You saw the contemplation he went through to try to kill Joe thinking that would avenged there death
You saw him see the bigger picture of how there death made him a see a bigger picture of a problem existing when he was punked by Falcone and his haunting turning to vengance and drive for purpose
You saw his travels, his trainings, his decision to create his own personal quest seperate from the League of shadows
You saw how he utilised and got organised to fight crime, using his gadgets, finding the right people (Gordon with research), turning his fear into a muse

In essence you saw how 2 parents deaths can create a Batman in such a defintive level of explination and journey that showcases the emotion itself

:batman: = http://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/king.gif


What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcavehttp://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/dry.gif. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

Dont get me wrong I dug Burton's movie, I enjoyed it but it is a flawed film and it really shows when you compare to Batman Begins. That's my point

[Cyrusbales]

Well you cant have a Batman film without his parents death but with Batman Begins they made you see and capture the depth of how there death effected him and his upbriging and creation. They took that to a definitve level which is much more believeable.

You saw the pain he was in when his parents died, his dads last words that ring true to his whole life
You saw how it how he felt guilty about his fear leading to there death
You saw the contemplation he went through to try to kill Joe thinking that would avenged there death
You saw him see the bigger picture of how there death made him a see a bigger picture of a problem existing when he was punked by Falcone and his haunting turning to vengance and drive for purpose
You saw his travels, his trainings, his decision to create his own personal quest seperate from the League of shadows
You saw how he utilised and got organised to fight crime, using his gadgets, finding the right people (Gordon with research), turning his fear into a muse

In essence you saw how 2 parents deaths can create a Batman in such a defintive level of explination and journey that showcases the emotion itself

:batman: = http://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/king.gif


What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcavehttp://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/dry.gif. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

Dont get me wrong I dug Burton's movie, I enjoyed it but it is a flawed film and it really shows when you compare to Batman Begins. That's my point

I think almost 100% of the people on this board will hail Keaton as a great actor, and yes he did show emotion greatly, I'm sorry if it wasn't hammy enough and blatent for you, It's supposed to be fantasy-realism, not overacted third rate theatre!

Yes, of course, Keaton can't act and show emotion..............:confused:

[Super_Ludacris]

Did you really have to be told why Bruce was the way he was? You couldn't tell by how he shrugs off Vicki, in order to spend the day mourning the death of his parents? Or by how many damn flashbacks of the pearls falling, and the gunshot? It was clear as day to me that Bruce was disturbed. I didn't need to hear "My parents have been shot, so I think I will sit in this chair and think about it for a while".

If you wanna make a convincing character story on Batman (which I believe is what the movie was called) then hell mother****ing yeah. That's what makes the movies of superheroes that have come out the last 7 years some of the best genre has provided they show depth and strong examples of how the character is like that. What does pearl dropping do? Show a generic shot of a woman getting gun down? Where's the part that shows the trauma and blame the child had. Oh I know Knox and Vale analysed it themselves by reading some dusty ass headlineshttp://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/dry.gif
Where was the journey? the arc where sorrow turns to vengance? the training? How he got the gadgets. Like I said Burton wanted you to expect to know about Batman so he could focus on the villans. But the greatest superhero joints show the journey (Donner's Superman, Raimi's Spider-Man).

Heck that's what makes doing movies about these characters with history and bring to the big screen worth it


It is a style shot, but it did have meaning. While the above suggestions you made would've worked as well, imo it wouldn't have the same impact as the shot Burton chose. The man is busy enough as is dressed up like Batman, you can't blame him for having some free time to himself doing nothing, lol. You telling me you just never wanted to sit/lay down and just..."think"? Everyone has those moments.

But it's like I said if he's thinking show it. All he did was show it once in B89 and it was a corny slow moving generic flashback. He's Batman phuck just sitting and laying down if it aint worth for nothing


If by style you mean "sounds good", then ok, lol. Idk how exactly the whole "style over substance" thing can be applied to instrumentals. Point is, the theme sounded like Batman. The fact that most batfans today, says something about Elfman's music.

Grab ya DVD of Batman Begins and play the end credits at the start when the main score plays. It sounds so sick. It's not got a signature style like Elfman's but it's so contemporary and focused and the way the orchestra builds up with the precussion it feels like a man going to war with vengance on his mind. Sounds so dope, close your eyes and hear it.
Elfman's main score is cool, but it feels like he's lurking in the shadows and creates a sound that caters to the style and enviroment of Gotham (Gothic, dark) but Begins beats like it's for just Batman himself. I know people think it's sacrelige to say Hans Zimmer made a better theme than Elfman but it's sounds more authentic and serious and I dig that ****.

[Super_Ludacris]

I think almost 100% of the people on this board will hail Keaton as a great actor, and yes he did show emotion greatly, I'm sorry if it wasn't hammy enough and blatent for you, It's supposed to be fantasy-realism, not overacted third rate theatre!

Yes, of course, Keaton can't act and show emotion..............:confused:

Did I say Keaton cant act?

Keaton is a good actor but he look so muted in that scene, I just wish Burton focused more on it and created a scene that allowed him to show emotion even if it's a silent vengance (focus on the eyes) As a director you have the opportuinity to enchance the actor.
How the **** can you call Batman Begins overacted third rate theater when you gotta live with Penguin's speeches from Returns lol

[Cyrusbales]

Did I say Keaton cant act?

Keaton is a good actor but he look so muted in that scene, I just wish Burton focused more on it and created a scene that allowed him to show emotion even if it's a silent vengance (focus on the eyes) As a director you have the opportuinity to enchance the actor.
How the **** can you call Batman Begins overacted third rate theater when you gotta live with Penguin's speeches from Returns lol

I never said BB was overacted, I suggested that overacting was the opposite of what Batman and Batman returns were, The penguin was a fantasy-like character, but grounded with realism, I understand why people don't like him, but I think the penguin was a great character, who was perfectly acted. Burton didn't need to focus on Keaton's eyes, as Keaton performed with his whole body. This made the few close-ups of his eyes even more impressive and moving.

[Super_Ludacris]

I never said BB was overacted, I suggested that overacting was the opposite of what Batman and Batman returns were, The penguin was a fantasy-like character, but grounded with realism, I understand why people don't like him, but I think the penguin was a great character, who was perfectly acted. Burton didn't need to focus on Keaton's eyes, as Keaton performed with his whole body. This made the few close-ups of his eyes even more impressive and moving.

How exactly was the Penguin grounded in realism. He's always been the prime example of Burton's fantasy world overtaking.
With Keaton I always felt like he was carrying the suit that it hindered a better performance. It wasnt his fault but when he watch it you can tell how heavy it is on him and how uncomfortable ,so much so that he looks so rigid. But you gotta put that down lack of advancements with the suit but Keaton felt so one-dimensional in it to me.

[Cyrusbales]

How exactly was the Penguin grounded in realism. He's always been the prime example of Burton's fantasy world overtaking.
With Keaton I always felt like he was carrying the suit that it hindered a better performance. It wasnt his fault but when he watch it you can tell how heavy it is on him and how uncomfortable ,so much so that he looks so rigid. But you gotta put that down lack of advancements with the suit but Keaton felt so one-dimensional in it to me.


Well the penguin wasn't fantastical, he was grimmy and grubby, he was limited by personal problems, yes he was somewhat surreal, he was a freak rather than a being of fantasy. He obbeyed all the laws of reality, whilst being an outcast, and a mutant like freak. I personally loved Keaton and burton, and that's not going to change, I seem to have this discussion a lot, but this thread is about appretiation for Burton and keaton so I don't wanna get into why I like it more etc, afree to disagree? Or would you like some more conversational circles?

ANYWAY, I'm off to go and watch Hellboy now, awesome film!

[Super_Ludacris]

Well the penguin wasn't fantastical, he was grimmy and grubby, he was limited by personal problems, yes he was somewhat surreal, he was a freak rather than a being of fantasy. He obbeyed all the laws of reality, whilst being an outcast, and a mutant like freak. I personally loved Keaton and burton, and that's not going to change, I seem to have this discussion a lot, but this thread is about appretiation for Burton and keaton so I don't wanna get into why I like it more etc, afree to disagree? Or would you like some more conversational circles?

ANYWAY, I'm off to go and watch Hellboy now, awesome film!

smh@ this confusion

[The Sage]

Well you cant have a Batman film without his parents death but with Batman Begins they made you see and capture the depth of how there death effected him and his upbriging and creation. They took that to a definitve level which is much more believeable.

You saw the pain he was in when his parents died, his dads last words that ring true to his whole life
You saw how it how he felt guilty about his fear leading to there death
You saw the contemplation he went through to try to kill Joe thinking that would avenged there death
You saw him see the bigger picture of how there death made him a see a bigger picture of a problem existing when he was punked by Falcone and his haunting turning to vengance and drive for purpose
You saw his travels, his trainings, his decision to create his own personal quest seperate from the League of shadows
You saw how he utilised and got organised to fight crime, using his gadgets, finding the right people (Gordon with research), turning his fear into a muse

In essence you saw how 2 parents deaths can create a Batman in such a defintive level of explination and journey that showcases the emotion itself

:batman: = http://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/king.gif


What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcavehttp://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/dry.gif. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

Dont get me wrong I dug Burton's movie, I enjoyed it but it is a flawed film and it really shows when you compare to Batman Begins. That's my point

It's no more flawed than BB is, in my opinion.

The reason the movie didn't include an indepth origin tale is because the writer figured the audience would want to jump right into the action and skip the exposition. You see the flashback of his parents' murder. Knox asked the question "What do you think something like this does to a person?" Then they cut to Bruce in the Batcave, pretty much implying that watching his parents' deaths lead him into becoming Batman, reinforced by the flashback.

Did we see him traveling around the world? No. Was it implied that he did do some traveling? Yes. How? The room that showcases the souvenirs he purchased, particularly the one from Japan. Did we see him train? No. Do we know that Bruce did have training? Yes? How? The fight in the alley when Batman took on five on the Joker's thugs, then expertly dispatched the one who was using the katana swords. The movie gave you hints at Batman's origin without directly telling you.

Not only that, but you also saw how darkness creates darkness through Jack Napier killing the Waynes and in the process killing Bruce Wayne but creating Batman. Then Batman indirectly or purposely dropped Jack Napier into chemicals, killing him but creating the Joker.

B89 made you question whether Batman's noble or if he's just as crazy as the villains he faces, while BB walks through Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. So in short, BB is about the journey of Batman, B89 is about the psyche of Batman. Two different views, both Batman.

[darknight7]

OK, let me simplify what I mean, Yes Bruce can be a playboy all he wants, but when he's on his own, or just with alfred, he isn't all laughy smiley, IN PUBLIC he is a playboy, but in solitude he isn't, yet in Nolan's film, he always seems happy and cracking little jokes to alfred and stuff, not exactly dark or traumatised!

Like the other guys said, Alfred is all he's got. He is his family, he has been there for Bruce through everything. So I'm sure Bruce wouldn't be all: F you clown, you suck and your old.

But they do have arguements after the car chase. Bruce was tormented. He became Batman, but his playboy character is to throw people off. I beleive that we will see an angrier Bruce/Batman in the future.

He was young, starting out, having fun just a bit, while being a jerk and brooding. Now Rachel's left him, The Joker is going to come into play, People are going to die...Bruce/Batman is going to get TICKED! And be a bit more swallowed in his own demons.

--dk7

[darknight7]

(double post)
--dk7

[darknight7]

(double post)

--dk7

[darknight7]

(double double double doublbe post)

--dk7

[Super_Ludacris]

It's no more flawed than BB is, in my opinion.

The reason the movie didn't include an indepth origin tale is because the writer figured the audience would want to jump right into the action and skip the exposition. You see the flashback of his parents' murder. Knox asked the question "What do you think something like this does to a person?" Then they cut to Bruce in the Batcave, pretty much implying that watching his parents' deaths lead him into becoming Batman, reinforced by the flashback.

All this you told me I had just mentioned, and from a Batman storypoint it was a bad move. I had just said that if you want to create a good and defintive story you have to capture depth of the hero. Knox saying one line and cutting to a generic flashback. Where are the monolouges? the music? Back then in '89 was Lets get a movie out and make sure the plots arent ridiculous like the Adam West serial. Throw in Jon Peters ability to mass market the movie and cross-over the movie into promotion deals and people were gonna eat up Bat-Mania no matter how glaring the weaknesses where. You need more depth to create


Did we see him traveling around the world? No. Was it implied that he did do some traveling? Yes. How? The room that showcases the souvenirs he purchased, particularly the one from Japan. Did we see him train? No. Do we know that Bruce did have training? Yes? How? The fight in the alley when Batman took on five on the Joker's thugs, then expertly dispatched the one who was using the katana swords. The movie gave you hints at Batman's origin without directly telling you.

One line of him saying "I got that from Japan" is enigmatic as hell. Keep in mind back then not a lot of mainstream viewers knew about the 70's storylines in the comics where Batman travelled the world. For all there assumptions they probably thought that was a billionaire buying a souvenier. They dont know if there's a subtext to it that he may have travelled to train. It was never shown in a concrete manner and it wouldnt have hindered the movie's pace if they did. In the 80's it was generic as hell to show people doing martial arts not everyone can do it. You bet people were going "Yo how did he do that" I dont even think the director or writers did they just put that in there. Only a hard core comic fan would know that. And like I said, the best comic book movies are when you show or explain to origins of things to a mainstream audience who get a better appreciation of the character.


Not only that, but you also saw how darkness creates darkness through Jack Napier killing the Waynes and in the process killing Bruce Wayne but creating Batman. Then Batman indirectly or purposely dropped Jack Napier into chemicals, killing him but creating the Joker.

That theory of showing dark is so one-dimensional. Where was the aspect where at least said or showed how there death allowed him to become fearful but ultimatley transfer that fear into vegance so he became dark? If it's explained it makes a better movie and no it doesnt drag on All they did was capture the Joker POV of origin.


B89 made you question whether Batman's noble or if he's just as crazy as the villains he faces, while BB walks through Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. So in short, BB is about the journey of Batman, B89 is about the psyche of Batman. Two different views, both Batman.

Hell nah, if anything Batman Begins shows the Psyche AND the journey. I mean shieet the journey CREATES the psyche. Look how he embraced his fear, look how driven he became at investigating and using the stuff in R&D department with Fox. So much more believeable. All Burton was focus on glamourising the villians in his own kooky little world (Joker's fat ass prouncing around to Prince).
All I'm doing is answering the question of the threadstarter. Do I greatly appreicate Batman 89? After watching Batman Begins hell nah. Yeah it was Batman on the big screen for the first time and there was Bat-Mania that Summer of 89 ( and whether people like it or not, there gonna have to thank Peters marketing mind for that) and they dont wanna let go of that. But look around, people have been saying for the past year on the internet, on critical reviews and in public Begins is the best Batman movie. It surpassed it and I'm showing how people feel it has by comparing. Burton-nites need to let go of the past...

[El Payaso]

What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcave. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

You missed one factor of the equation:
http://lbc.nimh.nih.gov/images/brain.jpg

which allows audiences to put things toghether even when the director doesn't explain it in a didactic way step by step. But those are just approaches, options. The 'explain it to me like I was 6' way is more traditional, ok. But it doesn't make a movie any better the same as not showing everything doesn't make a movie any worse. Many directors follow that way when you show just the necessary and wait for people to make their own conclusions.

[Super_Ludacris]

You missed one factor of the equation:

which allows audiences to put things toghether even when the director doesn't explain it in a didactic way step by step. But those are just approaches, options. The 'explain it to me like I was 6' way is more traditional, ok. But it doesn't make a movie any better the same as not showing everything doesn't make a movie any worse. Many directors follow that way when you show just the necessary and wait for people to make their own conclusions.

Your not getting what I'm saying. Audiences can assume and are going to assume how things can about in there minds but what did I just say? If you want make a great Superhero movie. You lay the foundation. Raimi did it in Spider-man, Donner in Superman and Nolan in Batman. Its like picking up that first issue but essientially your opening the pages to a massive audience. That ensures your movie from good to great.


The other thing you havent thought about is audiences are different and each person is gonna put things differently. Tons of people still questioned how things are, even if the audience has suspended disbelief you cant fault for questionng things not explain. You see it happening all the time when people discuss movies or TV shows I dont see why B89 gets a pass just because it was the movie that we all grew up watching or saw Batman on screen for the first time.
I cant fault it's legacy as a blockbuster I have no choice but to give Elfman, Burton, Peters and Hamm credit on that BUT as a Batman story if you compare the two, Begins had everything that core fans ask for (origin, training marital arts, detective skills, realism) it captured the spirt of classic graphic novels and stories. When you put the two together and compare it's no contest who comes out on top.

[The Sage]

All this you told me I had just mentioned, and from a Batman storypoint it was a bad move. I had just said that if you want to create a good and defintive story you have to capture depth of the hero. Knox saying one line and cutting to a generic flashback. Where are the monolouges? the music? Back then in '89 was Lets get a movie out and make sure the plots arent ridiculous like the Adam West serial. Throw in Jon Peters ability to mass market the movie and cross-over the movie into promotion deals and people were gonna eat up Bat-Mania no matter how glaring the weaknesses where. You need more depth to create


The movie had a lot of depth, it just didn't spell it out for you. You don't need a monologue to understand the character, you watch his actions, and you watch his actions through the eyes of the other characters. There's more than one way to create depth. Not everything has be talk about how they feel for you to understand.


One line of him saying "I got that from Japan" is enigmatic as hell. Keep in mind back then not a lot of mainstream viewers knew about the 70's storylines in the comics where Batman travelled the world. For all there assumptions they probably thought that was a billionaire buying a souvenier. They dont know if there's a subtext to it that he may have travelled to train. It was never shown in a concrete manner and it wouldnt have hindered the movie's pace if they did. In the 80's it was generic as hell to show people doing martial arts not everyone can do it. You bet people were going "Yo how did he do that" I dont even think the director or writers did they just put that in there. Only a hard core comic fan would know that. And like I said, the best comic book movies are when you show or explain to origins of things to a mainstream audience who get a better appreciation of the character.


The best comic book movies are those that tell great stories, not blatantly explain everything out to you. So what if you didn't see him train. You know he had to have had some training in order to fight like he did in the movie. He wasn't born that way. And the writer of the script was Sam Hamm, a guy who wrote a few Batman stories himself, particularly a story called Blind Justice which expounded on Bruce's travels and his training with Ducard.


That theory of showing dark is so one-dimensional. Where was the aspect where at least said or showed how there death allowed him to become fearful but ultimatley transfer that fear into vegance so he became dark? If it's explained it makes a better movie and no it doesnt drag on All they did was capture the Joker POV of origin.


The movie isn't about how Bruce Wayne became Batman, he already was Batman.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.


Hell nah, if anything Batman Begins shows the Psyche AND the journey. I mean shieet the journey CREATES the psyche. Look how he embraced his fear, look how driven he became at investigating and using the stuff in R&D department with Fox. So much more believeable. All Burton was focus on glamourising the villians in his own kooky little world (Joker's fat ass prouncing around to Prince).


Batman 1989 glamorized the villains and showed the psyche of Batman. Batman Begins showed the journey of creating the psyche, B89 explored the psyche. The only difference is one is through Bruce's POV, the other is through the audience (Vicki Vale). In the process of looking at Batman through the audience, B89 retained the mystery and mystique of Batman. You see how driven he is. He ditched his own party to go to Axis Chemicals. He puts his feelings for Vicki on the backburner to go after Joker on two separate occasions.


All I'm doing is answering the question of the threadstarter. Do I greatly appreicate Batman 89? After watching Batman Begins hell nah. Yeah it was Batman on the big screen for the first time and there was Bat-Mania that Summer of 89 ( and whether people like it or not, there gonna have to thank Peters marketing mind for that) and they dont wanna let go of that. But look around, people have been saying for the past year on the internet, on critical reviews and in public Begins is the best Batman movie. It surpassed it and I'm showing how people feel it has by comparing. Burton-nites need to let go of the past...

And BB fanatics need to respect the past. If you think it surpassed B89, good for you. I think BB is the better written movie, but B89 had more depth, and told the story in a different form rather than directly explaining everything to you like BB did.

In short, I love both of them.

[Stupify_me]

The movie had a lot of depth, it just didn't spell it out for you. You don't need a monologue to understand the character, you watch his actions, and you watch his actions through the eyes of the other characters. There's more than one way to create depth. Not everything has be talk about how they feel for you to understand.



The best comic book movies are those that tell great stories, not blatantly explain everything out to you. So what if you didn't see him train. You know he had to have had some training in order to fight like he did in the movie. He wasn't born that way. And the writer of the script was Sam Hamm, a guy who wrote a few Batman stories himself, particularly a story called Blind Justice which expounded on Bruce's travels and his training with Ducard.



The movie isn't about how Bruce Wayne became Batman, he already was Batman.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.



Batman 1989 glamorized the villains and showed the psyche of Batman. Batman Begins showed the journey of creating the psyche, B89 explored the psyche. The only difference is one is through Bruce's POV, the other is through the audience (Vicki Vale). In the process of looking at Batman through the audience, B89 retained the mystery and mystique of Batman. You see how driven he is. He ditched his own party to go to Axis Chemicals. He puts his feelings for Vicki on the backburner to go after Joker on two separate occasions.



And BB fanatics need to respect the past. If you think it surpassed B89, good for you. I think BB is the better written movie, but B89 had more depth, and told the story in a different form rather than directly explaining everything to you like BB did.

In short, I love both of them.
Ill never understand some one saying there is more depth in 89. To me that just does not make sense 89 was an action flick first and formost any depth in that movie was set on the very back of the stove.

You talk about how Batman was fighting in the ally but do you even remember that fight scene? No one needs training for that he threw a couple of basic punches and a kick that barley went above his waist. It was very simple for a ninja. Not to mention that whole thing with the guy with the swords was so lame.

I thought 89 was amazing when I was 10 but when I grew up I realized that it just wasn't as good as I thought.

[El Payaso]

Your not getting what I'm saying. Audiences can assume and are going to assume how things can about in there minds but what did I just say? If you want make a great Superhero movie. You lay the foundation. Raimi did it in Spider-man, Donner in Superman and Nolan in Batman. Its like picking up that first issue but essientially your opening the pages to a massive audience. That ensures your movie from good to great.

Well, other than being your personal - respectable - theory on the matter, I don't see how what you say is an absolute or necessarilyu true.

Spiderman was a pile of sh** if you ask me. Superman was great.

What makes a movie great is the movie itself, not some a priori premise (if it has an origin is good, if it hasn't is bad).

The other thing you havent thought about is audiences are different and each person is gonna put things differently. Tons of people still questioned how things are, even if the audience has suspended disbelief you cant fault for questionng things not explain. You see it happening all the time when people discuss movies or TV shows I dont see why B89 gets a pass just because it was the movie that we all grew up watching or saw Batman on screen for the first time.

Bravo for that (in bold letters). Diversity in audiences and their ways to 'complete the movie' in their heads are good things.

I don't see the necessity of putting people's mind in a row and force them to see things in some specific way. Not that you can't do it with good results, but it's not the only option.

I cant fault it's legacy as a blockbuster I have no choice but to give Elfman, Burton, Peters and Hamm credit on that BUT as a Batman story if you compare the two, Begins had everything that core fans ask for (origin, training marital arts, detective skills, realism) it captured the spirt of classic graphic novels and stories. When you put the two together and compare it's no contest who comes out on top.

That might be true. But it doesn't make the movie good per se at all.

B89 also captured Miller's and Kane's comics.

Which one is on top is totally debatable, so much that has been and is being debated in this and many other threads and forums.

[The Sage]

Ill never understand some one saying there is more depth in 89. To me that just does not make sense 89 was an action flick first and formost any depth in that movie was set on the very back of the stove.


I think BB was more of an action flick than B89.


You talk about how Batman was fighting in the ally but do you even remember that fight scene? No one needs training for that he threw a couple of basic punches and a kick that barley went above his waist. It was very simple for a ninja. Not to mention that whole thing with the guy with the swords was so lame.


So a regular person could take out someone with swords? Come on now, that took skill, just as it took strength to knock those guys out those guys out. Look at what he did in the beginning, kick that criminal through the roof door. You think a regular guy could do that?


I thought 89 was amazing when I was 10 but when I grew up I realized that it just wasn't as good as I thought.

If you don't, you don't.

[Super_Ludacris]

The movie had a lot of depth, it just didn't spell it out for you. You don't need a monologue to understand the character, you watch his actions, and you watch his actions through the eyes of the other characters. There's more than one way to create depth. Not everything has be talk about how they feel for you to understand.

It didnt have depth at all to the standards percieved now.All it did was use Burton's visual for sets and use of music to create and atmosphere. Back in 1989 that would be enough to woo an audience but it hasnt been percieved with the same test of time since Begins came out and even you have to admit that from reading th articles, critics and rankings of great superhero movies. That's my point
As far as Keaton goes I felt beyond his eyes he looked rigid and stiff and came off one dimensional. Like I said before that may not be his fault because difficulty in the mechanics of his suit but even as Bruce Wayne I felt he was trying to be himself rather than Bruce Wayne ( that whole scene in Vicki Vale's place with the Joker...Wack Juice)
And hell yeah you can say Bale messed up with his voice as Batman but at least he did that to get inside the depth of the character and connect to it very much Bruce Wayne himself would (See the beast, be the beast)



The best comic book movies are those that tell great stories, not blatantly explain everything out to you. So what if you didn't see him train. You know he had to have had some training in order to fight like he did in the movie. He wasn't born that way. And the writer of the script was Sam Hamm, a guy who wrote a few Batman stories himself, particularly a story called Blind Justice which expounded on Bruce's travels and his training with Ducard.

So all the more reason to place criticism on Batman 89, Hamm was a guy who writes Batman books, he could have put something more dynamic. Then again he was working with Tim Burton and history shows he always brings his guys in cater to Burton's style (See Batman Returns and the aborted Superman Lives) so dude was clearly in a postion where he could have but he didnt (studio thing). I aint blaming him but I'm saying when you look at the final product vs. what was made in BB, again no contest



The movie isn't about how Bruce Wayne became Batman, he already was Batman.

I know and this is why I dont think it's great in comparison. It's a great Tim Burton but not a great Batman movie if that makes sense. Great movies explore the origin in depth and Burton didnt do that no can deny that. One flashback isnt in-depth.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.



Batman 1989 glamorized the villains and showed the psyche of Batman. Batman Begins showed the journey of creating the psyche, B89 explored the psyche. The only difference is one is through Bruce's POV, the other is through the audience (Vicki Vale). In the process of looking at Batman through the audience, B89 retained the mystery and mystique of Batman. You see how driven he is. He ditched his own party to go to Axis Chemicals. He puts his feelings for Vicki on the backburner to go after Joker on two separate occasions.

I think all Batman 89 did was glamaourised the villians. Exploring the psyche wasnt something they put to much process in to be honest. I think he wanted to to show his world and the psyche but Batman himself seems so emoted compared to everything else around that it seems understated. With BB its emphasised.



And BB fanatics need to respect the past. If you think it surpassed B89, good for you. I think BB is the better written movie, but B89 had more depth, and told the story in a different form rather than directly explaining everything to you like BB did.

In short, I love both of them.

BB fans aint gotta respect **** lol. It's just a movie, Tim Burton aint Bob Kane. In the end his magical run was done after 2 movies. And history is speaking for itself. Look at all these Superhero movie lists that are coming out. Look at how BB has surpassed B89 on all of them (ign, Premere, Total Film, Wizard, Imdb, EW, MTV.com..big mainstream and some are credible journals), look at how dudes like Alex Ross,Frank Miller, Kevin Smith, Bruce Campbell, Roger Ebert even Stan Lee say Batman Begins is the best one out and they got him right. Sure Burton's movie was enjoyable as a Burton movie but as this Nolan franchise soliders on and learns from the mistakes of the past (of both Schumacher and Burton) they are putting Batman 89 in the past and it lose its shine and relevancy a little compared to this current golden age of Superhero movies. The best is out now, this is the true school era. This is era for Superhero movies is what 94 was for Hip Hop, what the 80's were for Comics, mid 80's/early 90's for the NBA, 98 for wrestling and so on... you can pay props to the past but the best is out now and it's ****ting on the old school and that is ok.

[Bat Attack]

Oh great, another "Keaton vs. Begins" debate. :rolleyes: Whats this, the 3,000,000 time we've done this. :down

[The Sage]

It didnt have depth at all to the standards percieved now.All it did was use Burton's visual for sets and use of music to create and atmosphere. Back in 1989 that would be enough to woo an audience but it hasnt been percieved with the same test of time since Begins came out and even you have to admit that from reading th articles, critics and rankings of great superhero movies. That's my point
As far as Keaton goes I felt beyond his eyes he looked rigid and stiff and came off one dimensional. Like I said before that may not be his fault because difficulty in the mechanics of his suit but even as Bruce Wayne I felt he was trying to be himself rather than Bruce Wayne ( that whole scene in Vicki Vale's place with the Joker...Wack Juice)
And hell yeah you can say Bale messed up with his voice as Batman but at least he did that to get inside the depth of the character and connect to it very much Bruce Wayne himself would (See the beast, be the beast)


See the beast, be the beast? WTF?

The same critics and articles that berated Keaton when he got cast are the same ones who praised him his performance. The fact that people are still arguing and defending him is a testament to his performance. He came off as a tortured soul on a mission who gets distracted by the possibility of having a normal life. Not showing it from his perspective retained the mystery of Batman and made it even more so great as everything came together towards the end.

And that scene in Vicki Vale's place is solid gold.



So all the more reason to place criticism on Batman 89, Hamm was a guy who writes Batman books, he could have put something more dynamic. Then again he was working with Tim Burton and history shows he always brings his guys in cater to Burton's style (See Batman Returns and the aborted Superman Lives) so dude was clearly in a postion where he could have but he didnt (studio thing). I aint blaming him but I'm saying when you look at the final product vs. what was made in BB, again no contest


Not even close to a no contest. Burton captured the atmosphere, mood, and tone of Batman. His Gotham City was great. I love that Batman Begins did a gritty portrayal and worked hard at making everything realistic, but I love how BATMAN embraced that it was also based on a fantasy character and wasn't ashamed of it.


I know and this is why I dont think it's great in comparison. It's a great Tim Burton but not a great Batman movie if that makes sense. Great movies explore the origin in depth and Burton didnt do that no can deny that. One flashback isnt in-depth.


Great movies explore stories in-depth. Whether origins are explored or not depends on the focus of the story, and Batman's origin wasn't the focus of the story.


Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.


Did you miss this on purpose?


I think all Batman 89 did was glamaourised the villians. Exploring the psyche wasnt something they put to much process in to be honest. I think he wanted to to show his world and the psyche but Batman himself seems so emoted compared to everything else around that it seems understated. With BB its emphasised.


Emoted? That means showing emotion? Wouldn't that be a good thing?


BB fans aint gotta respect **** lol.


And Burtonites don't have to forget a f**king thing, LOL.


It's just a movie, Tim Burton aint Bob Kane.


It's just a movie? For real? You f**king serious? I didn't know that ****.:eek:

And Chris Nolan ain't Bob Kane either. But wait, wait...Bob Kane liked Batman 1989.


In the end his magical run was done after 2 movies. And history is speaking for itself. Look at all these Superhero movie lists that are coming out. Look at how BB has surpassed B89 on all of them (ign, Premere, Total Film, Wizard, Imdb, EW, MTV.com..big mainstream and some are credible journals), look at how dudes like Alex Ross,Frank Miller, Kevin Smith, Bruce Campbell, Roger Ebert even Stan Lee say Batman Begins is the best one out and they got him right. Sure Burton's movie was enjoyable as a Burton movie but as this Nolan franchise soliders on and learns from the mistakes of the past (of both Schumacher and Burton) they are putting Batman 89 in the past and it lose its shine and relevancy a little compared to this current golden age of Superhero movies. The best is out now, this is the true school era. This is era for Superhero movies is what 94 was for Hip Hop, what the 80's were for Comics, mid 80's/early 90's for the NBA, 98 for wrestling and so on... you can pay props to the past but the best is out now and it's ****ting on the old school and that is ok.

Do you base your opinion on what others think like a tool or do you form your own? I agree that BB is the better written movie, but B89 is more fun to watch. It's a great Batman and Tim Burton movie, just as BB is a great Batman, and Chris Nolan movie.

EDIT: Btw, Alex Ross himself said the Joker's origin in B89 is better than the one in the comics. Thought you would want to know, since you brought his name up.

[Cinemaman]

For me, Bale is still the best Batman.

But I really liked Keaton as both Bruce and Batman.

[The Sage]

For me, Bale is still the best Batman.

But I really liked Keaton as both Bruce and Batman.

That's cool.

[Cinemaman]

This is by far the worst list I've ever seen. How can you claim that West was the best Bruce Wayne? Or that Clooney and West were better Batmans than Kilmer? And how can you say that Bale isn't the best Wayne? His performance in BATMAN BEGINS was the most diffinitive story of Bruce Wayne on film. It actually featured him as a character unlike the movies with Keaton, Kilmer, West and Clooney.
Did you actually watch any of the movies?

My list:

BATMAN:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) Clooney
5.) West

Wayne:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) West
5.) Clooney

-R

Agreed.

[Cinemaman]

That's cool.

Yeah, I loved BB and Bale did a great job.

But I also must admit, that Keaton was great as Bruce Wayne and Batman.

When I usually watch B89 or BR, I am very glad to see him on screen, because he also was Batman #1 for me in my childhood :up:

[Super_Ludacris]

See the beast, be the beast? WTF?

Bale saw Batman as a man driven with the intensity of a beast which why he showed a beast like tone and growl as Batman. He even explained that just little method acting thing. What's so hard to understand about that?


The same critics and articles that berated Keaton when he got cast are the same ones who praised him his performance. The fact that people are still arguing and defending him is a testament to his performance. He came off as a tortured soul on a mission who gets distracted by the possibility of having a normal life. Not showing it from his perspective retained the mystery of Batman and made it even more so great as everything came together towards the end.

And that scene in Vicki Vale's place is solid gold.

But those same critics who have reviewed movies for 20 years have said Begins is the best adaptation. If you want contrete examples look at Roger Ebert. The implicit argument here is that the movie hasnt aged well and Batman Begins shows that. I didnt say it was bad movie I said 5 times it's good for what it is but its flawed and if it came out in 2006 with movies being done this well it would get slated for being too flamboyantly custom to Burton's presence. It never got the same amout of reviews that were postive as BB. I am saying that if you compare the two and analyse them then you can really B89 apart and show and see flaws. All movies have flaws and I'm telling where one film did one thing better than the other. I'm comparing not slating but you dont seem to get this. You like to argue and have a history of it.
As far as Vicki Vale's scene goes. It was corny, lotta people felt that way. But I dont have to hear it from other people to know that myself. If Joker was in there he would cap vale Barbara Gordon style. Keaton's whole "Come on you wanna get nuts" is corny as **** to me. He caps him and he falls, what was that a BB gun? It was stupid and made Joker seem less threating. Like to me that was an opportuinty to show how evil he was. All the dude was fart and leave at the end lol wtf?



Not even close to a no contest. Burton captured the atmosphere, mood, and tone of Batman. His Gotham City was great. I love that Batman Begins did a gritty portrayal and worked hard at making everything realistic, but I love how BATMAN embraced that it was also based on a fantasy character and wasn't ashamed of it.

Sure his city was great because he created his world. I said it was a great Tim Burton movie with music and over the top early 20th centurty meets goth style but when you look at it now there's so much emphasis on style and lacks the sophistaction and explination of a Nolan version. And again when you compare it loses out. You can embrace the fantasy, but when someone makes a version that captures the core spirit so authentically, real **** wins.



Great movies explore stories in-depth. Whether origins are explored or not depends on the focus of the story, and Batman's origin wasn't the focus of the story.

That's why I dont think looking back now it wasnt a great story at all, it was focused on great style that was customised Burton but I really dont think as a Batman story it covered depth and I've explained why by taking the one version that was an orgin story to one that wasnt.



Did you miss this on purpose?

Nah but did you miss my counter point to that back a few posts on purpose? Begins works by showing how the fear leads to vengangce (becoming the thing he fears the most). Back in 1989 they show that like I said only the most hard core of fans would connect. Begins showed that world that may be blatant to you and me but redefines the character in a mainstream aspect by showing the journey, and little things that make him a great character. So again comparativley (which has been the basis of my case) It's just simply better to the point that comparing shows how inferior it was and looked like he didnt even care about it ( he dont even go through it on commentary on the DVD it's all style, style, jack, goth, dark etc)




Emoted? That means showing emotion? Wouldn't that be a good thing?.

Batman (the character) is emoted, this (89) is understated. Not subtle understated.



And Burtonites don't have to forget a f**king thing, LOL.

Of course they dont, which was my point in my last post and they come through to always remind us cause they dont wanna let go of the inferior past. You can love the movies but when you compare, lets do the analysis here and explore each one's depth you know which is better.



It's just a movie? For real? You f**king serious? I didn't know that ****.:eek:

Obviously not, you dont read what people say when they answer your question or explain so I can figure you would think that...


And Chris Nolan ain't Bob Kane either. But wait, wait...Bob Kane liked Batman 1989.

Of course, look how low standards were back then all he had to compare was Adam Wesr's jawn. If he was alive today of course he would liked Batman Begins more, the writers who have wrote Batman over the years too. That maybe an assumption but it's an educated assumptions because let's keep it realer than real: it was one for the fans and they loved it.



Do you base your opinion on what others think like a tool or do you form your own? I agree that BB is the better written movie, but B89 is more fun to watch. It's a great Batman and Tim Burton movie, just as BB is a great Batman, and Chris Nolan movie.

So wait because I use other examples of people who feel that way I'm a tool? It's call backing up and supporting your theory. If you like Begins because it had better writing that automatically by your logic makes you a tool too. LOL! You gotta include the fact that it was emphatically praised from a peer and critical standpoint that it gives it credibility and is a strong pro for it.

[Stupify_me]

Am I the only one that hated the look of Gothem in 89? I really hate Tim Burton I hate his style I hate what he does in all his movies. I thought he made the movie look so ugly as he does with every thing he directs. I thought Batman TAS looked better than the Burton world it was just so damn ugly.

[Super_Ludacris]

For cheap laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbAEmvZyKQ

[fabman]

BRUCE WAYNE / BATMAN
1) Christian Bale - Michael Keaton
2) Val Kilmer
3) George Clooney
4) Adam West

[Stupify_me]

For cheap laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbAEmvZyKQ
I want to know why they cut him off.

[Super_Ludacris]

I want to know why they cut him off.
Bumble told them to

[CConn]

The movie had a lot of depth, it just didn't spell it out for you. You don't need a monologue to understand the character, you watch his actions, and you watch his actions through the eyes of the other characters. There's more than one way to create depth. Not everything has be talk about how they feel for you to understand.That's one thing people really don't seem to be able to appreciate anymore; subtle filmmaking.

Batman Begins is a very...obvious film. It's plot-driven. It's psychological themes, and it's morals are all stated, and shown, and really laid all out for you to see. And...there's nothing wrong with that. I think BB's a better movie than B89 too, but it's not the only way to make a movie, it's not the only way to present deeper themes and subtexts - psychological, moral, whatever.

You can do things subtly. And Burton always prescribed more to that method of filmmaking. Batman Returns actually features a perfect example with how the villains in the movie - Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck - represent the three sides of Batman/Bruce Wayne. Now that's never particularly said or outwardly shown, but it's there, it makes a point about Batman's personality, and y'know, is as deep as any psychological observation of the character. But most people probably don't even notice that it's there. Unfortunately.

[Super_Ludacris]

Subtley and subtext doesnt make it clever though. I mean jesus if there's one thing I know from Media Studies is that it can be shown in all movies in some way shape or form even BB had symbolism. Of course the very arty directors like Burton can put a lot of stock in it and as far as the 3 villians in returns being a symbol of similarity to Bruce/Batman it's an obvious element, cause even in the comics the big villians were seen as a parallel to Batman (prime example Catwoman and Batman relationship) but it all depends on how well it's executed and if it's hammed up a little then it people may not like that.
Ultimatley throwing arty symbolism shots is if anything over-stated and generic and overambitious (god, how many student filmakers movies put that ****?). It's because of that people apperciate a story that tells it staight and to the point and even in those films there's subtexts and narration through there not bog down in artsy fartsy techniques like say the Matrix sequels and shrouded in enigma, generic narrative shots or hammed acting.

[JLBats]

That's one thing people really don't seem to be able to appreciate anymore; subtle filmmaking.

Batman Begins is a very...obvious film. It's plot-driven. It's psychological themes, and it's morals are all stated, and shown, and really laid all out for you to see. And...there's nothing wrong with that. I think BB's a better movie than B89 too, but it's not the only way to make a movie, it's not the only way to present deeper themes and subtexts - psychological, moral, whatever.

You can do things subtly. And Burton always prescribed more to that method of filmmaking. Batman Returns actually features a perfect example with how the villains in the movie - Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck - represent the three sides of Batman/Bruce Wayne. Now that's never particularly said or outwardly shown, but it's there, it makes a point about Batman's personality, and y'know, is as deep as any psychological observation of the character. But most people probably don't even notice that it's there. Unfortunately.

I disagree. I don't think that Burton doesn't bring that up because he's subtle. I think he doesn't bring it up because he doesn't realise it himself. I don't think he's bad at creating great images, but he sucks at actually telling the story. What he needs is to reign in his overtly self-indulgent side.

And also, while you may think that all the themes and meaning in Batman Begins are stated, I disagree, and I've actually listened to an academic analysis that supports this. The "truth lies beneath" motif, the subtle rehabilitation of Bruce over the course of the film leading up to that gorgeous scene in the sunlight outside the burnt mansion, the subtle interweaving of Bruce's family legacy were all done in a way that was not only as subtle as anything in Burton's films, but was more cinematic.

Also, I have to question what you're expecting of subtlety in a film. Christ, even some of the greatest films in history outright state the goals and themes within the first ten minutes. Chinatown did (I own a signed copy of the screenplay, incidentally) in a deleted line, and several that WEREN'T deleted. So did Vertigo. It seems to me that the complaint of Begins being an obvious film is an easy one, but it's not quite so obvious. It has very obvious layers TO it, obviously.

[Bat Attack]

Am I the only one that hated the look of Gothem in 89? I really hate Tim Burton I hate his style I hate what he does in all his movies. I thought he made the movie look so ugly as he does with every thing he directs. I thought Batman TAS looked better than the Burton world it was just so damn ugly.
You know what you would love? The IMDb.com boards. Those are full of trolls who bash Burton (much like yourself) so you'd be right at home. Now go watch your beloved Batman Begins.

[CConn]

Subtley and subtext doesnt make it clever though.I didn't say Burton was trying to be clever. All I said was that's the style in which he makes his films.
I mean jesus if there's one thing I know from Media Studies is that it can be shown in all movies in some way shape or formExactly what I was saying. Just because some films make that subtext more apparent (ala BB) doesn't mean it's not there (ala B89).
even BB had symbolism.I never said BB didn't have symbolism. I said it had tons of it, in fact.
Of course the very arty directors like Burton can put a lot of stock in it and as far as the 3 villians in returns being a symbol of similarity to Bruce/Batman it's an obvious element, cause even in the comics the big villians were seen as a parallel to Batman (prime example Catwoman and Batman relationship) but it all depends on how well it's executed and if it's hammed up a little then it people may not like that.Well, duh. If a movie isn't made well, people aren't going to like it. That can be said for any style of filmmaking. It really has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Ultimatley throwing arty symbolism shots is if anything over-stated and generic and overambitious (god, how many student filmakers movies put that ****?).Where'd you get this "artsy symbolism shots" from? All I said was that Burton puts themes in his movies that require the audience to figure them out on their own rather than spelling it out for everyone.
It's because of that people apperciate a story that tells it staight and to the point and even in those films there's subtexts and narration through there not bog down in artsy fartsy techniques like say the Matrix sequels and shrouded in enigma, generic narrative shots or hammed acting.I'd hardly say Burton's Batman films are anything like the The Matrix. And if you consider Keaton's acting hammy...I may laugh more than I did watching that Kevin Smith lecture.

[Super_Ludacris]

I mean Movies in general, you get a lot of directors who do artsy fartsy shots to hide a good script and people pick up on it and I was using the matrix sequels as general examples. I didnt say keaton hammed it up but you could make the case the villians did in all his movies. As far as themes go there in all types of movie, that's like first year media studies **** right here....

[JLBats]

The villians all hammed it up. Keaton played a very one note version of Batman.

[CConn]

I disagree. I don't think that Burton doesn't bring that up because he's subtle. I think he doesn't bring it up because he doesn't realise it himself. I don't think he's bad at creating great images, but he sucks at actually telling the story. What he needs is to reign in his overtly self-indulgent side.You didn't find the strong themes and moral observations of Edward Scissorhands intriguing? From illustrating points as simple as, well, you can't judge a book by its cover, to how petty, selfish, and misunderstanding people and society can be.

And I like to think that same theme runs over into Charlie and the Chocolate Factor - that, even though people and society can be real *****es at times, it's really quite pointless to isolate yourself from them as, on some level, you always need them despite how much grief they can cause.

That's just two examples now. Big Fish is pretty littered with them as well - although, honestly, I haven't spent any time figuring those out yet personally. And even subtle things like Bruce Wayne's characterization in B89 is telling of Burton's beliefs on genius and how people function.

Granted, most of his stuff comes from his gothy, outsider prospective that honestly may not gel with some people, but that hardly invalidates his quality. IMO.
And also, while you may think that all the themes and meaning in Batman Begins are stated, I disagree, and I've actually listened to an academic analysis that supports this. The "truth lies beneath" motif, the subtle rehabilitation of Bruce over the course of the film leading up to that gorgeous scene in the sunlight outside the burnt mansion, the subtle interweaving of Bruce's family legacy were all done in a way that was not only as subtle as anything in Burton's films, but was more cinematic.It had subilities in it, but it wasn't a subtle film. And that, as I say at the end of this post, isn't a bad thing. I don't know why you feel the need to turn this into some kind of petty contest.
Also, I have to question what you're expecting of subtlety in a film. Christ, even some of the greatest film's in history outright state the goals and themes within the first ten minutes. Chinatown did (I own a signed copy of the screenplay, incidentally) in a deleted line, and several that WEREN'T deleted. So did Vertigo.Obviously. And those are two films I love (well, I haven't seen Chinatown yet, but let's pretend). But two of the greatest films in history are extremely ambiguous. Taxi Driver and Blade Runner for example. Neither outright said "hey, this is Deckard, he's an android!", "hey, this is Travis Bickle, he's confused about his role in society!" No, they let the audience deduce that themselves through observing the characters' actions and personalities and so forth.
It seems to me that the complaint of Begins being an obvious film is an easy one, but it's not quite so obvious. It has very obvious layers TO it, obviously.It wasn't a complaint against BB in the least. You misunderstand the point of my post greatly. Neither method is superior to the other. They're just different. And both can, and should, be enjoyed in their own way. I really don't see what's so disagreeable about that statement.

[CConn]

The villians all hammed it up. Keaton played a very one note version of Batman.Granted one of Burton's villains was the Joker. A character who's intuitively hammy.

And I'd hardly say Catwoman in BR was any hammier than Cillian Murphy's portrayal of Scarecrow.

Penguin...eh, I'll give you that. Still, I think I would have enjoyed him much less if DeVito played it lowkey. The Penquin isn't exactly of starring character quality. As Nolan realizes.

[JLBats]

You didn't find the strong themes and moral observations of Edward Scissorhands intriguing? From illustrating points as simple as, well, you can't judge a book by its cover, to how petty, selfish, and misunderstanding people and society can be.

And I like to think that same theme runs over into Charlie and the Chocolate Factor - that, even though people and society can be real *****es at times, it's really quite pointless to isolate yourself from them as, on some level, you always need them despite how much grief they can cause.

That's just two examples now. Big Fish is pretty littered with them as well - although, honestly, I haven't spent any time figuring those out yet personally. And even subtle things like Bruce Wayne's characterization in B89 is telling of Burton's beliefs on genius and how people function.

Granted, most of his stuff comes from his gothy, outsider prospective that honestly may not gel with some people, but that hardly invalidates his quality. IMO.


That's really a theme thing, and I was taking issue with his self-indulgence and storytelling ability. I don't mind his thematics, since that really is more of a script issue.


It had subilities in it, but it wasn't a subtle film. And that, as I say at the end of this post, isn't a bad thing. I don't know why you feel the need to turn this into some kind of petty contest.


I'm not turning it into a petty contest. You made a comment, I made a rebuttal.


Obviously. And those are two films I love (well, I haven't seen Chinatown yet, but let's pretend). But two of the greatest films in history are extremely ambiguous. Taxi Driver and Blade Runner for example. Neither outright said "hey, this is Deckard, he's an android!", "hey, this is Travis Bickle, he's confused about his role in society!" No, they let the audience deduce that themselves through observing the characters' actions and personalities and so forth.


Really, neither one is the subtlest film either. There are several times that Travis' motivations are verbalised, and even if it wasn't as much as Batman Begins, it was enough, and it was the necessary amount. Batman Begins is not quite as subtle as either film, but it's also not one of the best movies ever made.


It wasn't a complaint against BB in the least. You misunderstand the point of my post greatly. Neither method is superior to the other. They're just different. And both can, and should, be enjoyed in their own way. I really don't see what's so disagreeable about that statement.

I disagree with the statement. It's not even that it's a complaint. I just disagree with it.

As well, my biggest problems with the Burton films don't lie just in thematics. They lie in his overly self-indulgent moments and a weak narrative structure, not to mention an interpretation of Batman I sincerely disagree with. I think Batman Begins does a much better job as a film.

[Stupify_me]

You know what you would love? The IMDb.com boards. Those are full of trolls who bash Burton (much like yourself) so you'd be right at home. Now go watch your beloved Batman Begins.
So if you don't like tim burton your a troll? Wow grow up man most of the other people on here can have a discussion with out being an ass why can't you?

[Bat Attack]

So if you don't like tim burton your a troll? Wow grow up man most of the other people on here can have a discussion with out being an ass why can't you?
I didn't say that. If your only purpose on these boards is to go around ranting about how much you hate Tim Burton, that's pretty pointless. Go ahead and resort to name calling if you want, but thats immature. :down

[CConn]

That's really a theme thing, and I was taking issue with his self-indulgence and storytelling ability. I don't mind his thematics, since that really is more of a script issue.You think those themes would have been in those movies if not for Burton? That's what the man's movies are all about - next to the visual direction, at least.
I'm not turning it into a petty contest. You made a comment, I made a rebuttal.About Batman Begins' quality when I had made no statements about such. To be clear - BB is the better movie. But, IMO, just because BB is fanastically fantastic, doesn't mean Burton's movies are horrible just because they don't follow the follow the beat of the same drummer, so to speak. And hell, I enjoy that they're so different. It's nice to have such varity in adaptations of my favorite character.
Really, neither one is the subtlest film either. There are several times that Travis' motivations are verbalised, and even if it wasn't as much as Batman Begins, it was enough, and it was the necessary amount. Batman Begins is not quite as subtle as either film, but it's also not one of the best movies ever made.I would say BB is not nearly as subtle. Still, that's semantical. Point being; a movie doesn't have to be totally direct in its messages to be affective.
I disagree with the statement. It's not even that it's a complaint. I just disagree with it.You disagree with what? That subtle films aren't as good as to the point, plot-driven ones, or that Burton just doesn't do sutble films well?
As well, my biggest problems with the Burton films don't lie just in thematics. They lie in his overly self-indulgent moments and a weak narrative structure.So you're saying you enjoy more plot-driven movies? Fine. But personally, I can enjoy both.
not to mention an interpretation of Batman I sincerely disagree with. I think Batman Begins does a much better job as a film.As I said before, BB is definitely the better movie.

[JLBats]

You think those themes would have been in those movies if not for Burton? That's what the man's movies are all about - next to the visual direction, at least.


Regardless, it's not about his directorial style, which is what we're talking about. I consider thematics to be mostly a script issue, although visualising them is up to the director.


About Batman Begins' quality when I had made no statements about such. To be clear - BB is the better movie. But, IMO, just because BB is fanastically fantastic, doesn't mean Burton's movies are horrible just because they don't follow the follow the beat of the same drummer, so to speak. And hell, I enjoy that they're so different. It's nice to have such varity in adaptations of my favorite character.


Perhaps.


I would say BB is not nearly as subtle. Still, that's semantical. Point being; a
movie doesn't have to be totally direct in its messages to be affective.
You disagree with what? That subtle films aren't as good as to the point, plot-driven ones, or that Burton just doesn't do sutble films well?


I disagree with your characterisation of Begins as an obvious film.


So you're saying you enjoy more plot-driven movies? Fine. But personally, I can enjoy both.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

Also, I'm still sort of at a loss as to what the theme of Batman actually was. It could very well be that Batman is different from the people who "Get up, go downstairs, eat breakfast, kiss someone goodbye" etc., but that was verbalised.

[The Sage]

Bale saw Batman as a man driven with the intensity of a beast which why he showed a beast like tone and growl as Batman. He even explained that just little method acting thing. What's so hard to understand about that?


I've read that interview plenty of times. I just thought that was a silly way to reference it. You're better than that dawg.:up:


But those same critics who have reviewed movies for 20 years have said Begins is the best adaptation. If you want contrete examples look at Roger Ebert. The implicit argument here is that the movie hasnt aged well and Batman Begins shows that. I didnt say it was bad movie I said 5 times it's good for what it is but its flawed and if it came out in 2006 with movies being done this well it would get slated for being too flamboyantly custom to Burton's presence. It never got the same amout of reviews that were postive as BB. I am saying that if you compare the two and analyse them then you can really B89 apart and show and see flaws. All movies have flaws and I'm telling where one film did one thing better than the other. I'm comparing not slating but you dont seem to get this. You like to argue and have a history of it.


I've read his review, I agree that BB's the better written movie and all, but I think it's aged pretty well. I think if B89 came out this year with the technology available it would've looked fantastic.


As far as Vicki Vale's scene goes. It was corny, lotta people felt that way. But I dont have to hear it from other people to know that myself. If Joker was in there he would cap vale Barbara Gordon style. Keaton's whole "Come on you wanna get nuts" is corny as **** to me. He caps him and he falls, what was that a BB gun? It was stupid and made Joker seem less threating. Like to me that was an opportuinty to show how evil he was. All the dude was fart and leave at the end lol wtf?


LOL, that wasn't a fart, that was Joker making noises with his mouth. Joker shot him with a gun, Bruce had put a metal plate underneath hi, no BB gun. Simple as that.



Sure his city was great because he created his world. I said it was a great Tim Burton movie with music and over the top early 20th centurty meets goth style but when you look at it now there's so much emphasis on style and lacks the sophistaction and explination of a Nolan version. And again when you compare it loses out. You can embrace the fantasy, but when someone makes a version that captures the core spirit so authentically, real **** wins.


Well here the issue is perspective. I think both Burton and Nolan captured the spirit of Batman in different ways, with Nolan opting for a more urban realistic world while Burton went for the fantastical dark world. Neither are wrong, because Batman really inhabits both of those worlds.


That's why I dont think looking back now it wasnt a great story at all, it was focused on great style that was customised Burton but I really dont think as a Batman story it covered depth and I've explained why by taking the one version that was an orgin story to one that wasnt.


I think it did, it just didn't make everything obvious for you to see. You have to read behind the lines and see the subtext. That's what I love about Burton's Batman movies, and with Goyer gone, that's some of what I'm expecting with the Nolan Brothers.


Nah but did you miss my counter point to that back a few posts on purpose? Begins works by showing how the fear leads to vengangce (becoming the thing he fears the most). Back in 1989 they show that like I said only the most hard core of fans would connect. Begins showed that world that may be blatant to you and me but redefines the character in a mainstream aspect by showing the journey, and little things that make him a great character. So again comparativley (which has been the basis of my case) It's just simply better to the point that comparing shows how inferior it was and looked like he didnt even care about it ( he dont even go through it on commentary on the DVD it's all style, style, jack, goth, dark etc)


BB showed how taking you can take your fear and turn it into vengeance, and B89 showed how darkness breeds darkness, how it's a cycle.


Batman (the character) is emoted, this (89) is understated. Not subtle understated.


I disagree.


Of course they dont, which was my point in my last post and they come through to always remind us cause they dont wanna let go of the inferior past. You can love the movies but when you compare, lets do the analysis here and explore each one's depth you know which is better.


It's hard to do that considering that they're two types of films, each made differently from the other.


Obviously not, you dont read what people say when they answer your question or explain so I can figure you would think that...


Well obviously I know it's just a movie, but that's not the point of the discussion, is it?


Of course, look how low standards were back then all he had to compare was Adam Wesr's jawn. If he was alive today of course he would liked Batman Begins more, the writers who have wrote Batman over the years too. That maybe an assumption but it's an educated assumptions because let's keep it realer than real: it was one for the fans and they loved it.


I'm sure he would love Batman Begins, but I'm sure he'd still love B89 as well.


So wait because I use other examples of people who feel that way I'm a tool? It's call backing up and supporting your theory. If you like Begins because it had better writing that automatically by your logic makes you a tool too. LOL! You gotta include the fact that it was emphatically praised from a peer and critical standpoint that it gives it credibility and is a strong pro for it.

Sounded like to me you liked BB based on the opinions of others and not your own.

[Super_Ludacris]

I've read that interview plenty of times. I just thought that was a silly way to reference it. You're better than that dawg.:up:

Again, you go without reading what I wrote. I said it didnt turn out perfect when he tried (although when he used his own voice as Batman it was perfect like the scene in Arkham with Gordon and him). Regardless though that was a respectable move from a method actor to try that.



I've read his review, I agree that BB's the better written movie and all, but I think it's aged pretty well. I think if B89 came out this year with the technology available it would've looked fantastic.

And thats my point it hasnt aged really well, and other people are saying this, so cant say people are wrong for thinking that. And I was trying to say I think people embraced burton's movies because back then it was either there first time seeing back when they were young or it was the first Batman movie and they were happy it wasnt Adam West. But you cant fault people for thinking it's inferior. All the time people use Burton's movies to say they were great because they were better than Schumacher's stuff or that Burton conveyed a well stylsed movie. But with advances in the genre and BB turning out for many as the best Batman movie you cant fault others for thinking Batman wasnt all that when you consider what it could have been.


LOL, that wasn't a fart, that was Joker making noises with his mouth. Joker shot him with a gun, Bruce had put a metal plate underneath hi, no BB gun. Simple as that.

It's still wackest scene in the movie hands down. What was it's purpose? To scare Vicki Vale? Where was the opportuinty to show Joker doing some crazy. Only thing worse was that forced entrance to Prince (put that on Jon Peters. Shiiet the Batman Soundtrack wasnt even Prince's best work. Purple Rain hands down)




Well here the issue is perspective. I think both Burton and Nolan captured the spirit of Batman in different ways, with Nolan opting for a more urban realistic world while Burton went for the fantastical dark world. Neither are wrong, because Batman really inhabits both of those worlds.

Sure but what I've been saying is what happens when you compare both worlds? What comes out? Even though Batman was and could be associated with Fantasy, Nolan manage to redefine the character from a mainstream POV back to how he's been in some of the more gritty graphic novels and stories which define him (Tim Sale/Jeph Loeb's work, Jim Lee, Grant Morrison or even the old 70's books from Adams that brought him back from the 60's camp. They always captured a sense of authenticity or were written if a very believeable way which allowed you as the reader to not have to believe it's that much of a fantasy world). Fantasy is always been a part of his stories but when you compare the realism is so much better.



I think it did, it just didn't make everything obvious for you to see. You have to read behind the lines and see the subtext. That's what I love about Burton's Batman movies, and with Goyer gone, that's some of what I'm expecting with the Nolan Brothers.

I'm aware about subtext anyone who realise on style is gonna use subtext through iconography to tell a story. But it was like I was telling CConn, subtext and stylised iconography do not neccessairly mean great films. And if we gonna really deep a lotta people have criticise great filmakers from hurting there own stories with style and yeah there's tons who use that I like for then using iconographical subtext but criticism for them is justified too (See Spike Lee and Oliver Stone. And Tim Burton aint phucking with them though cause all he got is his style and at least they got classics due to the issues raised in there movies but I digress. Look at how Lee's Inside Man was embraced when he played it straight by his standards). Sometimes filmakers overuse it like a first year film and media student who just learn the stuff.



BB showed how taking you can take your fear and turn it into vengeance, and B89 showed how darkness breeds darkness, how it's a cycle.

If anything it showed how fantasical theatrics breed in a fantasy world. It wasnt REAL darkness. Real darkness is Joker coming in poppin a woman and instead of killing her he makes her suffer being paralysed as a message to Batman that's a dark move.
"Kill a nygga and dump em, you sayin nothin/Kill a nygga and leave em breathing now you sayin something/leave there spirt wheezing"- Jay-Z





It's hard to do that considering that they're two types of films, each made differently from the other.

It's not though when you compare, all you gotta ask is who told a more clearer, intresting and consice Batman stories. Maybe cause then the older one looks flawed it might leave a fan confused like "damn it really wasnt all that when...when you look at it like this" but nah It aint hard to tell.



Well obviously I know it's just a movie, but that's not the point of the discussion, is it?

Well it's a flaw, especially when your trying to respond to every paragraph I put out. If I'm answering stuff what's the point in validfying. You like the movie but were comparing. You get me?



I'm sure he would love Batman Begins, but I'm sure he'd still love B89 as well.

Well he said he loved the Adam West series and Schumachers stuff too...poor old man would have kept it diplomatic to the grave.


Sounded like to me you liked BB based on the opinions of others and not your own.

Well you heard and saw wrong lol as usual lol. Batman Begins seems to get better watch everytime I watch it, I like it. The fact that other people support my view aint my fault, that's just a credit to someone emphatically delivering a product liked by many.

[Cyrusbales]

I'm fully behind this thread and discussion, BUT PLEASE! I'm tired and can't be bothered with posts longer than a paragraph! lol. Short and sweet anyone?