What did you like better Batman (1989) or Daredevil? [Archive]

View Full Version : What did you like better Batman (1989) or Daredevil?

DACrowe

02-17-2003, 03:02 PM

Both are similar yet very different. But have similar overtowns, and "twists" for the villains.

So which did you like better

Tim Burton's Batman (1989)

Or MSJ's Daredevil (2003)

ZzZElectro

02-17-2003, 03:31 PM

I don't know.. they were both pretty serious movies... like more adult movies than Spider-Man.... IMO... It's too close to call.. they were both great

ScottSummers

02-17-2003, 06:46 PM

Daredevil. He moved better. Affleck fit his role better than Keaton. and the fight scenes were better.:cyclops:

Joker7

02-17-2003, 07:16 PM

Batman was better though bullseye and jokers personality were very similira and ranks as the tweo best performances for a villan out there

Orion

02-17-2003, 07:20 PM

Daredevil moved better, didn't have that whole stiff neck I can't turn my head problem batman had. The man being a vigilante seemed more real in Daredevil. The scars, the pain, the bruises.

Batman was done 14 years ago, for it's time, it's number 1 .

ZzZElectro

02-17-2003, 10:33 PM

Yea.. you ahve to admit that Batman was good for what it had to work with. The fight scenes were better in DD because technology today is so much better and makes it easier to make things more real. Plus, Joker wasn't a real hand to hand combat kind of guy... but Bullseye was.

They were both great IMO.

Mindworm

02-17-2003, 11:11 PM

Daredevil.What killed it for me in Batman was when he smiled at Nicholson during their first meeting,the movie having Joker the killer of Bruce Waynes parents,and the positively crappy "cgi " that showed some sloppy cartoon character of the Joker falling to his death....... with no blood.:rolleyes:

Kenpo Wolf

02-18-2003, 04:44 AM

I liked DD better then Bats because the the acting was better as well as the fight scenes. The only things I did'nt like in DD was the fight scene in the park, which I thought was corny as hell, and the fight between Elektra and Bullseye should have been just a tad longer. As far as both of these movies compare with my favorites, in the genre, here is my top ten list;

1, Spider Man
2, Blade 2
3, Blade
4, X Men
5, DareDevil
6, The Crow
7, BatMan
8, Spawn
9, Super Man
10, Super Man 2

Kevin Roegele

02-18-2003, 02:51 PM

Batman, definetly. Tim Burton is a much, much better director.

Megaman

02-18-2003, 10:09 PM

top 5 comic book movies:1.X-men
2.Dare Devil
3.Spider-man
4.Batman
5.Batman Returns
1. :wolverine :cyclops: 2. :daredevil 3. :spidey: :gg: 4.5.:batman:

Catman

02-18-2003, 10:09 PM

BATMAN!

Godzilla

02-18-2003, 10:10 PM

No contest. DD.:daredevil

Kevin Roegele

02-19-2003, 10:17 AM

These 'new vs old' polls are pointless. When Episode I came out, it won in polls against all the other Star Wars films, simply because it was the newest one. Batman is still one of the greatest and most influential superhero movies ever made. Let's see how well DD holds up in 12 years.

Catman

02-19-2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Kevin Roegele
These 'new vs old' polls are pointless. When Episode I came out, it won in polls against all the other Star Wars films, simply because it was the newest one. Batman is still one of the greatest and most influential superhero movies ever made. Let's see how well DD holds up in 12 years.

That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. DD will eventually get it's hate. Look at Spider-Man, it's starting to get some hate from several people.

incurock31

02-19-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Catman
That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. DD will eventually get it's hate. Look at Spider-Man, it's starting to get some hate from several people.

Yup. Batman's far superior... those who don't think so will realize it eventually.

Godzilla

02-19-2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Kevin Roegele
These 'new vs old' polls are pointless. When Episode I came out, it won in polls against all the other Star Wars films, simply because it was the newest one. Batman is still one of the greatest and most influential superhero movies ever made. Let's see how well DD holds up in 12 years.

Oh, yeah. Batman & Robin was considered such a classic when it came out.:rolleyes:

Sorry, but Batman's not even in my top 10 comic ficks.

Catman

02-19-2003, 11:30 PM

Well, Batman & Robin was an exception!

Savage

02-19-2003, 11:31 PM

I'm gonna have to go with My buddy Daredevil. I just think everything about it was nearly dead on with the comic(in spirit anyway). The characters were suprisingly near perfection when compared to their comic book counter parts. Batman was good though. Don't know why people complain so much about the stiff movement. I recently saw it on the Sci-Fi channel on sunday and when those fight scenes came up, he kicked some serious ass. He went Kung Fu crazy and he didn't seem to have a problem moving at all.

Lazlo Panaflex

02-20-2003, 08:36 PM

I choose Batman as the better film simply because I've been a Bat-fan for 15 years, sure it may not be a perfect comic book adaptation but then again no movie ever is.

Daredevil was good but I guess it'll be a few years for me to actually consider it as a GREAT film.

jaydawg

02-20-2003, 08:43 PM

Daredevil without a doubt. I hated the first Batman and nothing will ever change my mind. Besides Batman Returns, which is a far superior to the original, i've always hated burtons films. The only thing that Batman beats DD at is Musical Score. DD had some good stuff but Batman is the only time i've ever REMEMBERED

jaydawg

02-20-2003, 08:44 PM

The Amazing Spider-Man

02-22-2003, 11:51 PM

jaydawg, please shorten your signature to 3 lines or less. Thanks.

redlion

02-22-2003, 11:54 PM

I give the nod to DD.....just barely b/c the scenes with Joker in the museum and bringing down the Batwing with one shot from a looong barrel revolver cost Batman some points IMO.

jaydawg

02-23-2003, 12:26 AM

Redlion, props for mentioning some of the scenes I loathe. And Amazing Spider-Man, man I finally found a sig worthy of replacing my infamous Conan O' Brian statement..... but I just can't argue with a guy with a name like The Amazing Spider-man.

P.S. 200TH POST!!!!!:bomb: :gg: :spidey: :gg: :bomb: YEA!!!

comicbookFanboy

02-23-2003, 03:50 PM

Daredevil by a little.

Like a little, like a grain of salt little.

bobbygk

02-23-2003, 03:52 PM

Batman was 100% better than that bland Daredevil.

QuiGonJosh

02-23-2003, 04:37 PM

Daredevil is better. Its more faithful to the comic. But I love Batman (89) as well. Great movie.

Spidey-Fan700

02-23-2003, 04:57 PM

Batman (1989).

jaydawg

02-23-2003, 05:29 PM

Daredevil

zanos

02-24-2003, 04:38 PM

I hated Batman when I first saw it and I wasn't a very descriminating 16 year old movie goer either. I was just as excited as everyone else to go watch it but what a huge disappointment. If there is anyone in this world that could have filmed duller action sequences it's Tim Burton. Not to mention the film was more about the villian, the Joker than it was about Batman which is enough to ruin any film. Daredevil was by far the better film in terms of story and action. The source material was taken seriously and filmed that way.

jaydawg

02-24-2003, 07:48 PM

Thank god someone said it.

SunshineButMoreRain

02-19-2004, 02:59 PM

I can't believe that Daredevil is winning this poll. That's just sickening.

I guess anything new is best. :roll:

DD is one of the worst comic book movies since B&R. Ben Asslick as Murdock was ****in' terrible, but not nearly as bad as the two bafoons Duncan and Ferrel in the villain roles.

BATMAN nukes this mother.

SunshineButMoreRain

02-19-2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by ScottSummers
Daredevil. He moved better. Affleck fit his role better than Keaton. and the fight scenes were better.:cyclops:

Affleck fit better than Keaton? Um, yeah, right. :rolleyes: :eek: :p

SunshineButMoreRain

02-19-2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by ZzZElectro
Yea.. you ahve to admit that Batman was good for what it had to work with. The fight scenes were better in DD because technology today is so much better and makes it easier to make things more real. Plus, Joker wasn't a real hand to hand combat kind of guy... but Bullseye was.

They were both great IMO.

The fight scenes in Daredevil are horrid with all that pathetic wire work making the characters illogically float around like they're in zero-gravity or something. Daredevil looks like **** now, I can only imagine how bad this thing will look in 14 years. Batman has aged very well.

SunshineButMoreRain

02-19-2004, 03:05 PM

I liked DD better then Bats because the the acting was better as well as the fight scenes.

Yeah, Bennifer and Michael Clark Duncan are much better actors than Keaton and Nicholson. Sure. :rolleyes:

medguy

02-19-2004, 03:58 PM

i give it to Daredevil for a few reasons. First and foremost, the movie focused on Daredevil, not on the villain with the hero making a guest appearance. Second, I agree with the poster who said that the scars and pain he feels were more believable. Third, the fights were better choreographed.
The Prince songs, the bad cartoon animation at the end, the bad costume, Vicki Vale doing nothing but scream over and over and over...these things make Batman not hold up as well, IMO.

Bobbywoodhogan

02-19-2004, 04:25 PM

I think this is a daft thread to put on the Batman Threads although I preferrred Batman (1989) I really like Daredevil.

The Guard

02-19-2004, 04:27 PM

BATMAN. I won't let changes from the comic ruin one of the best movies of the decade. The movie was great. Great acting, good special effects, wonderful music. Like someone else said, let's see DAREDEVIL hold up as well. BATMAN still looks great today.

The Guard

02-19-2004, 04:29 PM

I know this is a "preference" thread, but can we please debate some of these points? I mean, some of the points people are making are just not accurate at all...

fireman9586

02-19-2004, 06:20 PM

Batman was awesome. Daredevil sucked

Assassin32

02-19-2004, 10:14 PM

Daredevil was good, but Tim Burton's Batman is a classic.

Cax40

02-19-2004, 10:30 PM

I liked Batman because it was so fresh and exciting to see the character of Batman brought back to his dark roots; a very pleasant change from the campy 60's tv show. The movie was beautifully shot, the special effects were great (for their time), and the story was good. When Keaton first appeared as Bruce Wayne, the audience cheered him, and cheered him every time he showed up as Batman. Jack Nicholson kept everyone roaring with laughter as the Joker. Batman 1989 was brilliant in that it was a film that appealed to me as an adult and at the same time was so fun to watch that it made me feel like a kid again.

SunshineButMoreRain

02-20-2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by medguy
i give it to Daredevil for a few reasons. First and foremost, the movie focused on Daredevil, not on the villain with the hero making a guest appearance.

I don't and never have agreed with the argument that the first BATMAN is not about Wayne. If you look at the narrative the film is plainly most concerned with the Batman character on multiple fronts, from his vigilante escapades to his psychology he's the only character with any real depth and the one character I feel the film is catering to as far as examination. You can talk all day about Jack's antics in this movie, but at the end of the day does his character have any real depth to speak of? No. Does Vale? No, not really.

From that standpoint it seems the movie does far more of a service to its title character than anybody else present -- the only reason anybody else exists in the first film is to show how they relate to Batman or Wayne and, therefore, give an excuse to try and examine that character. Vale, in the narrative, is chiefly present to lead us back to the Batman side of Wayne's genesis -- where the split came from. The Joker's existence is primarily there from a thematic standpoint to draw parallels to Wayne and make the point that he's at the very least a bit psychotic and to draw the title character in a questionable light (from the Axis chemicals scene onward).

I believe the second film does a far better job of this primarily because it actually manages to make those around Wayne/Batman interesting characters in their own right, but it's obvious that the first BATMAN's main thematic sticking point is the title character himself.

Second, I agree with the poster who said that the scars and pain he feels were more believable.

Ben Affleck doesn't have the acting ability to make me believe it, frankly. And one scene of him spitting out a tooth and pill popping really does nothing for depth in my opinion -- it's really not as simple as just grafting on a single scene and leaving it at that as DAREDEVIL tries to do, it's what you do narratively and through the actor more than anything and I believe DD fails on those points.

Third, the fights were better choreographed.

Fights looked like horrible cartoon crap to me. Over-done to the point of taking out any realism , particurlarly in the over the top wore work used. The fights in BATMAN at least have a decent sense of reality.

The Prince songs,

As opposed to the far more jarring MTV-influenced rock soundtrack that dominates DAREDEVIL much of the time? I'll take Prince, thank you.

And hey, BATMAN also has Elfman. Score!

the bad cartoon animation at the end,

As far as what? I liked almost all the design elements in the first BATMAN. It 's what's kept the film from dating to large extent.

The last shot of Batman atop the belltower is awesome.

the bad costume,

That's a laugh. Bad costume...as opposed to DD's bad biker bar reject? The costume from BATMAN looks great, the one in DAREDEVIL makes Affleck look like an idiot.

Vicki Vale doing nothing but scream over and over and over...these things make Batman not hold up as well, IMO.

Vicki Vale is the worst part of the first movie, I'll agree.

SunshineButMoreRain

02-20-2004, 07:46 AM

Which costume looks better?

http://www.daredevil-movies.com/images/pictures/daredevil/large/8.jpg

http://www.daredevil-movies.com/images/pictures/daredevil/large/5.jpg

http://www.daredevil-movies.com/images/pictures/daredevil/large/4.jpg

http://www.daredevil-movies.com/images/pictures/daredevil/large/17.jpg

http://www.batmannews.de/bilder/pics/Batman/007.jpg

http://membres.lycos.fr/superhero2000/film26.jpg

http://www.batmannews.de/bilder/pics/Batman/Batman-07.jpg

http://www.batmannews.de/bilder/pics/Batman/BatmanMovie_Images117994.jpg

http://www.batmannews.de/bilder/pics/Batman/062.jpg

CFE

02-20-2004, 09:13 AM

http://www.batmannews.de/bilder/pics/Batman/007.jpg

DACrowe, did it ever occur to you to put this in the Comic films forum?

Anywho, this is why Batman wins

1. Standing power: It's been over a decade since this film was released. Approximately 14 years. And despite that, the majority of the feedback for it, even today, is positive. I can't say the same for DD (which wouldv'e been better if Chris Columbus directed it.)

2. Visuals: Back in 89, there was no CGI like there is now. Mark Steven Johnston used the CGI as a crutch in Daredevil. Burton, on the other hand, didn't have that advanced technology, and he still made a better film than DD.

3. Mood: Yeah, Daredevil was a pretty dark, moody film. But Batman was 100 times darker. By far. No contest in this department.

4. Total Gross: Batman: 250 million (Highest grossing film of 1989)
Daredevil: Not even close (Notice that I don't even bother to try and find out the actual gross. And I KNOW Daredevil isn't the top grossing film for 2003!)

5. Awards: Batman - 1990 Academy Award: Best Art Direction
Daredevil - No academy Awards :rolleyes:

6. Directors: Tim Burton - Director of Batman, Batman Returns, Nightmare before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Big Fish, and Pee Wee's Big Adventure.
Mark Steven Johnston - Director of Daredevil, and Simon Birch...And that's it!

Bottom Line: BATMAN DAMMIT!!

CFE

SunshineButMoreRain

02-20-2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by COMICFILMEXPERT
[B]http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/photos/batmanreturns/rescueice.jpg

5. Awards: Batman - 1990 Academy Award: Best Art Direction
Daredevil - No academy Awards :rolleyes:

Now now. DAREDEVIL is nominated for some awards. Razzie awards, that is.

:daredevil :o :D

Gimili

02-20-2004, 08:11 PM

I'd have to give it to Batman. It holds up better under multiple viewings, as I discovered after watching Daredevil on TV this afternoon. This is mainly because of Ben Affleck's rather
poor acting ability and the fact that director MSJ obviously made the movie too much for the fans and not enough for the general audience. For instance, there's a scene where young Matt's father scolds him for getting in a fight, telling him to go into a more academic line of work and that "you don't hit nothin' but books." So why is it that Matt doesn't get in trouble for playing with a punching bag and beating up three bullies.

Here's the good and bad in both films:

Batman's good points:

Micheal Keaton, though physically wrong for the role, does make up for that through acting ability and the fact that the suit renders
size less important.

Jack Nicholson as the Joker. How can you go wrong with that?

The score. Even Prince's songs are good in my opinion, especially since they're used in scenes with the Joker. Elfman's score is, as always, superb.

Tim Burton's direction. His vision into the duality of Batman is somewhat different from the comic book, but nonetheless good in its own right.

Kim Basinger. She brings a nice romantic balance to the story.

Decent fight scenes. Not excellent, but fairly good.

Batman's bad points:

There are holes in the plot big enoug to drop the Batmobile into without hitting any sides. How does, for instance, the Joker break in on all the local TV shows? How does one of the Joker's goons get into the cathedral to fight Batman after the Joker seals the door and the cops surround it? How does the Batjet's guns, with a lock-on targeting system fail to even score one hit on the Joker?

Batman kills. I don't have too much of an issue here, but enough people do that it's something that should probably have been avoided.

Daredevil's good points:

Colin Farell is perfect as Bullseye. He brings a great psychotic attitude, sadism, and twisted sense of humor to the role. Definitely the best actor in the movie.

Micheal Clarke Duncan is also great as the Kingpin. Race isn't important to the role, so I have no problem that he's black.

With one major exception, the fight scenes tend to outshine those
of Batman. Choreography, speed, and agility, are all solid.

The script does a good job in its portrayal of Daredevil.

Daredevil's bad points:

Ben Affleck is an actor with very limited range. He's decent as Daredevil, but as Matt Murdock, he blows because his performance as a blind man is not that convincing.

Daredevil's final battle with Bullseye is mediocre because of this CGI doing these unbelievable maneuvers on the organ. I understand that this fight was identical to one they had in the comics. If so, MSJ quite frankly took being true to the source material a bit too far.

Daredevil's unbelievable stunts. This only happens a couple times,
but I mention it anyway. I'm willing to throw in some leeway in light of the stunts you generally do see in action movies, but to say that justifies Daredevil making falling over ten stories to and safely is to give the movie a bit too much leeway.

The plotholes. For instance, there's Daredevil being weakened to the point where he can't even stand by Electra, yet being right as rain in no time. Daredevil being able to dodge bullets thanks to his
super-hearing, yet somehow having difficulty dodging punches and kicks from Electra and the Kingpin. Daredevil leaving something for journalyst Phil Urich to ignite, producing his symbol, though not showing himself to be particularly flamboyant throughout the rest of the film. And yes, I'm well aware that some
of these errors are due to Fox's editing of the movie. I'd also partially credit them to MSJ taking remaining true to the comic too far. But knowing these two facts hardly helps these mistakes much.

So in conclusion, I'd give Daredevil a 5 out of 10 and Batman a 7 out of 10.

Kevin Roegele

02-20-2004, 09:38 PM

There's really no contest. Daredevil is only superior in the choreography (overwhelmingly so), but it's shot and edited so poorly that's it's almost completely wasted.

The Batman

02-21-2004, 04:25 PM

Batman

Two-Face

02-22-2004, 10:40 AM

BATMAN wins!!

ultimatefan

02-22-2004, 04:12 PM

I have big problems with both of them. I still find it amazing that some people can find Spider-Man unfaithful because of organic webs and a movie where Daredevil is introduced as a ruthless vigilante murderer is all faithful. Daredevil had serious plot/pacing problems, and Batman was really not nearly as faithful as it could have been, ended up being more of a Joker movie.

I SEE SPIDEY

02-22-2004, 04:54 PM

I found Dardevil to be a better movie, although both of them were very bad IMHO.

Dr. Manhatten

02-23-2004, 02:11 AM

Getting drenched with colostomy bag substances is better than seeing Daredevil in my opinion. So Batman it is

MJZ

02-23-2004, 04:14 PM

DD was better than Batman in several areas but unfortunately didn't take it far enough. The Director's Cut will improve it significantly, but Batman still wins.

Oh, and you have to take time into consideration. Of course the fights in DD were superior. Batman didn't have the luxury of CGI and wire-work back then.

Either way, Nolan's film should kick everyone's ass.

fireman9586

02-26-2004, 09:45 PM

you seem pretty confident about this Director's Cut....what if it sucks!? nah, i;m just joking around with you. It actually might be, the trial scenes with Coolio will probably add the character depth that Murdock lacked

greyJester

02-27-2004, 07:55 PM

Batman! The Daredevil script scuked ass we all have to admit...Burton made Batman great! And so did BOB! hehe.. Oh, and Batman Fight Scenes ruled, they were more real than all of that CG ****!

zanos

02-28-2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by MJZ
DD was better than Batman in several areas but unfortunately didn't take it far enough. The Director's Cut will improve it significantly, but Batman still wins.

Oh, and you have to take time into consideration. Of course the fights in DD were superior. Batman didn't have the luxury of CGI and wire-work back then.

Either way, Nolan's film should kick everyone's ass.

Dude there's a little film called Superman that came out almost a decade before Batman and I don't hear too many ppl complaining about the non cgi FX in that film. Case closed.

I think the main reason why everyone likes Batman so much is because they're all comparing it to the 1960s series whether they are consciously doing it or not. Tim Burton has never been able to direct anything good with action or cgi in it. Batman is a great example of a film with all style and no substance, MUCH more so than Daredevil. At least in DD they actually made a good effort at developing the main character instead of reducing him to a one dimensional statue like they did with Batman. A one dimensional character that kills criminals of all things. :rolleyes:

Mr Parker

02-28-2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by zanos
I hated Batman when I first saw it and I wasn't a very descriminating 16 year old movie goer either. I was just as excited as everyone else to go watch it but what a huge disappointment. If there is anyone in this world that could have filmed duller action sequences it's Tim Burton. Not to mention the film was more about the villian, the Joker than it was about Batman which is enough to ruin any film. Daredevil was by far the better film in terms of story and action. The source material was taken seriously and filmed that way.

Yeah like jaydawg said,SOMEBODY had to say it.That was one of the main reasons I hated about Tim Burtons Batman films was the fact that it was mostly about the villians.The first film should have been called The Joker.DD was a MUCH better film over the first batman film easily.The only good thing about the first one was looking at the hot looking Kim Basinger.DD all the way.:daredevil

Mr Parker

02-28-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by zanos
Dude there's a little film called Superman that came out almost a decade before Batman and I don't hear too many ppl complaining about the non cgi FX in that film. Case closed.

I think the main reason why everyone likes Batman so much is because they're all comparing it to the 1960s series whether they are consciously doing it or not. Tim Burton has never been able to direct anything good with action or cgi in it. Batman is a great example of a film with all style and no substance, MUCH more so than Daredevil. At least in DD they actually made a good effort at developing the main character instead of reducing him to a one dimensional statue like they did with Batman. A one dimensional character that kills criminals of all things. :rolleyes:

Again well said.Yeah I dont hear that many people either complaining about cgi fx in Superman either all these years later.That is EXACTLY why people like Batman so much because its more closer to the comics than the 60's show was so they just settle for what is better and closer to the comics without realising just how horrible Batman REALLY was.In DD,Ben Affleck at least was right the role and it wasnt like watching Al Bundy walking around Bruce Wayne manor like it was in the first film,a total joke.You hit the nail right on the head.Burtons batman films have style but no substance at all while paying all the attention to the villian and just making him a supporting character.DD also killed in the Daredevil films but they deserved to die,while with Batman,Batman killed in cowardly fasion and should have been wanted by the cops at the end for murder instead of being treated like a damn hero.Just plain stupid screenwriting is all that was in the first Batman film.:mad:

By the way,I also agree with you that Daredevil was a MUCH better film than the film I have listed in my sig obviously.:)

The Guard

02-28-2004, 05:51 PM

That is EXACTLY why people like Batman so much because its more closer to the comics than the 60's show was so they just settle for what is better and closer to the comics without realising just how horrible Batman REALLY was.

And here I thought BATMAN was so popular because it reintroduced the dark Dark Knight to mainstream culture, and started Batman back toward his roots.

In DD,Ben Affleck at least was right the role and it wasnt like watching Al Bundy walking around Bruce Wayne manor like it was in the first film,a total joke.

I don't remember Michael Keaton doing any wandering. Nor do I remember him being as large as Al Bundy, or with any sort of similar personality traits as a character.

You hit the nail right on the head.Burtons batman films have style but no substance at all while paying all the attention to the villian and just making him a supporting character.

Bruce Wayne/Batman was a lot more than a supporting character in the film. We learned a lot about his motivations/character, and saw plenty of him. And the Burton Batman films have a ton of substance. Most people are just too thickheaded to admit it/see it.

DD also killed in the Daredevil films but they deserved to die,while with Batman,Batman killed in cowardly fasion and should have been wanted by the cops at the end for murder instead of being treated like a damn hero.

Wait...let me get this straight. Quesada deserved to die because he raped a woman. Whereas The Joker didn't deserve to die after he killed dozens of innocents and tried to kill half of Gotham City? Your logic baffles me. He was treated as a hero at the end because he saved Gotham City.

Honey Vibe

02-28-2004, 06:07 PM

Batman was a dark movie.
Daredevil was a dark movie with a lot of problems.

Blayton

03-02-2004, 03:57 PM

I liked them both but Batman just edges out DD. The only thing i really didn't like about Batman was his suit

JackTheSlayer

03-04-2004, 07:20 PM

Darn v v tricky i love both and both have alot of meaning to me i really cant say!

bakerboy

03-05-2004, 03:22 PM

I cant be agree with the guard. Batman or bruce wayne werent never developed as characters in the burton in the burton movies. At least, batman forever, that is a movie that i didnt like at all, give us more about bruce wayne character and his motivations and his story. In the first batman, the only thing that we know about bruce wayne is that the joker killed his parents. All the focus is about the joker and about jack napier. Batman and bruce wayne only were there for any reason. what are his motivations to be batman? why he fights the criminals? why becomed batman? nothing of that is in the movie. Only Michael " bettlejuice" Keaton puting a thinking face. Nothing more. Same in batman returns. All the film is about the freak vertion of the penguin and about catwoman , but nothing about batman and bruce wayne. The batman character was poorly developed in the previous films, but at least, in batman forever, we know a bit more about him.

Garian Silver

03-06-2004, 03:32 AM

I'd say Batman. In pretty much any way.

The movie had such a huge impression on me, I'm can't even be remotely impartial here.

Anyway, Daredevil owes A LOT to Batman in terms of look and atmosphere.

In the end, I don't think you can really say, THIS one is better or THAT one.

They are too different. In the same way. :)

Whew, that was poetic. Or crap. Dunno.

Batman

03-08-2004, 07:27 PM

Daredevil.

Zaphyre

03-15-2004, 12:41 PM

And your screen name is Batman?

Batman entertained me a whole lot more than Daredevil did.

Remember, that IS what these movies were meant to do. So in your opinion, which film entertained you more? The one that did the most did what it was aimed to do, making it succesful in my opinion.

Bud Dwyer

03-16-2004, 11:09 PM

The fighting and action in DD was superior and Bullseye was superior to The Joker but... the acting and story in Batman was not only there, opposed to DD, but overall just better. Go Bats, I grew up on Batman comics anyway. Too bad I lost them... most of them... don't look at me.

The Guard

03-18-2004, 02:02 PM

Bullseye was superior to The Joker? Riiight.

Batman15

03-23-2004, 09:28 PM

daredevil was so much better in the sense that it was totally original. He wanted to fight crime because his father was murdered. he wanted revenge. the horns on his mask. that thing he used that shot a rope out and lifted him to a destination. these are things batman writers only wished they have thought of for the batman character.

face it
Daredevil sucked

SiNtZu89

04-06-2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by ScottSummers
Daredevil. He moved better. Affleck fit his role better than Keaton. and the fight scenes were better.:cyclops:

why you trolling for?????

red scrpion

04-08-2004, 04:17 PM

Daredevil was so much better

Rocky Batboa

04-15-2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Batman15
daredevil was so much better in the sense that it was totally original. He wanted to fight crime because his father was murdered. he wanted revenge. the horns on his mask. that thing he used that shot a rope out and lifted him to a destination. these are things batman writers only wished they have thought of for the batman character.

face it
Daredevil sucked

LOL! That was great, man...and comming soon: rocky's comparison of Batman and Daredevil (snicker....snicker...LOL)....

Ok. Here it is.

General grades, first.

Batman: B
Daredevil: C-

Don't let the grades fool you, though. Daredevil was far inferior to Batman. Far.

First of all, the unoriginal factor. Other than Matt Murdock being blind, just about every other aspect of daredevil is a rip (to some degree ) off Batman. BUt, wait, the movie version takes it one step farther.

Scene( Bullseye's assasination of Electra's father) : in this scene, Bullseye races toward Daredevil on his motorcyle , and once he's within a few seconds of running over him, Daredevil jumps on the front of the bike and and kicks Bullseye off the bike. this scence was COPIED storyboard for storyboard from another Batman movie, Batman:Mask of the Phantasm, for those that don't know, durring a flashback scene in that movie, dealing w/ the relationshiop of Bruce and Andrea Buemont.

Scene (Daredevil and electra fighting atop the roof) This scence , almost entirely ripped from the far better one in "Batman Returns" between Batman and Catwoman.

Scene (grave scene between matt murdock and electra) matt tells electra that reveng is no good..."If anyone knows that, it's me" or something like that. Same scene from the end of "Batman:Mask of the Phantasm", where Bruce and Andrea have their final moments.

Scene (second to last fight scene, between daredevil and bullseye in, guess where, a CHURCH.) Just like Spiderman's ending, this scene is a semi-rip off "Batman" (1989), in which the Batman and Joker have an end game in a decaying cathedral.

Daredevil was simply a weak movie, featuring a character who is not that interesting, and a slight rip off on Batman.

None of the characters had any actual depth, and all of the performances were rather stale. Ben Affleck's especially. I found his "huff puff, blow your house down" acting machismo to be rather borring and uninspiring, and Clarke duncan seems way to self-dignified....Garnier tries to make something of the role, but the script is just too weak, and it's pacing too fast, for anything noteworthy to occur. Farrel is the most successful here. Some of his dialouge actually causes some excitement here and there. But only some, the rest was simply "over the top", to the point of being annoying...this happens mid-way through the movie and remains.

the action was too cgi heavy. the end scene in the cathedral, especially w/ daredevil and bullseye jumping around 20 feet and kicking and punching. There was no suprise. we are just following the action, and i, for one, did not care for the outcome. While some of the action was more visceral and edgy (mainly, the successful assasination attempt of Electra's father, by Bullseye--prpbably the best scene in the entire movie--) most of it has no resonance and falls flat.

The musical score was ok, but nothing memorable. The inclusion of multiple modern rock songs was expected, instantly dates the movie, and is nothing special.

Overall, a very forgettable movie, in an era of comic book-based movies dominating the market. Poor acting, bad music, and LOTS of action to keep the 13 and 14 year old teens' attention. Moving on.....

Batman is simply a classic, and had quite a few good things going for it. It's remembered today as one of the most fan-favorite movies ever released. People still fondly remember seeing it the first time in theaters today, and many place it in their "top...." lists. Comic book fans were not completely enamored by it, as they felt a more definite and linear film couild have been made, and that is true. While the film is not perfect, it had a lot more to offer than Daredevil.

1.) SCRIPT: Batman has the better story, ideas/themes, and conflicts. Batman also had more depth. While the film doesn't contain loads of screen time, featuriing Batman kicking ass, the story makes it's points along the way (effectively) and then moves on. It doesnt' obsess over the details, it subtly explores it's main character, explores the supporting players, and then lets the whole thing unfold. there's suprises and tension along the way, as well as concise and thrilling action, and successful dark comedy.

2.) ACTING: Michael Keaton was a poor choice for Batman , physically, going by the comic books. Certain ideas were ignored when casting Keaton, but he more than makes up for it with his cerebral and psychological performance (so strong, one can accept the Burton/Keaton version as a part of the Batman myth, one of the good versions). Keaton's performance allows you to root for him, while still questioning the motivations and choices of the hero. this makes him both heroic and interesting (whereareas Daredevil only comes across as only athletic and borring)
Jack's Joker has been called over the top by some , but this is quite an ignorant assumption. Sure, Jack goes off into high energy at times, but always when appropriate (whereareas farrel comes across as an over-coked(the drug), uneducated buffoon in many sccenes) Jack's Joker is FAR better. He's funny, dangerous, sly, and quite the adversary. From beginning to end, one is always in suspense over who will win, though one already knows who ultimately will.

The other supporting characters give strong performances as well...Palance is entertaining as the vindictive mob boss, Williams is passionate and smooth as Harvey dent, Gough is warm , intelligent , and funny as Alfred, Wuhl is delightfully obnoxious and dedicated as the reporter Knock, and even Basinger's pefrormance was greater than what some give her credit for. Demure? Sure....Soft? Yeah, but she does have a hint of adventure and realism, and that makes it work.

THE MUSIC: Danny Elfman's score was potent and grandiose, one of the best in a film ever. People fondly remember it today. Will see if even ONE non-fan of Daredevil remembers the Daredevil theme...i doubt it...Elfman's Batman is remembered (fondly) by many..

IMPACT: INCREDIBLE. Burton's story of duality and revenge, wrapped in reality and fantasy combined, featuring a traumatized, but willing hero confronting a dangerous and despearate enemy made movie-goers exclaim with glee..."THIS is the movie of the decade!"

Batman, after 15 years, is a fan-favorite classic, having made 250 million dollars the year it was released (at that time, the second most successful movie of all time, only making less than E.T., and in adjusted gross, 250 mil is equatable to 500 million today). Batman is beloved by many, and a cultural phenomenon (just the movie alone from 1989, not even getting into everything else)

Daredevil was a humbly successful 2002 movie, following in the massive and quality footsteps of "Spiderman". It has it's supporters, but got mostly bad reviews from critics and, as a movie, contained no interesting drama, mostly over bloated action, and no genuine laughs, or suprises.

The only suprises about "Daredevil" is that over 30 people in this thread voted for it over "Batman". (not counting some must have been repeats)

Realistically speaking, there is no comparison. Batman trumps it. Easily.

dude love

04-20-2004, 11:49 PM

Batman by far. Batman's opening theme made more sense than Daredevil's.
CGI fight scene's weren't nessecary in either movie because both movies are supposed to deal with a realistic gritty and dark world. Batman shows this with realistic street fighting while Daredevil is jumping around like a mexican jumping bean.

Mylord

04-22-2004, 09:15 AM

Great speech Rocky.

Hulkzilla

04-23-2004, 01:55 PM

BATMAN by a Wiiiiiiiiiiddddddeeeeeeeee margin

darkbat

04-25-2004, 01:38 PM

batman is better ben affleck killed dardevil in my opion keaton seemed like batman and bruce wayne affleck can't do that with his acting abilitys.

Rocky Batboa

04-26-2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Mylord
Great speech Rocky.

well, it really wasnt a speech.

They were my unofficial reviews of both films. By comparison, one can see how i logically think Batman was the far superior movie.

Still shocked that people continue to vote for "Daredevil". (must be the same half dozen people voting over and over again:D )

Goongala

04-26-2004, 11:28 AM

Batman by far and away. Made people take the genre in a really serious fashion. It was a flawed movie but ahead of it's time none the less. But I am positive that it will be toped by the new bat franshise Batman Begins!

Supergirl

04-26-2004, 11:35 AM

and a resounding YAY! for Batman!

Keymaker

05-03-2004, 01:55 PM

Batman! :batman: DD was a weak copy of it...and too short but still good. :D

Ruined Angel

05-03-2004, 02:42 PM

I've loved B89 since, well, 1989. :D

I haven't seen Daredevil and have no interest in doing so.

choskins

05-03-2004, 08:08 PM

I am a Marvel fan, but I think Batman (1989) was a much better movie than DD.

Greenish Goblin

05-04-2004, 01:56 PM

Reaidng this topic i couldn't help but think " what the hell ? " .

Batman is way superior to daredevil ! I liked the fact they didn't keep showing the hero fighting like in spiderman or daredevil as it added to his mysteriousness .

ManWithoutShoes

05-05-2004, 02:44 AM

i liked daredevil and all, but there is no comparison. for me batman '89 ranks up there with superman I & II, spider-man and X2. it was such a crowd pleaser.

when i saw it in the theater, way back when ( opening night! ) the crowd was jacked and feeling every moment of it. every joker scene caused the audience to laugh, and every time batman kicked someone's a$$, the audienced roared with cheers of approval. i never had a movie experience like that again!

daredevil, on the otherhand, was the polar opposite of that experience. i never heard so many wise a$$ comments in my life, and most of them coming from me! like an aquired taste, it took me a 2nd viewing to gain an appreciation for daredevil, and even then there are moments that still make me cringe.

KenK

05-05-2004, 10:07 AM

Why is this even a question?!?! Don't get me wrong, I liked Daredevil. On some levels, I like it more than Spider-Man. But I love Batman more than Spider-Man that's for damn sure! Batman is classic.

Other posters claim some of us felt obligated to like Batman because of the 60s show making Batman so campy, or that we only like it because it's Batman. Well back in the 60's THAT'S how Batman was in the comics! How many comic covers are there with Batman and Robin running side by side with ^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^-eating grins on their faces! Burton's Batman was not only a representation of the dark and gritty feel of the character in the 80s to today, but also a representation of how Bob Kane originally realized the character. Body types aside, Keaton and Nicholson brought their characters to life. I mean, people act like Keaton was totally out of shape or something. It didn't matter, because he nailed the character. For all the complaints that the movie didn't focus enough on him, I couldn't disagree more. Between his conversations with Vicki Vale and especially Alfred, Bruce Wayne and Batman were extremely well developed. I think he did a good job of separating the characters and understanding their psychology. There's a definite change in his demeanor and speech, when he's Bruce Wayne and when he's Batman. Bruce Wayne in public was far different than Bruce Wayne in the Batcave(there are numerous scenes of him just working in the cave, moreso than scenes of him in Wayne Manor). Not to mention the great scene between him and Vicki in the Batcave, where he laughs at the idea of being compared to the Joker, when we the fans know that the comparison isn't all that far off. Batman is psychotic, and he does see himself differently than he does "normal people". Clearly, his mental state is heavily touched upon in the film. His motivations? He lost his parents to crime. That's all you need to know! His goals didn't change with the revelation that it was the Joker who killed his parents. Basically, I was never left wondering, 'where's Bruce and Batman?' over the course of the film, because I genuinely feel the character was well-developed. This isn't like the case of Spider-Man, where the Green Goblin is established before Spider-Man even decides to become a crimefighter. Whereas criminals actually see an opportunity to find out who Batman is(the alley scene where they almost take off his mask), Spider-Man not only features two scenes where people could have taken off Spider-Man's mask, INCLUDING the MAIN VILLAIN, but also a scene where he, for no good reason, fights multiple thugs without his mask on(to say nothing of the fact that it's established earlier in that scene that he has his mask on!)! And while I've come to accept that CGI was probably the best way to do Spider-Man's webslinging, I still can't help but be put off by it. As oppsed to Batman, where we saw an actual person doing all the action. When Batman glides down to Jack before he can shoot Commissioner Gordon, that was absolutely striking and powerful, and would have been cheapened if doen any other way than with a real person. Plus, I much prefer Batman's dark alley fight scene over Spider-Man's, especially the end where Batman kicked the crap outta that guy with the swords, a semi-nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Plus there was a little sense of humor to it, when Bob comes up with the knife, and Batman's beockoning to him, and he ran away!

Bottom line, I loved Batman because it was a good-a$$ movie!

WATCHMAN86

04-15-2006, 10:54 PM

B89 No Question I Mean Come On!!!.

Mr. Socko

04-15-2006, 11:06 PM

Another old thread you're bumping for some reason Watchman but I'm voting Batman. It's alot better then DareDevil.

El Payaso

04-16-2006, 01:32 AM

Batman all the way.

Daredevil was worst in every aspects, villiains, acting, love interest etc.

Daredevil. He moved better. Affleck fit his role better than Keaton. and the fight scenes were better.:cyclops:

Sure the CGI (Cartoony Goofy Images) were cool.

Sandman138

04-16-2006, 03:09 AM

Batman is a movie. DD is a collection of scenes thrown together haphazardly. Batman wins hands down.

CConn

04-16-2006, 03:55 AM

Batman.

Admittedly, I enjoyed the Director's Cut of DD, but I don't consider it to be anything more than a mediocre film. B89, however, is an extremely solid film all around, IMO.

Two-Face

04-16-2006, 08:08 AM

Batman (1989)

Morgoth

04-16-2006, 12:17 PM

I love Daredevil, especially the Director's Cut, but it is no where near as good as Batman.

It could have been better if they didn't mess with it so much, like the bad casting of KP and Bullseye. The BE costume was so lame.

At least Batman wasn't afraid to look like a comic book and have costumes etc.

captain_jimbo

04-16-2006, 02:36 PM

I liked Daredevil, but there's no question BATMAN is the best!:batman:

Mr. Socko

04-16-2006, 03:03 PM

Batman all the way.

Daredevil was worst in every aspects, villiains, acting, love interest etc.

Sure the CGI (Cartoony Goofy Images) were cool.

Priceless:up:

Spoarz™

04-16-2006, 03:28 PM

Where is the 'They both kick ass' option? :( :D

Mr. Socko

04-16-2006, 03:55 PM

edit nvm

I SEE SPIDEY

04-18-2006, 12:18 PM

Well lets see: Both of the leading men were miscast and the action scenes were pathetic in both movies. Still Batman had Jack being Jack...can't beat that and Burton is a cheap sloppy excuse of a director like MSJ. I'll have to go with the movie that didn't suck.

BATMAN!

El Payaso

04-18-2006, 05:12 PM

Mr. Socko

04-18-2006, 06:09 PM

cryptic name

04-18-2006, 09:10 PM

daredevil was such a let down for me when i saw it that i never recovered. i thought it was going to be such a gritty crime flick, but instead i got poorly executed wire-fu, overused cgi, and collin farrel managing the impossible and making me hate bullseye (not in a good way). batman on the other is one of the all time great comic films and features amazing performances from all its principles (even basinger had her moments). not too mention the awe inspiring sets and cool costumes and wardrobe. so, yeah...batman

Catman

02-07-2008, 01:13 AM

This thread needs to be bumped. :o Oh, and if you go to page 1 you'd see that Kevin and I were correct. :)

StylishHokie21

02-07-2008, 01:46 AM

Ehh....I don't see the comparisons. Daredevil was alright, but I think Batman wins this round. Great cast, dialogue, and cinematography...one of the best Batman movies, imo.

Catman

02-07-2008, 01:49 AM

Ehh....I don't see the comparisons.

This thread was created in 2003. People were crazy back then. :csad:

StylishHokie21

02-07-2008, 01:50 AM

This thread was created in 2003. People were crazy back then. :csad:

Haha! I just now noticed that. Whoops!

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-07-2008, 10:48 AM

This thread has the stupidest question Ive ever seen asked of anyone. How can anyone in their right mind compare the original Batman to Daredevil. I mean out of all the Marvel films, I dont mind Daredevil but it is so underneath Batman its not even worth saying.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-07-2008, 10:49 AM

Batman=amazing/revolution Daredevil=mediocre Crap

Cain

02-07-2008, 02:53 PM

DD couldn't even create an amalgam of the entire mythos up to that point and execute it properly. It came across as forced sometimes and made the film far too convoluted. Made it feel like DD's Greatest Hits as supposed to something a lot more cohesive. BATMAN on the other hand did. DD was one of the greatest dissapointments to me in comic movie history as I was majorly invested in the character years before a film version was ever announced and it was sad to see such little effort made to really bring his universe to life. BATMAN on the other hand is still my favorite superhero movie of all time. They were talking all this smack of being faithful ion particular to Miller's DD but the nods were superficial at best. The first act of Batman Begins is actually a lot more in tune with what I expected from a Miller influenced DD film. Seeing him training with Stick and traveling around the world and taking on the hand as opposed to Bullseye and Kingpin who should've just been developed in the first but not been the main villains.

kez1984

02-07-2008, 02:57 PM

Batman, daredevil was utter rubbish.

Mr. Socko

02-07-2008, 03:52 PM

Daredevil was a great movie. I completely understand why this thread was put in the misc Batman film section and I must naturally vote Daredevil because I just thought it was wow worthy with tremendous special effects and great story. MSJ is a real storyteller I tell you. I hear they are greenlighting that Daredevil sequel, I really hope Coolio returns too because the man was oscar-worthy!

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-07-2008, 04:24 PM

Superman Prime

02-07-2008, 04:28 PM

DD was weak.

StylishHokie21

02-07-2008, 06:04 PM

fabman

02-07-2008, 06:31 PM

Batman

Cain

02-07-2008, 06:31 PM

Riven

02-07-2008, 07:48 PM

Pah, you people and your silly comparisons... Batman and DD, that's peas in a pod! The REAL question is... Which one of these will hold up?
Fantastic Four 2 or... Citizen Kane ???

:huh: :wow:

BATS N' HORNETS

02-07-2008, 09:07 PM

Mr. Socko

02-07-2008, 09:36 PM

What's wrong with you people.... Daredevil? Yes it was a good movie, but it had too many flaws. PLUS it wasn't dark enough.

BATMAN WAS SO MUCH BETTER.... ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME...

i like Batman better than Batman Begins...

C'mon.... YOU PEOPLE ARE STRANGE HONKIES!

Strange hunkies? What? I thought I was a Pisces.

Come on, take a whif of my posy.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7383/bat071qe8.jpg

Dr. Fate

02-07-2008, 10:00 PM

Batman, definetly. Tim Burton is a much, much better director.
Definitely.

Bat Attack

02-11-2008, 07:20 PM

Batman '89 of course, why is this even a question? lol.

GoogleMe94

02-11-2008, 07:21 PM

WHO SAID THEY BOTH SUCKED!! I'LL KILL'EM!!!

haha jk

but this is no question, B89 kicks almost every other comic book movies ass. daredevil was TERRRRIBLEEE!!!!!!!!

Bruce_Wayne29

02-11-2008, 07:32 PM

Batman but I'm a huge fan of the Daredevil movie.

theShape

02-11-2008, 07:58 PM

I read through a little of this thread and it's funny how many people liked DD better. Well, actually, it's a little sad...

Bat Attack

02-11-2008, 08:05 PM

that is very sad.

Mladen

02-12-2008, 03:12 AM

i'm not sure how people can say that batman89 sucked? its one of the most popular (and lucrative) superhero films of all time.

christpunchers

02-12-2008, 06:49 AM

Not really a fair fight, how many people here actually watched DD the director's cut? It is by a better film than 89 IMO, I was really surprised at how good the director's cut was.

theShape

02-12-2008, 08:24 AM

Not really a fair fight, how many people here actually watched DD the director's cut? It is by a better film than 89 IMO, I was really surprised at how good the director's cut was.

What have you been smoking?

Yeah, the director's cut was an improvement over the theatrical, but the film was still fatally flawed, especially when compared to Batman 1989.

Super_Ludacris

02-12-2008, 08:25 AM

Both are similar yet very different. But have similar overtowns, and "twists" for the villains.

So which did you like better

Tim Burton's Batman (1989)

Or MSJ's Daredevil (2003)

Its funny looking back on threads like these.....

Daredevil FTW.

Super_Ludacris

02-12-2008, 08:31 AM

Actually lol@ a lot of the posts in here from 03. Man those were the days y'all...lol

I beg someone to up that thread that was made around the same time that read "Daredevil: How a Batman movie should be done"

christpunchers

02-13-2008, 09:09 AM

What have you been smoking?

Yeah, the director's cut was an improvement over the theatrical, but the film was still fatally flawed, especially when compared to Batman 1989.
89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-13-2008, 11:44 AM

Super_Ludacris

02-13-2008, 11:53 AM

*sits back and watches a Marvel and Burtonite go at it*

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-13-2008, 12:27 PM

Im not a Burtonite, Im not an anything "ite" I think that whole term is pretty pointless actually, I like pretty much all BATMAN and I love Marvel too, I just think its silly that most Marvel fans like everything Marvel even if its not good. Example, a Marvel fan saying Elektra was good, thats how you know they'll love anything Marvel thats thrown at them.

theShape

02-13-2008, 12:35 PM

89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

Daredevil was mediocre at best. Yeah, the Joker had much more screentime than the Daredevil villains, but Bullseye and Kingpin were two of the most uninteresting characters on film...ever, not to mention Affleck was pretty bad as well.

Daredevil was a film that tried to be dark and gritty like the '89 Batman, but failed and just turned out lame. I also think it's funny that the effects in DD were actually worse than those of Batman, which was made around 15 years earlier.

theShape

02-13-2008, 12:36 PM

And I'm in no means a Burtonite. :up:

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-13-2008, 12:46 PM

And I'm in no means a Burtonite. :up:

Im glad that someone agrees with me!

Dr. Fate

02-13-2008, 01:22 PM

theShape

02-13-2008, 04:57 PM

I agree.

And no, I'm not a Burtonite either, or a Nolanite. I like Batman in general. Daredevil's a good character too, but his film did not do him justice.

Yeah, DD had a lot of potential, but didn't capitalize on it.

Mr. Socko

02-13-2008, 11:46 PM

89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

I did like the director's cut of Daredevil, but I don't think it's better than Batman'89 in any way. B'89 is an entertaining film that, for me, captures the very spirit and essence of Batman near flawlessly. Daredevil had it's moments but was was rather forgettable in the end. Daredevil is also far more 'cheesy' than Batman'89.

Im not a Burtonite, Im not an anything "ite" I think that whole term is pretty pointless actually, I like pretty much all BATMAN and I love Marvel too, I just think its silly that most Marvel fans like everything Marvel even if its not good. Example, a Marvel fan saying Elektra was good, thats how you know they'll love anything Marvel thats thrown at them.

I am a Burtonite, and I will gladly defend every Tim Burton movie I love.:up:

StylishHokie21

02-14-2008, 01:19 AM

Not really a fair fight, how many people here actually watched DD the director's cut? It is by a better film than 89 IMO, I was really surprised at how good the director's cut was.

I did and it still doesn't compare with Batman 89. The directors cut was definitely an improvement, but that's not saying much.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-14-2008, 02:28 PM

I did like the director's cut of Daredevil, but I don't think it's better than Batman'89 in any way. B'89 is an entertaining film that, for me, captures the very spirit and essence of Batman near flawlessly. Daredevil had it's moments but was was rather forgettable in the end. Daredevil is also far more 'cheesy' than Batman'89.

I am a Burtonite, and I will gladly defend every Tim Burton movie I love.:up:

Im glad you feel that way, but me as a person would rather not have any "label" to what I like.

christpunchers

02-17-2008, 06:05 PM

You must be a Marvel whore (likes any garbage marvel puts out). Hey not being a jerk but you have a sm3 avatar, what does that tell you?

Are you still in Highschool? I like a movie, I don't care if its comedy drama super hero marvel DC whatever, just because I had a sm3 gif that I put up A LONG time ago doesnt mean I'm a marvel fan. You basement dwelling fan boys need to lighten up. I'm not a fan boy of ANYTHING. In fact I think most superhero movies are done very poorly. I dont hate DC or hate Marvel, as long as the stuff is good I'm there to enjoy it. IN FACT, sm3 was by far the worst superhero movie in recent times for me. So please, grow up. Stop labeling people like people like each of them belongs in some set-to-stone category. It's that sort of geeky attitude which gives "comic book" fan boys a bad name.

christpunchers

02-17-2008, 06:13 PM

Daredevil was mediocre at best. Yeah, the Joker had much more screentime than the Daredevil villains, but Bullseye and Kingpin were two of the most uninteresting characters on film...ever, not to mention Affleck was pretty bad as well.

Daredevil was a film that tried to be dark and gritty like the '89 Batman, but failed and just turned out lame. I also think it's funny that the effects in DD were actually worse than those of Batman, which was made around 15 years earlier.

Maybe affleck is usually so horrible that in this film he actually did pretty good, I mean for an actor of his caliber I think he did a good job, it looked like he tried quite hard to play with the material he was given.

I don't really care about special effects, they rarely make up a movie for me. DD felt like a nice light hearted movie, maybe it's cuz of that, because I don't take it too seriously, i ended up enjoying the director's cut. It had a sense of reality to it while still being comic-booky.

DACrowe

02-18-2008, 08:03 PM

I ****ing forgot about this thread.

I made it because many (like with every new "it" movie) were calling DD the best of the genre upon release. I made this thread because I thought maybe B'89 could win here (as the DD forum was trashing it). I remember thinking it was a fair thread because I saw DD in theaters hammered and it was a great experience. Now looking back, this is not even a contest. One is a work of art. The other is at best average in its superior form (director's cut). Oh well.

BTW y'all may not remember but DD was winning this thread for all of 2003. Just a point about fanboys being biased and unreasonable when something new and shiny comes out.

Milu

02-18-2008, 08:10 PM

I like B89 better, but the director's cut of DD is still a very strong film, though.

That'ssuper!

02-19-2008, 12:41 AM

I liked Batman better, however they still didn't live up to their potential.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-19-2008, 10:58 AM

Are you still in Highschool? I like a movie, I don't care if its comedy drama super hero marvel DC whatever, just because I had a sm3 gif that I put up A LONG time ago doesnt mean I'm a marvel fan. You basement dwelling fan boys need to lighten up. I'm not a fan boy of ANYTHING. In fact I think most superhero movies are done very poorly. I dont hate DC or hate Marvel, as long as the stuff is good I'm there to enjoy it. IN FACT, sm3 was by far the worst superhero movie in recent times for me. So please, grow up. Stop labeling people like people like each of them belongs in some set-to-stone category. It's that sort of geeky attitude which gives "comic book" fan boys a bad name.
Im not a geek, or a fan-boy, watch how you talk to me!! lol I understand what you mean, and Im not "labeling" people at all, but most people that liked sm3 like other crap marvel movies, im sorry that film was awful. I like most all comic-book films, and I always give them a chance, dont take the debate to a personal level or you might regret it, im debating movies, not the kind of person I am,

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-19-2008, 10:59 AM

to everyone else on this thread, its been a good debate, I just hate when people attempt to get personal and off the source material, thats when most make the worst mistakes on these boards.

Dr. Fate

02-21-2008, 12:44 PM

Random Comment - Batman 1989 actually feels like a real film. Daredevil felt like a giant music video with subpar CGI effects.

Two-Face

02-21-2008, 01:20 PM

Batman (1989)

Bat Attack

02-21-2008, 04:44 PM

love the avvy Two-Face, :up::up:

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-21-2008, 04:49 PM

Random Comment - Batman 1989 actually feels like a real film. Daredevil felt like a giant music video with subpar CGI effects.

That makes me laugh, I so agree with you. They tried their hardest to not make the effects look like Spiderman's effects, but they failed miserably.

Bat Attack

02-21-2008, 09:09 PM

the CGI in spidey 1 looks pretty bad now IMO, especially the first climbing scene. But I realize it was 7 years ago. But 2 and 3 had fantastic CGI!

The Joker_1000

02-22-2008, 03:58 AM

I hope this isn't a serious question because Batman (1989) is wayyyy better than Daredevil on every single level there is. Daredevil sucked, I couldn't even watch the whole thing. Also, to make things worser I watched it while it aired on TV & I kept falling asleep throughout the entire duration of the movie. Batman (1989) was the perfect Batman movie of the old franchise. It was dark, gritty, funny when necessary, etc. The film also starred some great actors who were really into their roles. Daredevil didn't have any of that.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-22-2008, 10:37 AM

The Joker_1000

02-22-2008, 03:40 PM

Not funny. That movie sucked.

The Joker_1000

02-22-2008, 03:40 PM

Not funny. That movie sucked.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

02-22-2008, 03:52 PM

Not funny. That movie sucked.

Ya it did, it sucked so bad it makes me laugh..lol

Bat Attack

02-22-2008, 03:58 PM

batman44

02-22-2008, 08:59 PM

Batman ('89) easily.

Dr. Fate

02-22-2008, 10:31 PM

Can you imagine Daredevil being riffed on MST3K? That would have been fun.

The Joker_1000

02-23-2008, 12:31 AM

Absolutely! nice avvy btw. :up:

Thanks. I kept this avatar because I actually feel comfortable with it, the other ones I had I didn't like too much for some reason.

Gianakin_

02-24-2008, 10:37 AM

Genius vs. Hack? I'll go with Genius. Batman wins.

The Joker_1000

02-28-2008, 10:56 PM

As always. Of course a guy in a batsuit is more interesting than a blind guy fighting crime to me anyday.

El Payaso

02-29-2008, 08:57 AM

Batman is better that Daredevil in every possible aspect. And every impossible one too.

Damiean Dark

03-01-2008, 12:07 AM

The beginning of DD had so much potential though....the fight scene and the scars DD taking a mass of pain killers and then sleeping in a sensory depredation tank was amazing but it soon seemed to go downhill from there electra was awful i cant beleive they couldnt find a hispanic, greeck looking actress? Bullseye was amusing but a little too over the top imo and ben afleck himself though he tries his best is to naturally built to play DD who has a far more skinny but really toned physiqe.

The Joker_1000

03-01-2008, 12:37 AM

Batman is better that Daredevil in every possible aspect. And every impossible one too.

Daredevil is a boring ass character & that's the biggest reason his movie failed. Daredevil will never be an interesting character to me, no matter who's in the role.

BatmanForNever

03-01-2008, 12:43 AM

Batman will always be my number 1.

Followed by: Spider-Man, Wolverine, Spawn, and Iron Man.

The Joker_1000

03-01-2008, 01:16 AM

1. Batman

2. Superman

3. Nightwing

4. Spider-Man

5. The Hulk

BatmanForNever

03-01-2008, 01:32 AM

1. Batman

2. Superman

3. Nightwing

4. Spider-Man

5. The Hulk

Never been much into Nightwing, but I love Robin.

I also like Cyclops, though not many people seem to. He was awesome and well written in the uncanny comics.

The Joker_1000

03-01-2008, 01:51 AM

I love Nightwing, he was pretty badass in TAS.

Dr. Fate

03-01-2008, 09:00 AM

Never been much into Nightwing, but I love Robin.

I also like Cyclops, though not many people seem to. He was awesome and well written in the uncanny comics.
Cyclops is sadly underrated and overlooked in a world where everyone seems obsessed with Wolverine.

El Payaso

03-01-2008, 09:11 AM

Daredevil is a boring ass character & that's the biggest reason his movie failed. Daredevil will never be an interesting character to me, no matter who's in the role.

Not to mention that the movie tried to rip off Batman character and story as much as it could.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-01-2008, 10:49 AM

Not to mention that the movie tried to rip off Batman character and story as much as it could.

Ya I agree, just like the scene where his dad is killed. Though I do admit that scene looks quite a bit like the one from BB, as the camera pans out and all.

I Am The Knight

03-01-2008, 12:21 PM

Batman is better that Daredevil in every possible aspect. And every impossible one too.

Brilliant! Hahaha!

Seriously, DD suckorz. I realize this is an old thread (who brought it back??) but you cannot pit Burton's Batman against MSJ-whatever's Daredevil and not get laughs.

Green Goblin 1964

03-01-2008, 02:53 PM

Comparing B89 to Daredevil is....

:dry:

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-01-2008, 05:04 PM

Goblin your avatar is SWEEEEEETT!

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-01-2008, 05:07 PM

Cyclops is sadly underrated and overlooked in a world where everyone seems obsessed with Wolverine.

I know this is off topic, but I totally agree, not that Cyclops is one of my fav Xmen, but he is and always has been the leader. I like Wolvie just as much as the next guy, but when they killed off Scott in X3 and made Wolverine the leader, I was angry, Wolverine is not the leader type. They only did that cause everyone knows Wolverine is most peoples favorite Xmen character, which makes me angry.

Damiean Dark

03-02-2008, 12:46 AM

I know this is off topic, but I totally agree, not that Cyclops is one of my fav Xmen, but he is and always has been the leader. I like Wolvie just as much as the next guy, but when they killed off Scott in X3 and made Wolverine the leader, I was angry, Wolverine is not the leader type. They only did that cause everyone knows Wolverine is most peoples favorite Xmen character, which makes me angry.

That was a terrible mistake from the writers your right Wolvie would lead but would do so reluctantly. Storm should have stepped up she is (or should be) second in command to cyke but considering Halle Berrys crappy performance (wheres the strong willed storm with the slight air of nobility from the comics?) i didnt hope for much from her. I really think James Marsden should return his cyke is one of the great underated superhero movie performances imo its like he walked off the comic book page but gained a new emotional dimension while doing so.

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 12:51 AM

Cyclops nees to sty dead & as far as I'm concerned, with the script she was given, Halle Berry did good enough.

Damiean Dark

03-02-2008, 12:52 AM

Will Marsden return for X4? i pray they find some way to do it a scene with Wolvie, Beast, and cyclops would be amazing i would love that girl from Juno to return as shadowcat, she was great in the role but now her profile has increased she may be reluctant to return i would also recast Iceman he was a whinney idiot in X2,3 where was the cocky joker of the comics?

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 12:52 AM

Cyclops needs to stay dead.

Damiean Dark

03-02-2008, 12:57 AM

Cyclops nees to sty dead & as far as I'm concerned, with the script she was given, Halle Berry did good enough.

Nah Cyke is one of the greatest ever Xmen just because he doesnt have issues and is just a great leader makes him boring to some :whatever: and Berry was crap imo she just didnt cut it you can read the minds of the producers of the movies like a book in regards to her casting "lets find a black actress to play storm....halle berry!" there are plenty of good black actresses who would have suited better but you cant blame the producers for getting probably the most famous to pull in the crowds i suppose.

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 12:59 AM

Cyclops needs to stay dead.

He shouldn't have died, he shouldn't even have been in X3 if they were going to do that, Xavier shouldn't have died, Jean shouldn't have. X3 is a pile o steaming crap. My X-Men movies begin with X1 and stop a X2, X3 does not exist in my mind...it never happened.

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 01:02 AM

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 01:07 AM

Like you said, it's the unwanted stepchild (at least to you). As for Xavier, he didn't die, he transported his mind into another body. However, I will say that Jean shouldn't have died & the main reason I hate Cyclops in the movies is because he's a douche.

The Cyclops in the movie isn't the Cyclops from the books. He is the leader yet has been under-used and written wrong since the first film.

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 01:11 AM

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 01:14 AM

Like I said, he was a douche & I didn't like his character portrayal (not that James Marsden is a bad actor). However, I will say that I absolutely love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier, Kelsey Grammar as Beast, & Ian McKellen as Magneto.

Ian McKellen looked too old and fragile for me to be Magneto.

I always thought the role needed to go to someone more physically adapt and more youthful looking that him. Though he had good chemistry with Charles.

Jackman won me over after the beginning in X2. Never liked the fact that he was taller than Cyclops.

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 01:18 AM

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 01:23 AM

I never really cared or noticed Wolverine's height in the movies because of how well he portrayed Wolverine. As for Magneto, if we get a new franchise a few years from now, by all means get someone younger for Magneto but for the universe we were given in the X-Men movies we got, Ian McKellen was good enough.

Well it wasn't just the height, it was a lot of things, he got the attitude right and what not I suppose. The films just revolved too much around him, and the 3rd was so chalked full of mutants that no ones story really developed farther and other x-men were underused or not used at all.

Damiean Dark

03-02-2008, 01:38 AM

Remember the early magneto appearences showed him to be an older man he was a WW2 orphan after all read books like good loves man kills and you can see Mckellen looks exactly like he should.

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 01:42 AM

Remember the early magneto appearences showed him to be an older man he was a WW2 orphan after all read books like good loves man kills and you can see Mckellen looks exactly like he should.

The GN that X2 is based off of. My Magneto in my mind is the JIm Lee Magneto, strong, cunning, handsome, conniving, but a ruthless visionary.

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 01:47 AM

Well, even if we get a reboot, I don't really want Magneto as the main villain again anyway. It gets old to have the same villain in the movies over & over again.

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 01:56 AM

Well, even if we get a reboot, I don't really want Magneto as the main villain again anyway. It gets old to have the same villain in the movies over & over again.

I hope they leave X-Men alone for awhile after Wolverine...I'm getting tired of Hollywood ruining comic book movies...they are really starting to suck hard.

The Hulk, The Punisher, Catwoman, Elektra, Blade 3, Superman Returns, X3,...all range from mediocre to terrible at best.

The cream of the crop are X1 and X2, Spider-Man 1 and 2, Hellboy, and Batman Begins.

Iron Man looks sweet as does The Dark Knight...but they should leave some franchises be. Funny how they are "rebooting" the Hulk only after a few years...how lame is that?

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 02:00 AM

Them rebooting the Hulk isn't lame, it's a great idea because we don't have some idiot director behind the project that wants to focus more on love stories & boring talking than the actual main attraction which is the Hulk. Also, I don't see why SR gets a bad wrap, it's the best Superman movie since Superman II.

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 02:03 AM

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 02:14 AM

Yes, they did suck but SR was a great movie in my eyes. It had great actors, a great story, etc. It was a great starting point for a new franchise & I can't wait to see a sequel.

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 02:18 AM

Yes, they did suck but SR was a great movie in my eyes. It had great actors, a great story, etc. It was a great starting point for a new franchise & I can't wait to see a sequel.

Sequel better be good, if we ever get one. The pacing was too slow, Superman was a creeper, and now he was a kid.

I just want to see him battle damn Darkseid and Doomsday. Really get a pounding and give someone a whooping.

The Joker_1000

03-02-2008, 02:22 AM

Superman isn't all about action & he was not a creeper, he wanted to see what had gone on with Lois in the last few years & he wanted to right the wrongs he felt he had done to here. I seriously love SR, no matter what anyone says. I even prefer it more than Superman (1979).

Mr. Socko

03-02-2008, 05:55 PM

The GN that X2 is based off of. My Magneto in my mind is the JIm Lee Magneto, strong, cunning, handsome, conniving, but a ruthless visionary.

With the exception of that the third one, Ian's Magneto exhibited all of those qualities. Physically he did not look very strong but he carried himself in a powerful stature. The scene where he is rallying members of the brotherhood in the cathedral shows how convincing he was. And the fact that he would stop at nothing and attempted to make Charles decimate every human on earth and leave only the mutants proved he was a ruthless visionary. I thought McKellen was brilliant in every way. It sounds to me like you dislike him because he doesn't look like a Jim Lee drawn power lifter from Olympus. Yeah, well none of the actors who have played Batman looks like Lee's ridiculous roid drawings either.

Damiean Dark

03-02-2008, 10:36 PM

Exactly Magneto is pushing 60+ in the early comics they appropriatlly drew him similerly to his age it was later they turned him into a man who looked no more then early 40s with white hair this coupled with Mckellen and stewarts great chemistry make the first 2 x films my favourite of the genre.

TLH

03-02-2008, 10:50 PM

Batman 89. This isn't even a contest. Daredevil's director's cut had some good things but overall it didn't even come close to the original Batman. I'm not even sure how this comparison is justified.

BatmanForNever

03-02-2008, 11:13 PM

Batman 89. This isn't even a contest. Daredevil's director's cut had some good things but overall it didn't even come close to the original Batman. I'm not even sure how this comparison is justified.

Me either, perhaps Superman or Batman Begins would have made a better comparison.

Why didn't we just compare Batman 89' to the Lion King?

Soundwave88

03-03-2008, 02:50 PM

Hands down its Batman because its the movie i grew up with as a kid and yah to this day i still think its good. I do like the DareDevil movie but yah nothing can beat when Bat-Wing and the moon sence pure glory!

Jick09

03-03-2008, 09:05 PM

Batman is a movie I grew up with. I always loved it.
but, after watching Daredevil's DC, I just liked the movie even more.
it's a tie, for me. really hard to choose.

The Joker_1000

03-11-2008, 04:56 AM

DD sucked while Batman (1989) didn't, I don't see how it could be a tie for anyone.

Super_Ludacris

03-11-2008, 06:18 AM

I can lol and its hilarious why

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-11-2008, 10:07 AM

DD had potential, but didnt get to where it needed to be, it failed.

Genosha

03-11-2008, 01:24 PM

DD DC is better IMO. But I'm a completely unreliable opinion because I like DD as a character more.

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-11-2008, 01:58 PM

DD DC is better IMO. But I'm a completely unreliable opinion because I like DD as a character more.

Well than you should see how DD as a film did not do the character justice at all.

TLH

03-11-2008, 02:44 PM

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-11-2008, 03:04 PM

The only thing I will give Daredevil is that there was that great scene with the young, blind Murdock holding his dad after he was killed. Although now we've got a version of that with a good movie surrounding it...called Batman Begins.

Ive stated this before both of those scenes are very VERY similar. The panning out shot of the fallen parent/parents and their child mourning, its pretty close to be the same.

StylishHokie21

03-11-2008, 03:34 PM

DD sucked while Batman (1989) didn't, I don't see how it could be a tie for anyone.

Me neither.

Genosha

03-11-2008, 07:20 PM

Well than you should see how DD as a film did not do the character justice at all.

I disagree. Even though it compacted and condensed a lot of DD history into one 2 hour block, I thought the essential core of DD as a character was definitely there.

I am well aware that the majority of fans believe the movie is sub-par. Daredevil just happens to be one of those films (And we all have movies like this) that I'm in the minority on its merit.http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

DaRkVeNgeanCe

03-11-2008, 09:47 PM

I disagree. Even though it compacted and condensed a lot of DD history into one 2 hour block, I thought the essential core of DD as a character was definitely there.

I am well aware that the majority of fans believe the movie is sub-par. Daredevil just happens to be one of those films (And we all have movies like this) that I'm in the minority on its merit.http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
I understand completely, Im a minority fan to many films, the typical fan likes. I do like DD for what it is, I just wish it was done a little better and taken a little more seriously, WITHOUT Elektra or Jennifer Garner for that matter.

Damiean Dark

03-12-2008, 01:43 AM

DD had potential the opening scenes in the sensory depradation tank where great i just think affleck wasnt a great DD Micheal C White who stars in Dexter on TV could be a amazing DD imo he has a great look and the right build and is a good actor but not too famous to take away from the movie.

the_joker

03-14-2008, 08:27 PM

Wow, I can't believe 47 people thought Daredevil was better than B89. Just wow. Forgetting about the comparison poll for the moment, I personally thought DD was pretty bad. I don't think I even finished watching it. Found the storyline too predictable and I thought Affleck was pretty bad in it as well. But then as of this moment, I can't think of a single film to date where Affleck's acting is actually good.

So really, there's no comparison with B89 which, let us remember, was ground-breaking for its time and is the highest grossing Batman film to date. It's a shame that the nolan fanboys can not bear to say, "well B89 is actually an okay movie really, especially in comparison with DD". We get you love BB, I do too, but to choose DD over B89 is just below the belt!

TLH

03-14-2008, 08:58 PM

Carlynn Carnage

03-31-2008, 02:19 AM

Batman

The Joker_1000

03-31-2008, 05:17 AM

I don't care how you look at it, Daredevil sucked.

Finlandman

03-31-2008, 07:21 AM

Both are similar yet very different. But have similar overtowns, and "twists" for the villains.

So which did you like better

Tim Burton's Batman (1989)

Or MSJ's Daredevil (2003)

You must be kidding me...

Punishment

03-31-2008, 08:37 AM

Batman is so much better than Daredevil, i dont mind Daredevil but Tim Burtons Batman is Amazing