Am I the only one who feels like B'89 is vastly overrated?

[El Payaso]

Burton was clearly being faithful to an original dark era of the character.

It is good to have a fresh air of reality after so much half-assed biased lecturing.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Burton was clearly being faithful to an original dark era of the character.

Point me to the clown who was arguing otherwise ...

Yes, Burton did a FANTASTIC job of making characitures of the characters in the Batman mythos.

He's a visuals guy, he knows how to adapt an image, that's for sure.

 

[MysterioMenace]

I’m so pleased to see such overwhelming positive posts. It seems so many kids today have such disrespect for Burtons original film. Truthfully I find it to be brilliant. Batman (89) and Batman Begins are the only live-action films I feel are worthy of viewing. Batman Returns I’d say is only held up by select Catwoman scenes, otherwise it’s lousy. I still feel that Burtons original has many things over Nolan. The batmobile for starters, arguably the coolest one ever made. An iconic theme beautiful and atmospherically rendered by Danny Elfman, whereas Begins has primarily a score that’s rather forgettable and lacking any real established theme. Truly paying respect to the comic book elements of the stories, whereas Nolan (personally) changes too much for that so-called realism. I do feel Burton’s Batman is more accurate both visually and atmospherically. Finally Gotham; Burton established Gotham as an brooding and darkly beautiful gothic slum. Nolan’s Gotham is just unnoticeable background, Burtons is in-and-of itself a character, as Gotham should be. So I still feel we’ve yet to reach the perfect Batman film. I doubt we’ll ever reach it, but I feel a blending of Nolan’s psychology and Burtons atmosphere would be the closest to achieving a perfectly accurate comic book portrayal.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

There is an established theme in the BEGINS score. The score caters the story, as opposed to over shadowing it. Having a better Batmobile? Ugh, superficial crap. Nolan tells a story of Batman ... Tim Burton has images on a screen that playcate the viewer into thinking its a Batman film. Charicatures of the mythos and characters that inhabit it. And as explained in TDK reviews, like everything Burton, Gotham is superficially dirty. In Nolan's Batman movies? Gotham is a real living breathing world that reacts accordingly to it's citizens. And though it doesn't gush with Gothic architexture (which Gotham never was in the comics, read Year One / The Killing Joker, Nolan's Gotham is exactly like it visually) ... Nolan's Gotham is more threatning and oppressive.

 

[The Guard]

No one makes a transom as cool as Burton.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

No one makes a transom as cool as Burton.

Yet he can't tell a coherent, meaningful story with character depth and emotion for ****. Basically he should stick to animation, or set and costume design or something. He can't express himself in words or in story. Stick to picture, Timmy.

 

[The Joker]

I think the chip on your shoulder has a chip on it's shoulder, Grin Reaper.

 

[MysterioMenace]

There is an established theme in the BEGINS score. The score caters the story, as opposed to over shadowing it. Having a better Batmobile? Ugh, superficial crap. Nolan tells a story of Batman ... Tim Burton has images on a screen that playcate the viewer into thinking its a Batman film. Charicatures of the mythos and characters that inhabit it. And as explained in TDK reviews, like everything Burton, Gotham is superficially dirty. In Nolan's Batman movies? Gotham is a real living breathing world that reacts accordingly to it's citizens. And though it doesn't gush with Gothic architexture (which Gotham never was in the comics, read Year One / The Killing Joker, Nolan's Gotham is exactly like it visually) ... Nolan's Gotham is more threatning and oppressive.

You could've just shorten this to "Yes I'll suck your *** Mr. Nolan" and save yourself some time. And Gotham's never been gothic? I think the previous page alone proves you wrong. Stop being to blindly bias. That's just a straight up lie. Burtons films were designed to look like a comic book. They suceeded. Nolan's were designed to look realistic aka bland backgrounds. Threatening and oppressive? ...how? They look more like normal buildings to me. That’s what you get when you make Chicago your Gotham City. You get buildings and nothing more. Shooting the grittiest and darkest city in comic book history…in one of the cleanest major cities in America. Way to go! You’ve come very far from achieving a Gotham city that’s threatening and oppressive.

And by the way, I’m very familiar with Year One and Killing Joke…though I can’t say I’m familiar with The Killing Joker. Hah! I've yet to read that one. But you do realize that Killing Joke primarily takes place in a carnival outside of Gotham City, so that‘s a pretty moot point there. Plus the mood and atmosphere of those comics is gothic and shadowed anyway. I just flipped through a ton of Batman books, including those you've specifically mentioned and Batman Chronicles #1, and you cannot debate Batman is gothic. His books haven't always been, chalk that up to the comics code, but conceptually and from the 70's and up they mostly have been. Year One also is considered a relatively modern work in comparison to the Batman mythology entirely. Acknowledge something made before the late 80’s and maybe then you’ll impress me. Until then you just come off as a disgruntled bandwagon Dark Knight follower.

 

[co2]

I’m so pleased to see such overwhelming positive posts. It seems so many kids today have such disrespect for Burtons original film. Truthfully I find it to be brilliant. Batman (89) and Batman Begins are the only live-action films I feel are worthy of viewing. Batman Returns I’d say is only held up by select Catwoman scenes, otherwise it’s lousy.

On those points, I am 100% in agreement.

 

[Mr. E]

Even though I like Batman Begins and the Dark Knight alot more, I still appreciate and enjoy the first Batman. Nostalgia has alot to do with it, but I still think it's a pretty solid film that I will never shun.

 

[returntovoid]

edit

 

[theMan-Bat]

gush with Gothic architexture (which Gotham never was in the comics

Gotham did indeed gush with Gothic architecture in the comics long before Burton's 1989 Batman film.
Batman #400 (1986):

Detective #527 (1983):

Detective #537 (1984):

Greatest Batman Stories Every Told (1988):

 

[El Payaso]

Gotham did indeed gush with Gothic architecture in the comics long before Burton's 1989 Batman film.
Batman #400 (1986):

Detective #527 (1983):

Detective #537 (1984):

Greatest Batman Stories Every Told (1988):

And once again reality strikes back.

 

[eledoremassis02]

Nothing overrated about this:

 

[MysterioMenace]

Gotham did indeed gush with Gothic architecture in the comics long before Burton's 1989 Batman film.
Batman #400 (1986):

Detective #527 (1983):

Detective #537 (1984):

Greatest Batman Stories Every Told (1988):

Great post! Thanks again for backing my point! Gotham has been Gothic for decades! Anyone that says otherwise is simply ignorant.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

some people will just never get it huh? lol

 

[The Guard]

Gotham having gargoyles in the comics doesn't neccessarily mean it ever looked like Tim Burton's Gotham did overall in BATMAN. Not that I give a damn, as Batman never wore all black in the comics before the movie, and he looked great in all black. Sometimes movies change things for the better.

 

[returntovoid]

edit

 

[The Batman]

Burtons Batman is the only version of the supposed "psychotic Batman" that I actually liked...probably due to his kane inspired characterization and keatons performance

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Gotham having gargoyles in the comics doesn't neccessarily mean it ever looked like Tim Burton's Gotham did overall in BATMAN. Not that I give a damn, as Batman never wore all black in the comics before the movie, and he looked great in all black. Sometimes movies change things for the better.

Damn right!!

 

[Mr. Socko]

The director's job is to look at the source material that came before it, keep the 'essence' of the character and make it their own. Burton, Schumacher, and Nolan all did this. Comic book writers and artists also do the exact same thing. I'll continue to keep to the belief that no interpretation is more valid than another, as long as the meaning and essence of the character is there. Even Adam West got it right.

In reference to the Dark Knight Returns, I don't ever hear, "Miller got Batman wrong because he's angry and old and rides around in a tank." I suppose it is a double standard that comic book writers can do whatever they like and it's entrusted as the holy canon while film directors and writers shouldn't be able to have any freedom says the fanboy.

 

[co2]

Great post! Thanks again for backing my point! Gotham has been Gothic for decades! Anyone that says otherwise is simply ignorant.

Of course it has. The name of the damn city is GOTHam. Do people not realize what that name was meant to imply?

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

You could've just shorten this to "Yes I'll suck your *** Mr. Nolan" and save yourself some time.

Well I might have to considering he just delivered back to back the two greatest Batman motion pictures, and the best movie of its caliber and genere. I mean Nolan is just a vast superior talent to Burton. Nolan co-wrote and directed the best superhero movie of all-time, and the best back to back comic book movies seen on screen. He deserves it from all bat-fans. Just get on your knees Bat-fans, and ...

And Gotham's never been gothic?

Gargoyles hear and there ... but the architexture of the city was never before B89 potrayed as a Gothic for the sake of being Gothic. Never. And what makes over stylized Gothic architexture threatning? I live in Chicago, and there is elements to my city that make Burton's visual look to his city look like happy town. Real cities have various elements that make it up. Not entirely poor and run down, there is wealthy areas, different styles of architexture built up over generations.

Burtons films were designed to look like a comic book.

And?

Nolan's were designed to look realistic aka bland backgrounds. Threatening and oppressive? ...how?

Yes, Chris Nolan puts you in a contemporary enviornment that sucks the audience in and makes them feel they are actually immersed in a world that is similar to our own ... therefore there is more relatability to the heroes, and the villains and their acts feel more threatning and dangerous. No wonder Burton fans don't understand concepts like this ... like Burton compared to Nolan, there is an intelligence gap there. haha

It's more threatning and oppressing because the world is relatable in look and feel ... thus making the insane actions of the characters inside of it more believable. Threatning doesn't come from overly stylized Gothic architexture, naked men statues in claustrophobic Wal-Mart sized Gotham set pieces. The inhabitants of Nolan's Gotham are more threatning. The people make it threatning, not the look of buildings. Buildings that look like a flip side to say Candy Land? No ... threatning is slums based off real life oppressive low income housing. Oppressive and threatning is the elements that holds the people of Gotham down by their greed and corruption.

They look more like normal buildings to me. That’s what you get when you make Chicago your Gotham City.

Gotham is supposed to be a real breathing city, massive with depth. Who says Gotham translates to Gothic? I've heard no one downplay how threatning Gotham feels in Nolan's movie universe for Batman. In fact, they gush how it is a very scary place, the scariest seen on screen for Batman.

They're supposed to be normal buildings. Look at Batman: Year One ... city feels real and is still threatning without going overboard with a circle jerk of Gothic fantasy. And the look of Nolan's Gotham is on point with Batman: Year One.

You’ve come very far from achieving a Gotham city that’s threatening and oppressive.

Tell that to the critics who have said from BEGINS to TDK, Gotham and the world created by Nolan has gave way to the MOST FRIGHTENING comic book world seen on screen. Why? People lose themselves in the film because the movie world Nolan creates bleeds into what we know and feel living in our own everyday world.

Burton had Gothic fantasia? Wow, threatning. Oh I forgot, Penguins with rockets, Clowns shaking their ass to Prince and defacing art in museums ... FRIGHTENING!!!

Acknowledge something made before the late 80’s and maybe then you’ll impress me. Until then you just come off as a disgruntled bandwagon Dark Knight follower.

Countless stories prior to the 80's has Batman set in a city that wasn't a Gothic toilet. Never was the city ever made up of that much Gothic architexture in the source material ... NEVER. It was always to whatever extent they took it visually, a recognizable city.

A bandwagon Dark Knight follower? LOL ... uhh, ok. I can live with that, whatever it means. I was around as a Batman fan before B89 ... don't be salty Nolan has put out the 2 BEST Bat-films of all-time. Without a single piece of overly fashioned Gothic set piece.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Gotham having gargoyles in the comics doesn't neccessarily mean it ever looked like Tim Burton's Gotham did overall in BATMAN. Not that I give a damn, as Batman never wore all black in the comics before the movie, and he looked great in all black. Sometimes movies change things for the better.

Defintely ... Gotham being overly stylized Gothic, was that one of them? Or how about the giant naked men statues Burton introduced in Batman Returns? Did the entire massive world of Gotham in the comics rotate and only take place on a 2-3 block radius the way it does in both B89 and Batman Returns?

haha

 

[DACMAN]

I’m so pleased to see such overwhelming positive posts. It seems so many kids today have such disrespect for Burtons original film. Truthfully I find it to be brilliant. Batman (89) and Batman Begins are the only live-action films I feel are worthy of viewing. Batman Returns I’d say is only held up by select Catwoman scenes, otherwise it’s lousy. I still feel that Burtons original has many things over Nolan. The batmobile for starters, arguably the coolest one ever made. An iconic theme beautiful and atmospherically rendered by Danny Elfman, whereas Begins has primarily a score that’s rather forgettable and lacking any real established theme. Truly paying respect to the comic book elements of the stories, whereas Nolan (personally) changes too much for that so-called realism. I do feel Burton’s Batman is more accurate both visually and atmospherically. Finally Gotham; Burton established Gotham as an brooding and darkly beautiful gothic slum. Nolan’s Gotham is just unnoticeable background, Burtons is in-and-of itself a character, as Gotham should be. So I still feel we’ve yet to reach the perfect Batman film. I doubt we’ll ever reach it, but I feel a blending of Nolan’s psychology and Burtons atmosphere would be the closest to achieving a perfectly accurate comic book portrayal.

Totally disagree. Gotham was more alive in Nolan's. It seems like a living breathing city I could go visit. Burton's ALWAYS looks like a set. It ALWAYS looks fake as heck. At least Nolan's looks like a real city and not just a backdrop. And Begin's theme song is much darker and serious. While Burton's is almost cartoonish (though good).


And batmobile? One word. Realism. They injected so much realism into it you can't ever go back to the old ones without laughing your head off. It looks ridiculous. Bat wings on the bumber... I'll take the tumbler anyday.

This one looks like a joke.


And the biggest thing of all.... Bruce Wayne. Keaton sucked. There, I said it. He was too old, too ugly, not buff enough, not tough enough, and lacked the likeable factor Bale has in spades.

Looks like an ugly push over.

Looks like pretty boy Bruce Wayne.

The only thing Burton's is good for now is nostalgia.


Just my opinion.