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

[batzilla]

I agree with TC 100%. B89 is crap now. It was fine for 1989 but now it just...sucks. All IMO mind you!

Different strokes.

I remember so clearly being extremely fired up for it. I was at the midnight opening and while I did enjoy it, I felt somewhat let down by Jack's Joker. Even back then, to me, the Joker should have been portrayed far more evil and a WHOLE lot less goofy and silly as Jack played him.

And Batman Returns was just plain AWFUL! It was soooooo obviously shot on a tiny, and I mean tiiiiiiny sound stage that I imagined them renting out some high school auditorium stage to film it on. I remember being completely floored at just how terrible that movie was. Every single aspect of it. From the ridiculous Catwoman (and her LAME origin! WTF? Falls out a window and cats lick her and POOF! She's a super villain? lol!) and the stupid acting, gross, just plain dumb Penguin? GOD I hated that movie! I actually got depressed in the theater and came VERY close to walking out. I was with 3 fellow Batman fans and we all were VERY disappointed.

But, I realize we are discussing B89 so... I apologize for my little Returns rant

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Batzilla is another newbie on the "Dont know what theyre talking about" list! lol

 

[batzilla]

And one other point. **** the critics! Who gives a crap what they think? They are no different than you or I.

Well, I do understand they may know more technically about how a movie SHOULD be laid out or whatever but when it really comes down to it, NEVER let someone else make up your mind for YOU!

I admit that I am occasionally guilty of reading "reviews" and doing so to get some kind of idea of what to expect but I still make up my own opinion (as do you all I am sure) but still... critics are people that couldn't do themselves what they are critiquing IMO t:

BTW, just over 35 hours to go! I CAN'T WAIT!!!

 

[The Guard]

I think those of you who insist on calling everything that Nolan didn't create a joke are just...children. Ridiculously immature, and such massive sheep.

I agree that Gotham did not look all THAT gothic. It just looked really dark.

I've never understood why people have an issue with Burton's giant naked statues. It's like people have never seen a statue before.

Christian Bale really physically doesn't look much more like the comic book Bruce Wayne than Keaton did. Bale just happens to be taller.

Calling the sets on BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS tiny is just absurd. The sets were MASSIVE. It's just denial to say otherwise. What they "looked" like to you "they look like sets!" people is irrelevant. They don't look any smaller or more cramped than almost any other film, and they were HUGE sets.

I hate mindless absolutists. Not always, mind you. Just most of the time.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

batzilla is there anyone on here that your talking to? Cause I dont see anyone

 

[batzilla]

Batzilla is another newbie on the "Dont know what theyre talking about" list! lol

I guess once I have over 5,000 post like you then i'll know what i'm talking about? What a loser. Anyone with that many posts, even combined from a bunch of forums let alone just ONE, needs a life. What do you do all day? Obviously nothing but post in this forum (surely you don't visit other forums? Unless you never sleep, go to work or get laid). Jebus dude. I have been reading this forum for a long time. And I have been reading Batman since the 70's.

And how is an OPINION (ever heard of this?) "wrong" or comparable to some kind of fact?

IN MY OPINION B89 sucks. Returns was even worse. IN MY OPINION!

BTW, I own an ad agency and do work almost every day for Warner Brothers. Have been for 15 years. Occasionally Batman related work (for a major theme park). I have right next to me the Dark Knight Style Guide as well as the Forever & B&R style guides (obviously useless/outdated but I keep them anyways) so for someone that "Dont know what theyre talking about" list, I bet I have you beat in the "Cool job" list!

Now, continue on. I'm sure you're wanting to hit that milestone of 10K post before the year is up!

 

[DACMAN]

Just looking at your signature, I can tell how much you know about what your talking about!

It's an inside joke. Don't be an ass.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

For me Batman 1989 is a classic and always will be, while i accept there are fans who feel they must choose (Burton is crap Nolan is king and vise versa) i love both, both two visions of one character, just like the artists or the writers of the comics.

Batman 1989 is what got me into Batman in the first place and i love every bit of it as much as i did as a 11 year old boy in 1989 from Keatons Batman to Jacks Joker nor can you knock Anton Fursts simply amazing Gotham and Batmobile.

Is it overrated to some yes, to me never. I love that movie.

 

[Mandalore464]

To this day (Haven't seen TDK yet), Batman Returns is still my second favourite Batmovie. I must say I'm surprised that so much people here think it was bad, although I understand the issues you bring up against it.

I don't know. Ever since 92, I've thought Returns was so much better than the first Burton. More baddies, cleverer plot (not just Batman out for revenge and the Joker destroying stuff), a bit darker, and a more "tale" feel to it that made the whole film eerie and kind of... dream-like I must say. I just loved that movie.

Even though now I'm sure BR is gonna move to the third spot in my Top, as Begins will move to the second one to let TDK take its place, and although I myself think the Nolan's films are superior adaptations of the Batman mythos than Burton's were, I must say I find most of the arguments ("B89 sucks", "B89 had tiny sets", "Jack Nicholson wasn't good") kind of ridiculous.

Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but the way you put those arguments into words make it sound like you're just mindlessly bashing the old stuff in favor of the new stuff, and I can definitely understand the frustration of the B89 fans who reply to you...

Seriously, stating your opinion on a message board does not mean you have to do it with the only intention of hurting the feelings of people who still love Burton's movies better. Seriously, have a little respect, dudes... And an open mind as well. Those movies are almost 20 years old. And even though I think they are too "Burtonized" to be considered faithful adaptations of the Batman character, they both still look awesome.

 

[co2]

Keaton has the serious prominent forehead lines!

Is this topic of discussion actually serious?

 

[Eddie Brock]

I wouldn't say B'89 is vastly overrated at all. Trust me - I wish I could be more jaded against it. I hate Tim Burton with an undying passion. I wish they'd stop him from making movies.

All that aside, B'89 (and to a lesser extent, Batman Returns) managed to tell the best Batman story possible for the times. As Burton has recently admitted, he wasn't able to go as dark and gritty as Nolan has gone with Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. It's important to remember that the late '80's/early '90's were a different time for movies and comics.

I will say that I find myself disappointed in Nicholson. But that's a matter of preference. I prefer the darker, more sinister incarnations of the Joker. However, I'm not ignorant, and I'm not a blind Nolanite. The Joker has been written so many different ways that each interpretation is going to be different. Nicholson's Joker was faithful to the Joker of his time. That's the kind of Joker some people prefer. I'm fine with that. But I don't want to be called out when I freely admit that his version isn't my cup of tea. I reiterate the fact that I was disappointed. I don't wholly dislike Nicholson's performance, and I would never go so far as to say I hate it. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

All in all, I don't have bad words to say against B'89. That was the Batman of that generation. But I was either not born yet or a baby when those movies came out. Therefore, the Nolan series is the Batman of my generation. That's why I find I gravitate towards it. Picking fights about which director is 'better' is just childish, immature, and irrelevant. They both took different directions, and neither direction is 'wrong.'

(Note that Schumacher was not included here. His direction was wrong, and I have no qualms about saying it.)

 

[Mandalore464]

Picking fights about which director is 'better' is just childish, immature, and irrelevant. They both took different directions, and neither direction is 'wrong.'

You're right and I wish everybody would admit the same without stupidly bashing either Burton or Nolan just because they love the other one.

I'd even go as far as saying that Schumacher wasn't "wrong". he proposed his personal take on the characters and universe, it wasn't liked. Fine. It wasn't wrong (The TV series was at least as corny as B&R), it was just in opposition with what the majority of people expected from a Batman movie.

You know I actually like Batman Forever alright, there was some very good stuff in it. It was just different, which actually made it... "fresh" in some ways. B&R was just too much according to me.

 

[Eddie Brock]

You're right and I wish everybody would admit the same without stupidly bashing either Burton or Nolan just because they love the other one.

I'd even go as far as saying that Schumacher wasn't "wrong". he proposed his personal take on the characters and universe, it wasn't liked. Fine. It wasn't wrong (The TV series was at least as corny as B&R), it was just in opposition with what the majority of people expected from a Batman movie.

You know I actually like Batman Forever alright, there was some very good stuff in it. It was just different, which actually made it... "fresh" in some ways. B&R was just too much according to me.

I hate to admit it, but I did get some enjoyment out of Batman Forever. None of that enjoyment, mind you, came from Two-Face. There is not a single good thing I can say about him in that movie.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Christian Bale really physically doesn't look much more like the comic book Bruce Wayne than Keaton did. Bale just happens to be taller.

Really now? haha ... Now the honorable Guard is just pulling **** out of his ass in defense of two movies. And yes, the sets on B89 and Returns were TINY for what they were attempting to do in terms of story. Were the actual sets small? No, of course not. But Gotham is this massive city with depth equivelent to shooting on location in real cities, but each movies takes place in one section of a huge city. haha

B89, everything takes place in front of the Monarch Theatre ... Returns, everything in the smallest city square, even smaller and more awkward considering the size Gotham is supposed to be.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I'm sorry?

I'm sorry, was I speaking to you?

You realize that the film's rating on RT is fluctuating, right? It's gone from a 100, to an 85, to a 74, back up to 91, down to 84, and so on. Right now, it's only got two points on Hellboy II, and this is a travesty.

Yeah, ok? Have you took the time to read actual reviews though? And the passionate response it has incited? Does every film get the words and terms thrown at it the way TDK has been getting? No ... please don't try and understate. Rotten Tomatoes rating is no standard bearer for how good a film is ... look at B89 and Batman Returns ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.

Regardless of the film's quality in itself, it's not completely unscathed.

Well there is always going to be detractors and haters for anything that is ultimately successful. And the overwhelming majority of reviews for this film have been through the roof with glowing and gushing praise.

Oh yeah, out of close to 200 reviews, only 5 have been negative. And coincidentely they all come from New York. And this stems from a few possible reasons. 1) New Yorkers disdain for Chicago, and this movie and its components are clearly Chicago and 2) The strong allegories to 9/11 which many in New York still have an opened wound for thus comments about the film being "too dark", "too serious", "not FUN enough" seem to have a strong connection.

 

[returntovoid]

edit

 

[Mandalore464]

Really now? haha ... Now the honorable Guard is just pulling **** out of his ass in defense of two movies. And yes, the sets on B89 and Returns were TINY for what they were attempting to do in terms of story. Were the actual sets small? No, of course not. But Gotham is this massive city with depth equivelent to shooting on location in real cities, but each movies takes place in one section of a huge city. haha

While I agree when you defend the fact that Christian Bale looks more like Bruce Wayne than michael Keaton (There is no doubt about that), your argument that the sets were tiny in the Burtons is somewhat... irrelevant.

I mean. Are you saying that the Nolans are better because the Burtons had smaller sets? If you say so, it's ridiculous. First of all, the Burtons were made almost 20 years ago, when most sets were actually built (models, actual size buildings) and made bigger through the use of matte paintings.

And actually creating a set instead of just using a city that's already there allows you to make the set exactly how you want it done. Creatively, it's a much more valuable and interesting process.

This argument about the size of the sets is just completely irrelevant.

 

[DACrowe]

Some people need to realize Burton wasn't trying to make a straight forward narrative that was grounded in reality but a fantasy where hte images told the story and developed the character more than the screenplay. But that style is not what comic book fans generally want to see, so the growing disdain for Burton's movies is unsurprising.

I prefer Nolan's, but this give and take of one-or-the-other is immature and childish. There are countless versions of Batman and most of his rogues (all the ones featured in any movie thus far) in comics and animation, why should cinema be different? Can I not enjoy multiple takes on the Dracula story either?

This is just silly.

 

[Cain]

People will never stop comparing Burton and Nolan and whoever comes after Nolan to them cause every generation has it's idiots. It's an endless cycle.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

People will never stop comparing Burton and Nolan and whoever comes after Nolan to them cause every generation has it's idiots. It's an endless cycle.

Question ... why can't they be compared? Why shouldn't they be? They both made Batman movies ...

What about Burton's comparisons with Shumacher? No love lost there? Shumacher is to Burton, what Burton is to Nolan. I.E. in seperate leagues of film making.

 

[Cain]

I don't compare Schumacher to Burton even though I unlike others consider his movies continuations of Burton's. You say they're different versions of the same character but don't take into consideration that in his own originating medium the character is extremely multi-faceted.

There have been so many different takes on the Batman in comics you could create an independent comic company by using all those archetypes as the basis for your characters. Just like with the rest of the DC catalogue Batman has been allowed to be reinterpreted many times in his almost 7 decades of publication.

So I don't view the work in the eyes of one creator as comparable to the next as each has his own idea of who the character is. As long as the main idea and themes are there in the adaptation and you create an entertaining & original enough piece of cinematic work, I'm game. Unlike other comic fans I can seperate my film loving half from my comic loving half. I view film's as films but they all get the same liberties I give any other piece of art including comics.

I judge it based on what the creator set out to accomplish and whether he accomplished it or not and how it affected me as a viewer/listener/reader etc., not how it holds up against another completely different piece of work from another mind even if it's the same character. But then I realize I'm in a minority when it comes to that but that's why it seems idiotic to me.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I do as well ... but your theory just doesn't pan. Judging by your theory, nothing could ever be compared. Because things are viewed different then the other, or the process is different in creating the other. Like ... man, Taxi Driver isn't a better film than Beverly Hills Cop. You can't compare them ... cause they do different things.

 

[Cain]

That's just who I am man like I said I know I'm an minority but that's my train of thought. That's probably why I like a lot of b movies too and all. I wouldn't compare Beverly Hills Cop to Taxi Driver and surprise I like them both. TD has more replay value to me cause it was designed to be a richer and more engrossing type of film that appeals to my sensibilities more. But when I'm in the mood for a vehicle specifically made to showcase the star's talent and exploit his charisma and provide some escapsism through that concept even if it's not richly engrossing BHC is perfect. It's one of the best examples of that to me.

I think that Driving Miss Daisy is for all intents and purposes a much better crafted and prestigious film than Ghostbusters but I still love Ghostbusters. "But they both feature Dan Aykroyd?" yeah but they had different objectives. GB I love based on the chemistry of the 3 leads and how that carries the film that's what the film was designed around. But unlike Driving Miss Daisy it wasn't made to tell me a morality story it was made to put 3 of the greatest comedic talents of their time together in one outlandish adventure and make people laugh. I look at movies for what they are not what I want them to be and if they entertain me I enjoy them and even buy them. If they don't I don't ever watch them again. It saves me a lot of useless grief.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Ok, I get what you're saying. But at the same time ... All Batman movies are the same type of film. Just dramatically different levels of quality and better craftsmanship. I love Batman just as much as you, I like the Burton films, but to dodge comparisons and call people who do generational idiots ... just doesn't make sense to me. Films that hover in the same category of things they're trying to do and the type of movie they are can most certainly be compared and not looked down on in comparing them.

 

[Batjosh]

B'89, while not my favorite Batman movie, is probably my favorite portrayal of the Batman from the first four films. B'89 was also one of my first exposures to a truly dark Batman; the other experiences being the time in the comics between Jason Todd's death and Tim Drake becoming Robin. Plus, without B'89, there'd be no B:TAS. Without B:TAS, my Bat-fandom would've worn thin a lot earlier in life and I'd have been one of those guys back in '05 who thought that Begins was a prequel to B'89.

As for the other live-action movies from that era, Returns is "A Day in Tim Burton's Head (featuring Batman!)." It didn't even feel like Batman to me. I did like the part where the Batmobile split into three parts, though.

Forever is just a modernization of the campy stuff from the '60s that got Batman into mainstream culture. If I wanted campy, I'd just watch the '60s show.

There's nothing negative about B&R that I can say that hasn't already been said.