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

[El Payaso]

Anton Furst's GOtham City was and is great.

Why they changed it and gave us "the city in a shopping mall" for Batman Forever is beyond me. Another sign that Batman Returns was born to suck.

BR Gotham sucks because BF sucks? Are you trying to beat yourself in this nonsense competition?

 

[MysterioMenace]

BR Gotham sucks because BF sucks? Are you trying to beat yourself in this nonsense competition?

Hah! That’s so funny you posted that…because I was also trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about. Makes zero sense to me.

 

[El Payaso]

Hah! That’s so funny you posted that…because I was also trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about. Make zero sense to me.

It made a little sense. BF Gotham was actually a mall-neon city.

 

[MysterioMenace]

It made a little sense. BF Gotham was actually a mall-neon city.

Touche! So true. . .

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I FIXED IT

 

[El Payaso]

I FIXED IT

Your subconscious has already spoken.

 

[sasquatchs]

Edit: I'm actually not sure if anything in Batman Begins was computer generated, meaning entirely created via the use of a computer. I don't remember any example of that from the extras, but I haven't watched them in a while. But I do know that Batman's jump at the start of trailer 2 for TDK was CGIed, because the city wouldn't allow him to shoot that for real. Nolan really is someone who likes to use computers as little as possible.

Almost all of it is 3D wireframe/model work, not 2D composites. As far as the building CG goes I wouldn't say it was that great either. The Batman stuff is nice though

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

^
Most of the CG stuff in BB I couldnt even notice was CG.

 

[The Guard]

Almost all of it is 3D wireframe/model work, not 2D composites

I vaguely recall seeing something about a lot of it being CGI.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I vaguely recall seeing something about a lot of it being CGI.

Theres hardly any CGI in BB, especially when compared to most modern films.

 

[batzilla]

He's far from dead and his massive amount of fans know it. The day people stop watching Batman '89 will be the day he dies. That day will never come. Besides...Heath's the one that died. Literally.

ouch!

You have a point there. But i'm not sure I would have made it. But unfortunately, there will be a day when people no longer watch B89. Eventually. Nothing last forever. Except maybe Heath's portrayal of the Joker. That'll be forever floating through the cosmos.
t:

 

[batzilla]

Batman is cemented in Gotham City. Batman Begins involved world travel. That’s probably the only reason as to why the scope feels larger in Begins. It’s a subliminal thing. The two Gothams themselves look no bigger to me.

I see what you mean, and that is somewhat true but there still were several landscape views of Gotham. I really liked the one when Batman went to visit Gordon for the first time in costume and said "There's a storm coming" Right before that they showed a cool shot of Gotham at night with lightning in the way off distance. That was a fantastic shot!

Also, right after the cops found the leftovers of Batmans first defense against the mob and Gordon saw Falcone strapped to the floodlight. When he was perched on the edge of that tall skyscraper ( a REAL skyscraper! IMAGINE THAT!)

Never got any of that in the other Batman flicks. All sound stage crap.

Remember the last shot in B89? (of course, who could forget?!) when Bats was on top of...something. With the Bat symbol in the sky. That looked bad to me. Even in 89. Too studio looking and the Bat symbol was way too clean in the sky as well.

6 hours and 35 minutes to go!! THE DARK KNIGHT!!

 

[The Batman]

My main problem is not the comparing of nolan and burton...its the fact that its nolan fans trying to get their rocks off by bashing everything. IMO, most nolanites arent even fans of the character, and alot of them cant even comprehend what nolans actually trying to achieve with his franchise.

 

[CaptainClown]

Well with every franchise there are always fans who are along for the ride, like Nolanites, who automatically find the Nolan movies superior. They will always be there, the only thing you really can do is smile and shoo them away.

 

[CaptainClown]

oops double post

 

[DACrowe]

In Burton's Gothams defenses (Burton really had a different Gotham in each Batman movie) vthey felt big ad imposing in their own way. Yes, he used sets and certain styles of filmmaking to make them seem fantastical and in BR even dreamlike, but they had as much character as Nolan's Gotham. Nolan is expanding largely on his "Gotham in TDK, but in BB you hear them talk about the despair a lot but you don't see much of it. In Burton's Gothams, especially the first one, you felt it. The city in B'89 is a claustrophobic nightmare modeled after Lang's Metropolis. It WON AN OSCAR for set-design for a reason. It is immersive but immediately dirty and disgusting. While Nolan's Gotham is a dangerous place it reminds me more of Chicago in the 1920s/early 1930s or New York or London in the middle of the 19th century. Gotham is dying in Nolan's Batman. Gotham is already dead in Burton's. All that is left is a wildly powerful mafia, corrupt cops and politicians and manipulative businessmen. The only good people left are in hiding. Nolan's Batman is fighting to save Gotham, but Gotham is in many ways already lost when Batman (1989) begins. The city is always either in dark night or gray ugly daylight and drowned out by eroding statues in thick pollution and oppressive archetecture. When Joker starts killing people in Burton's movie it is a panic but unexpected. They aren't really surprised and when he offers to give away all his money the people are all crowded and greedy listening in their bars and homes. They don't care that he is a serial killer, they want money.

In Batman Returns Gotham has become controlled by businesses and there are no innocent people left. They are either extremely poor with no hope for change or rich and ambivalent living in their ivory towers and being controlled by capitalism and their politicians like good little sheep.

I'd say Burton's Gothamsm are much scarier places than Nolan's. Nolan's is more real as it seems like a real American city but there have been cities in that bad of a situation in our country's history and many others. Gotham is far worse than anything seen in Burotn's movie. While visually Nolan took more from Blade Runner but the atmosphere of the city in Blade Runner is more akin to Burton's Gotham, really.

 

[Monstera]

Hear me out. I'm not trying to hate on the movie; I appreciate the things that it did for the Batman Franchise (for the better) and what it means to people. Visually it kicks major ass, Elfman's score still gives me goosebumps, and Jack Nicholson has fun as the joker.

Please, before you flame me, please keep in mind that this is my own personal opinion. OK.

But here's my other feeling on the film, and there are quotes from other people in here. I can't stand Keaton's hollow performance and lack of chemistry with the also hollow Kim Bassinger. (who was only in the film because of her relationship with Jon "Giant Spider" Peters) I hate the idea that Batman exists solely out of revenge for his parents, or that he would be willing to kill the joker with a gun. I hate the lack of any reason to care about any of the characters, I hate the lack of any connection between the moment where Bruce Wayne's parents are shot and Bruce Wayne becoming Batman, I hate the lack of any explanation as to how the Joker's Goons got on top of the church tower, I hate the way one shot from a six-shooter that has inexplicably been hidden in the joker's pant leg can destroy the frickin' bat-plane. I hate the poor characterization of Batman. The goddamn prince songs, to this day, make the film teeth-grittingly dated and unwatchable, as are the sequences of the Joker dancing like a moron to them. I don't know why the Joker feels the necessity to create an ant-batman PR campaign as if he has something to gain by the public hating batman, like they're running for mayor of Gotham. I don't know why Alfred would let Vicki into the batcave, or why Bruce would see anything in her, or why she would see anything in him. I hate her lack of reaction to Bruce Wayne being Batman.

And my big gripe:
The opening scene depicts two thugs mugging a Father, Mother, and son. The scene is clearly set up to be a parallel to the mudding that happened to a young Bruce Wayne. What does Batman do? He beats up the criminals. How are the father, mother, and son any better off than before Batman came along? They're still afraid to be on the streets of Gotham City, their purse is still gone, and the father is still in medical danger. But don't worry, the criminals were frightened by batman and beaten up. Gee, thanks caped crusader. Long-term, criminals are starting to hear about the batman. But would that provide any consolation to a young Bruce Wayne? Uhh...nope.


Again, this is just my personal opinion, but i wanted to get other people's take on it. I watched the flick a day ago in preparation for The Dark Knight, and felt surprisingly hollow, and felt like I had to remind myself to like and enjoy and root for the film.

QFT.

I grew up with Batman 89 (I was 12 at the time), was willing to kill for the ever-elusive toys, collected the trading cards, etc.

Looking back at it both objectively and in the context of the Nolan movies-- it just doesn't hold up. And the mantra "Well, we wouldn't have a dark movie Batman without it!" just doesn't cut it. It would've happened eventually.

Batman 89 was an interesting experiment on how to do an "authentic/dark" film Batman-- and the attempt is admirable-- but it falls pretty short.

Returns is visually very cool, but an even worse movie; Batman adaptation or not. Obviously nothing needs to be said about the godawful Schumacher movies.

In Burton's Gothams defenses (Burton really had a different Gotham in each Batman movie) vthey felt big ad imposing in their own way. Yes, he used sets and certain styles of filmmaking to make them seem fantastical and in BR even dreamlike, but they had as much character as Nolan's Gotham. Nolan is expanding largely on his "Gotham in TDK, but in BB you hear them talk about the despair a lot but you don't see much of it. In Burton's Gothams, especially the first one, you felt it. The city in B'89 is a claustrophobic nightmare modeled after Lang's Metropolis. It WON AN OSCAR for set-design for a reason. It is immersive but immediately dirty and disgusting. While Nolan's Gotham is a dangerous place it reminds me more of Chicago in the 1920s/early 1930s or New York or London in the middle of the 19th century. Gotham is dying in Nolan's Batman. Gotham is already dead in Burton's. All that is left is a wildly powerful mafia, corrupt cops and politicians and manipulative businessmen. The only good people left are in hiding. Nolan's Batman is fighting to save Gotham, but Gotham is in many ways already lost when Batman (1989) begins. The city is always either in dark night or gray ugly daylight and drowned out by eroding statues in thick pollution and oppressive archetecture. When Joker starts killing people in Burton's movie it is a panic but unexpected. They aren't really surprised and when he offers to give away all his money the people are all crowded and greedy listening in their bars and homes. They don't care that he is a serial killer, they want money.

In Batman Returns Gotham has become controlled by businesses and there are no innocent people left. They are either extremely poor with no hope for change or rich and ambivalent living in their ivory towers and being controlled by capitalism and their politicians like good little sheep.

I'd say Burton's Gothamsm are much scarier places than Nolan's. Nolan's is more real as it seems like a real American city but there have been cities in that bad of a situation in our country's history and many others. Gotham is far worse than anything seen in Burotn's movie. While visually Nolan took more from Blade Runner but the atmosphere of the city in Blade Runner is more akin to Burton's Gotham, really.

In other words, Nolan's Gotham is worth fighting for; Burton's isn't. This is supposed to help Burton's case?


"Nolanites". LOL. I love Internet nerdery.

 

[El Payaso]

there will be a day when people no longer watch B89. Eventually. Nothing last forever. Except maybe Heath's portrayal of the Joker. That'll be forever floating through the cosmos.

Actually no.

I see what you mean, and that is somewhat true but there still were several landscape views of Gotham. I really liked the one when Batman went to visit Gordon for the first time in costume and said "There's a storm coming" Right before that they showed a cool shot of Gotham at night with lightning in the way off distance. That was a fantastic shot!

Also, right after the cops found the leftovers of Batmans first defense against the mob and Gordon saw Falcone strapped to the floodlight. When he was perched on the edge of that tall skyscraper ( a REAL skyscraper! IMAGINE THAT!)

Never got any of that in the other Batman flicks. All sound stage crap.

Remember the last shot in B89? (of course, who could forget?!) when Bats was on top of...something. With the Bat symbol in the sky. That looked bad to me. Even in 89. Too studio looking and the Bat symbol was way too clean in the sky as well.

B89 ending shot is perfect, iconic and clean. It doesn't have to feel realistic in order to work; that's just the old Nolanite excuse.

6 hours and 35 minutes to go!! THE DARK KNIGHT!!

Whoa!!!! 5.3 minutes to eat pizza!!!! YAY 111eleven11

QFT.

I grew up with Batman 89 (I was 12 at the time), was willing to kill for the ever-elusive toys, collected the trading cards, etc.

Looking back at it both objectively and in the context of the Nolan movies-- it just doesn't hold up. And the mantra "Well, we wouldn't have a dark movie Batman without it!" just doesn't cut it. It would've happened eventually.

Oh, in the wrong context the right movie doesn't work. Fantastic find.

Batman 89 was an interesting experiment on how to do an "authentic/dark" film Batman-- and the attempt is admirable-- but it falls pretty short.

How exactly?

In other words, Nolan's Gotham is worth fighting for; Burton's isn't. This is supposed to help Burton's case?

Gotham will be always worthy to fight for. Batman the character doesn't fight for a better or worse desgined city.

"Nolanites". LOL. I love Internet nerdery.

You have to. Nolanites are the worst kind of advertising Chris Nolan could get. Not only he loves B89 but he kept the black rubber suit Burton created.

 

[Bat-Mite]

ouch!

You have a point there. But i'm not sure I would have made it. But unfortunately, there will be a day when people no longer watch B89. Eventually. Nothing last forever. Except maybe Heath's portrayal of the Joker. That'll be forever floating through the cosmos.
t:

Ummm... we still have those Batman serials from the 1940's - and people still watch them! If those things can last 60 years, you can bet your ass that the superior (in terms of special effects, acting, and story) Batman '89 film can last that long... and more. So love it or hate it, Batman '89 will always be around so long as there's a Batman.

 

[Mandalore464]

My main problem is not the comparing of nolan and burton...its the fact that its nolan fans trying to get their rocks off by bashing everything. IMO, most nolanites arent even fans of the character, and a lot of them cant even comprehend what nolans actually trying to achieve with his franchise.

It is also true for the "Burtonites" who just bash Nolan's city for not being gothic enough, or the suit looking too silly (When Keaton had the Nike logo on his boots and no suit has looked more armor-like than the one from BR), just because they grew up with Burton's Batmans and won't let go.

And seriously, answering stupid provocations by more provocations really is just as stupid.

As much as I will defend the first two movies against arguments that I deem silly, I think both ends of the spectrum are completely ridiculous. I wish people could all be less "extreme" when it comes to their tastes.

By the way, The Batman, although I say all that after I quoted you, please do not believe that my message is directed to you personally. It isn't. I'm just reacting to what you said.

 

[Bat-Mite]

It is also true for the "Burtonites" who just bash Nolan's city for not being gothic enough, or the suit looking too silly (When Keaton had the Nike logo on his boots and no suit has looked more armor-like than the one from BR), just because they grew up with Burton's Batmans and won't let go.

And seriously, answering stupid provocations by more provocations really is just as stupid.

As much as I will defend the first two movies against arguments that I deem silly, I think both ends of the spectrum are completely ridiculous. I wish people could all be less "extreme" when it comes to their tastes.

By the way, The Batman, although I say all that after I quoted you, please do not believe that my message is directed to you personally. It isn't. I'm just reacting to what you said.

QFT. I grow so tired of people trying to make it seem as if this is one sided and it's just the so-called Nolanites that are unjustly attacking the older films. For just about every post I've seen on the TDK boards unjustly attacking the older films, I've seen another post nitpicking TDK or BB like crazy (and this nitpicking of TDK began long before the film was even out)!

My main problem is not the comparing of nolan and burton...its the fact that its nolan fans trying to get their rocks off by bashing everything. IMO, most nolanites arent even fans of the character, and alot of them cant even comprehend what nolans actually trying to achieve with his franchise.

This could just as easily be said of those Burtonites that can't accept new interpretations of the character and don't want the character to evolve. There is nothing wrong with having a preference for a certain interpretation, but ANYONE who is unable to accept more than one interpretation of the character is just misguided.

 

[The Batman]

sigh...i love how some people act like im a burton only fan...i really dont care which one is better than the other, and have never claimed burton was better...I'm just stating, from an outsider view of the situation, that it is often nolanites with something to prove that cause these arguments...im not gonna sugarcoat it just because i happen to like both versions, and this is not an case of "They do it just as much!" no...sorry, but thats not true, IMO. alot of nolanites tend to bash burton...they bash the comic, they bash the cartoons. They rip on actors because they're too busy with their lives to say "OMG Nolan is a genius!" They claim that theyve always hated things like a roadster Batmobile or want the joker to wear black in a nolan movie, or say that TAS was too childish.

 

[Mandalore464]

sigh...i love how some people act like im a burton only fan

And... who exactly acted like that?

I'm just stating, from an outsider view of the situation, that it is often nolanites with something to prove that cause these arguments...im not gonna sugarcoat it just because i happen to like both versions, and this is not an case of "They do it just as much!" no...sorry, but thats not true, IMO. alot of nolanites tend to bash burton...they bash the comic, they bash the cartoons. They rip on actors because they're too busy with their lives to say "OMG Nolan is a genius!" They claim that theyve always hated things like a roadster Batmobile or want the joker to wear black in a nolan movie, or say that TAS was too childish.

Look, no one's saying there are less Nolan fans bashing Burton than the contrary, it matters not. The fact is, both sides do exist, and they're both annoying when they post their mindless bashing into threads that have nothing to do with it (Granted, this is not the case with this one particular thread).

It's not a problem of which side has more followers, or who starts those arguments. Fact is, some Nolan fans post insulting messages towards the Burtons for the simple pleasure of hurting their feelings, and more than often, Burton fans take the bait and answer with equally stupid posts stating arguments that actually mean "Burton's are best because I grew up with them".

People just need to let go, in general. That's both Nolan AND Burton fans. So we can be allowed to participate in the debates without having to go through those sordid arguments.

 

[twilitezoner]

Why can't the films co-exist to some of you? I love both movies. Why does one "have" to be better than the other? Grow up.

 

[DACMAN]

YEAH! ARE YOU GUYS CRAZY? WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU COME TO A SUPERHERO MOVIE BOARD AND COMPARE MOVIES!!!!!