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

[theMan-Bat]

What would have made this film really great would have been after Bruce says, "Alfred, let's go shopping." That we see them actually shopping. We see them walking down the asiles, we see them at the checkout, we see them exhaging the cash for the goods, we see them bagging the items, we see them walking to the car park, we see them opening the boot, we see them putting the bags into the boot, we see them closing the boot, we see them getting into the car, we see them driving off, we see them arriving at Wayne Manor, we see them getting out of the car, we see them opening the boot, we see them taking out the bags, we see them closing the boot, we see them entering Wayne Manor. All while narrating their actions.

That would have been dark and mature.

 

[El Payaso]

 

[Bat-Mite]

you people think BEGINS & TDK are so great...

i dunno about any of you, but to even compare them to 1989 BATMAN is a travesty...


1) the music was better in B89

Because better music means a better movie, right? Then I suppose RENT is a better film than Schindler's List. I could really boogie to the music in the former.. the latter just sounded soooo depressing!

2) that movie was marketed 10 times more heavily than any other batfilm

And we all know marketing is a mark of greatness. After all, just look at what a masterpiece The Phantom Menace turned out to be.

3) the sets were better

Highly debatable. Gotta love the claustrophobic party scene at the beginning of the film. Really, you'd think Bruce could afford to have more room than that in his huge mansion. People were crammed in like sardines. Poor Alfred barely had any room to move around.

4) everything about B89 was darker

Very surprising that you'd make this claim, considering the very cartoony nature of many parts of Batman '89.

yes these NOLAN things are very very good, but if you weren't there in the theater in 89 and you weren't around to see the hype, then don't even talk...

Well, I WAS there. I was four years old when I saw it in the theater, and I liked it back then yes (and liked Batmania even more). But I'll say this.. as soon as I saw the animated series, I completely forgot about the film. Mark Hamill became the Joker for me through and through and I didn't even remember Nicholson's Joker until years later when I saw the movie on TV. And when I saw it then, I had grown up a bit and the hype had worn off (as in, I started to look at it more critically as opposed to blindly loving it for having 'Batman' in the title). Guess what? What I saw really wasn't that special. Maybe it was the big screen, but I thought it had seemed a lot more entertaining when I saw it in the theater than it turned out to be when I saw it again on TV.

Though really, the fact that you even try to use the hype to defend the film is quite silly. It was a very special time in Batman history, that's definitely true, but if a film has to ride on that to make it a great film, then it simply isn't a great film. It needs to be able to stand on its own as a separate entity. And from the (poor) arguments you're making, it's almost as if you think it can't do that.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Anyone who thinks the original "Batman" movies were bad is ignorant. Burton's films are spectacular...And unlike "Begins," THOSE films didn't have to spoon-feed the audience with explination, realism and easy-to-follow, see-it-from-a-mile-away plot.

This statement in itself is drenched in ignorance, because having an opinion that's different from the majority (at least here on the Misc. films board) doesn't make one ignorant, it simply means one has a different opinion. It would be nice if you could understand this instead of trying to lord your views over others as if they're indisputable fact. Also, Burton's films are every bit as flawed as Begins is, the only difference is, if you talk about those flaws around here, you'll be accused of not respecting the character's history.

Which is really why I grow tired of all this Burtonite/Nolanite BS that's obviously alive and well still. You go to the TDK boards and you get people talking about 'fatty Jack Joker' as if Jack's Joker really was fat (he wasn't) and as if that's a valid criticism to begin with. And then you come over here and you have people talking about the Burton films like their sh** don't stink, and talking about Batman Begins as if it's the new Batman and Robin.

Begins = "The Batmobile is a prototype Wayne Enterprises Military Vehicle that can jump gaps"

B89 = "The Batmobile...is the f**king Batmobile. Who gives a s**t where it came from? It's really fast and it looks awesome...DEAL WITH IT!"

CFE

Because how dare they cover the origin of the batmobile in a movie that's supposed to be an origin story!? Really, what were they thinking?

Don't get me wrong, I do like Batman '89. It's not my favorite bat film by any means (I agree with Burton that the sequal was superior), but I find it humorous that the claim is made that Batman '89 isn't overrated, and the very people claiming this are putting it on a pedestal so as to act as if it's flawless and God's gift to Batman fans. And of course, this is done at the expense of exaggerating the flaws of Batman Begins in order to try to make '89 look better. It's no better than what the TDK fanatics do at the TDK board.

 

[Carusos Shades]

I have to say even as a fan of the original, scream makes some extremely valid points.
Even a die hard fan would have to concede of some highly illogical plotting in the film especially in the third act.

The ending has a slapped together feel because it was!! I read a book called "Hit And Run" about Gubert and Peters, the producers. They were struggling with the ending, Then Nicholson went to the Phantom oF THE opera and had an idea.

Even then Nicholson asked Burton while filming "why am I going up these stairs?" Burton had to admit to him he didn't really know! I mean i still love the film to death but looking at it objectively you really can see the flaws in structure etc. I know begins had its third act issues but I don't think its flaws are as glaringly obvious.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I agree. For a 20 years Bat-movie it's still groundbreaking and a success at entertaining.

I am with you 100% and I will clearly say that 89 is a classic film!

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I watched it last night and noticed something I never did before. In the bell tower Keaton doesn't change his voice. He speaks in his Bruce Wayne voice, which is a nice touch.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I watched it last night and noticed something I never did before. In the bell tower Keaton doesn't change his voice. He speaks in his Bruce Wayne voice, which is a nice touch.

Right, when he says Joker's "Have you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight" line he uses his Bruce Wayne voice. He's plaining on killing Joker anyway and Vicki already knows his secret identity.

 

[the_scream]

Oh you mean like being on one thing and then, without even a change on the music to skip to a random guy randomly explaining something about a microwave emitter that hasn't been even mentioned before

There's no need to introduce the crime bosses as at this point we all klnow there are crime bosses all over Gotham; Dent himsalf has talken about the "nest of vipers."

Burton wasn't happy of so much pressure into a commercial movie. He didn't say anything about the editing of scenes that had enough background.



Oh yes, after he sends Bob to take pics on a previous scene in that place, he is actually checking those very pics. Then he finds out about Vicky Vale and then he decides he's going after her which leads to the museum scene.

Oops, makes perfect sense again!

The background of that scene and what happens immediatelly after that with Joker and Vicky is perfectly connected.



Yeah, it's a shame we can't have those iconics shots in every movie because the action is pure choppiness and nothing can be seen.



Repellent? He could use an harpoon like the kind of guns he always uses but bigger. Still makes sense.

But yes, devices to grab things, in this case ropes, is very convenient for someone who's traditionally farsighted and well-prepared.



You mean Batman shot at Joker with the giant scissors?



That gives yourself away as a Batman Begins fan: the inconditional love for verbal explanations about every tiny detail that can be easily assumed.



Please tell me what is it since actions defines the acting. "It's what I dooooo," remember?

Anyway, laughing or dancing when other poeople die is pretty crazy.



Pretty close to the Joker and adding to that the mad man actions then the mix gives a satisfactory result.



Like to char a man alive and laugh, dance and sing in the process.

Craziness check.



See how it is necessary to overact Joker, specially for a cartoon?



Weird, because the first fight of Bruce at jail was done the same way and he wasn't Batman yet. I smell lousy editing.



So because it's difficult they better don't do it but a mess of blurry choppy shots editing?

Isn't not doing something because it's too difficult the very definition of laziness?

And in any case, even when it worked the first time at the docks, that lousy way to solve the fights prevented us to see good Batman shots all throughout the movie.



They are perfectly rehearsed and executed. Spiderman vs Octopus fights were also - as in any other movie - coreographed. But luckily enough they didn't hide the good stuff behind a lousy editing and we could actually SEE what was happening. Which is a very good thing for this kind of movies



In words of El Payaso "This is not a fight scene!"

You've convinced me. B89 is untouchable. Excuse me while I burn my copy of Batman Begins and play B89 on a constant loop, praising its every perfection.

Joker holds a party in the middle of Gotham, announces it even, and the police are nowhere to be found. Brilliant! Burton was clearly trying to show how scared the police were. They sat around the police station shivering in their boots. Or maybe he created a diversion in another part of the city? Burton doesn't need to explain these things like the hack Nolan who would try to make sense of it. Nah, we the audience are more than capable of filling in the scripts gaping plot holes.

 

[Evelisse]

Will always love 89 Batman, if Begins and 89 Batman were both on tv at once I would watch 89 Batman purely for the entertainment factor. And Begins is an awesome movie.

That being said I hear there may be some cutting smiles on peoples faces in the Dark Knight, that is gruesome and cool but...the chemically induced perma-smiles that the Joker was doing to the people of Gotham in Batman 89 will always be much more creepy and great to me.


"Love That Joker." t:

 

[Jack O Lantern]

It's called greed. The police are curropt we know that from the scene that Napier falls into the acid. Are they going to arrest him or try to grab as much money as possible? Then we they turn the guns on people the police have to act.

BTW who ever said you have to choose one over the other, some people like me, like them both.

 

[the_scream]

It's called greed. The police are curropt we know that from the scene that Napier falls into the acid. Are they going to arrest him or try to grab as much money as possible? Then we they turn the guns on people the police have to act.

BTW who ever said you have to choose one over the other, some people like me, like them both.

Oh, I agree. The script didn't need to explain this. The audience is more than capable of making up the additional story to fill the gap. That's what they're there for!

 

[DACMAN]

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.

Gotta agree.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

It's a good film, very important and revolutionary in terms of marketing and bringing serious approach to the genere ... but the movie is extremely hollow, thin in its plot and character structures, and lacks any true heart of the source material.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

What would have made this film really great would have been after Bruce says, "Alfred, let's go shopping." That we see them actually shopping. We see them walking down the asiles, we see them at the checkout, we see them exhaging the cash for the goods, we see them bagging the items, we see them walking to the car park, we see them opening the boot, we see them putting the bags into the boot, we see them closing the boot, we see them getting into the car, we see them driving off, we see them arriving at Wayne Manor, we see them getting out of the car, we see them opening the boot, we see them taking out the bags, we see them closing the boot, we see them entering Wayne Manor. All while narrating their actions.

That would have been dark and mature.

I hope you're not under that umbrella of idiot and BEGINS haters that classify the film as not being "subtle" enough? LOL ...

The story was about Bruce Wayne's process in becoming Batman the legend. Yes we were shown how he built things up, but it wasn't as excessive and pointless as you make it out to be.

 

[Hole Shot]

The story was about Bruce Wayne's process in becoming Batman the legend. Yes we were shown how he built things up, but it wasn't as excessive and pointless as you make it out to be.

One day and that day may never come, a guy will be able to make a joke on a message board and that joke won't be taken as serious commentary and analyzed.

 

[the_scream]

One day and that day may never come, a guy will be able to make a joke on message board and that joke won't be taken as serious commentary and analyzed.

What does that mean!!!!??! How dare you!!

 

[co2]

This is a more appropriate place for this post

Ya know, I can't speak for TDK yet, but Batman '89 and Begins are the only two Batfilms I really like, I think both are in a group of about 6 movies that I would classify as the greatest comic book movies of all time, but honestly I couldn't tell you which of the two I like more.
Having said that, I will say this. I know that I do enjoy talking about '89 so much more than I like discussing Begins or TDK, which is why you will see me in this forum rather than the main spoiler forum. Conversations surrounding the production and marketing of the this movie are just so much fun to egage in. And..as big as Begins and even more so how big TDK will be, neither can hold a candle to how popular '89 was or how much hype it experienced at the time.

 

[Gexmeister]

I think it's overrated. It's a good film, but not great. in my opinion, Returns is way better.

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

Yeah its not as good as everyone says it is, its a great movie, but its not one of the best.

 

[The Guard]

BATMAN got a lot right. It deserves a lot of credit for the elements it introduced to the general public, and to the Batman mythology. It's not a perfect film. Few movies are, and few movies were "structured well" in the 80's and early 90's.

However, a watched this movie the other night and couldn't believe how sloppy it is made. There are so many scenes that just seem to appear without having a real flow or context. Take the scene with Joker first revealing himself to Jerry Hall. She faints. The scene immediately cuts to the Joker sitting around with the mob bosses. WTF? When did he organise this? Did it happen two seconds after the previous scene? The cut is very jarring and makes no sense.

This may be the most ridiculous critcism of the movie I have ever heard. Ever. You honestly cannot tell what's going on?

In fact, re-watch the film. The majority of the Joker scenes at the chemical plant could conceivable appear at any point in the film. They don't always flow from any plot developments in the film.

So wait...the fact that the scenes The Joker is in COULD be put anywhere in the movie means it's a poorly made film? Riiight.

Instead, the film appears to be shot around set pieces rather than the other way around.

?

Batman doesn't assist the dying people of Gotham until they actually start dying.

So he's supposed to help them before they are endangered? Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense...

He flys around his batwing waiting for something to happen?

You have got to be kidding me...

On that note, how did he know the Joker was going to be bringing out big balloons? He certainly seems prepared with the device in the wing designed primarily to scoop up the balloon cables.

Again, are you kidding? Batman having exactly the right gadget when he needs it is a staple of the mythology.

Next, he fires everything in his arsenal at the Joker. I don't mind that this Batman is a blood thirsty bastard. But I do mind that all the Joker's goons die while the Joker stands there completely unharmed. Why? Because the script called for it. Ridiculous.

No. Just...no. Have you EVER read a Batman/Joker encounter in the comics? You ever notice how, no matter how much danger he is in, The Joker has this ridiculous ability to cheat death?

It's hilarious that you think Batman just happens to miss The Joker just because, and that there's no deeper meaning to that sequence.

Once again this happens when the Joker's goons somehow get to the top of the church tower. Why? Because Batman needs to fight someone. Forget how they got there.

Why is this even an issue? They walked up the damn stairs, because it was one of Joker's "checkpoints" for escape after the parade.

Every time someone gives a decent criticism on BATMAN all these absolutely absurd ones pop up.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Very surprising that you'd make this claim, considering the very cartoony nature of many parts of Batman '89.

Just because it's "cartoony" (which is arguable) doesn't mean it isn't dark. The entire atmosphere of the movie is dark. The fact that Joker finds humor in death is dark. I could go on. Batman Begins isn't a dark movie. It's a serious, realistic movie. It isn't dark though. BTW, I can recall some cartoony things from Begins.

Because how dare they cover the origin of the batmobile in a movie that's supposed to be an origin story!? Really, what were they thinking?

Just because it's an origin story doesn't mean every single thing Batman uses needs to be explained. Do we need to see him develop the batsuit? Not really. Do we need to see him make bat-shaped shuriken? No. Do we need to see him and Alfred order parts for the cowl? No. Do we need to see them shatter them with a hammer to see they're defective? No. I think the scene with Fox showing him the stuff was enough. We didn't need to see him prepare it all.

but I find it humorous that the claim is made that Batman '89 isn't overrated, and the very people claiming this are putting it on a pedestal so as to act as if it's flawless and God's gift to Batman fans. And of course, this is done at the expense of exaggerating the flaws of Batman Begins in order to try to make '89 look better. It's no better than what the TDK fanatics do at the TDK board.

Batman isn't overrated. For something to be overrated, it has to be considered very good if not great. Because of Batman Begins and TDK, people have begun to bash it because it isn't an origin story and Batman is very different as he is in the modern comics. People exaggerate the flaws of Begins because so many people ignore them simply because it's more accurate to the comics, an origin story, realistic, and recent. People think Begins is the be all, end all of Batman movies and it isn't. I hate that both films are bashed to make the other look better because I enjoy both.

 

[the_scream]

BATMAN got a lot right. It deserves a lot of credit for the elements it introduced to the general public, and to the Batman mythology. It's not a perfect film. Few movies are, and few movies were "structured well" in the 80's and early 90's.



This may be the most ridiculous critcism of the movie I have ever heard. Ever. You honestly cannot tell what's going on?



So wait...the fact that the scenes The Joker is in COULD be put anywhere in the movie means it's a poorly made film? Riiight.



?



So he's supposed to help them before they are endangered? Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense...



You have got to be kidding me...



Again, are you kidding? Batman having exactly the right gadget when he needs it is a staple of the mythology.



No. Just...no. Have you EVER read a Batman/Joker encounter in the comics? You ever notice how, no matter how much danger he is in, The Joker has this ridiculous ability to cheat death?

It's hilarious that you think Batman just happens to miss The Joker just because, and that there's no deeper meaning to that sequence.



Why is this even an issue? They walked up the damn stairs, because it was one of Joker's "checkpoints" for escape after the parade.

Every time someone gives a decent criticism on BATMAN all these absolutely absurd ones pop up.

Well, I'd reply to this but it seems a lot of people here relish taking quotes out of context, then miss the entire point of my argument. The cherry on top is the typical condescending tone of all the retorts. Nobody can say anything without someone telling them "no, actually, it all makes sense you see". I get it. The film is untouchable on this board.

 

[Superhobo]

Well, I'd reply to this but it seems a lot of people here relish taking quotes out of context, then miss the entire point of my argument.

What, you mean responding to something point-by-point with thought out individual responses instead of one lumped together mass?

Heresy, man! I totally get it.

The cherry on top is the typical condescending tone of all the retorts.

You do not know what a retort is. Please correct this.

Nobody can say anything without someone telling them "no, actually, it all makes sense you see".

Yes, because out of all complaints to have about the film (and I have a few myself - the big rubbery batsuit that's become a staple of the Batman film mythology being one of them) that's one of the most trivial I've yet to hear - also, it kind of points out that you weren't paying attention.

I get it. The film is untouchable on this board.

The film's far from untouchable, as this thread and quite a few others suggest. The problem here is, I think, you've forgetten the structure of a debate, a discussion, which is what this is.

 

[the_scream]

Sure. It's a discussion. Just not a civil one. Enjoy.