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

[Superhobo]

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

It's seemed pretty civil to me thus far (unless there's some angry subtext to everyone's responses that I've been missing) - that you're developing some kind of forum persecution complex over this is pretty funny, though.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

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.

My post was an exageration[pardon the spelling] but there were problems with begins in this style; of course this isn't the place for it and the post was poking fun at the posters who need to bash Batman to enjoy Batman Begins.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

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!

Well which part of what i said wasn't in the script? I didn't need to fill in the gaps the gaps were already filled.

In movies you only tell what you can't show. If the images do the job then why have someone flat out say it.

Here's a more recent example. In Spider-Man 2 he starts to lose his powers because of how Spider-Man is affecting his life, right? At no point is this ever spoken because it doesn't need to be.

 

[El Payaso]

You've convinced me. B89 is untouchable.

If for "untouchable" you mean "actually very good," I couild agree.

Excuse me while I burn my copy of Batman Begins and play B89 on a constant loop, praising its every perfection.

Wrong man. Thing is you don't have to bash one to like the other. I like both.

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.

Exactly. Mayor Borg already explained publicly that they wouldn't be able to control the chaos in the parade. Add to that the corruption factor that has been thrown right at our faces throughout all the movie and yes, you have there the reason why no cops were there. At least that we've seen. More than that would be spoonfeeding.

 

[The Guard]

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.

Have I taken something out of context? Please, enlighten me.

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.

If I'm condescending, so be it. It's mostly because you have such ridiculous "film issues" with the movie. They're not remotely valid in the context of films or of the movie itself, and in the context of the Batman mythology, they're simply absurd. "Where did The Joker's goons come from?", "Why is Batman missing The Joker with his guns?", "Why is he waiting until people are endangered to start saving them?"...I mean, you cannot be serious.

And when did anyone say the film is untouchable?

 

[Chris Wallace]

I won't go as far as "vastly overrated". I do, however, think that there were a lot of flaws in the plot-which I've pointed out numerous times in numerous threads & gotten viciously flamed. I feel we didn't get to know Bruce or Batman at all. The opening scene was horrendously put together. There's more but I don't care to go into it & get flamed all over again. At the same time there were a great many things done right, & overall they outweighed the mistakes Burton made.

 

[Mike53421]

Just saw Batman 89 on TV tonight, I enjoyed it still. Some stuff was flawed as we've all pointed out, but alot of it bridged the Adam West Batman with the Batman we love today, so it was a necessary step. Although not perfect, it got the job done. Agree with Chris Wallace, I found myself just not caring for Bruce at all (whereas in Begins you can't help but not want to see him do well).

And that Danny Elfman theme is still awesome, I enjoy that one and the music from Begins and TDK very much, no rivalry there.

 

[Chris Wallace]

My biggest issue was Batman's disregard for justice over vengeance & his willingness to commit murder. He didn't stop the mugging at the beginning of the movie or even make sure the perps were brought to justice. He roughed them up & went on his merry way. He killed just about all of Joker's henchmen in the final act, & premeditatedly killed the Joker. Not exactly a hero in my book.

 

[El Payaso]

My biggest issue was Batman's disregard for justice over vengeance & his willingness to commit murder.

It's what defined the original concept of Batman. He exists to stop crime. Not to be politically correct with criminals (as they weren't with his parents).

In the movie, Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents, but as a force that stops as many criminals as he can. When he fiunds out that Jack napier (aka Joker) is his parents' killer, it's a coincidence, he never expected to find the one.

This Batman has no reason to be fair to criminals.

He didn't stop the mugging at the beginning of the movie or even make sure the perps were brought to justice. He roughed them up & went on his merry way.

I think the muggers were pretty much stopped from keep committing crime and they were brought to justice.

But Batman had a bigger plan with the mugger: "I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me."

He killed just about all of Joker's henchmen in the final act, & premeditatedly killed the Joker.

And thus, there will be no more innocent victims at hands of any of those criminals.

Not exactly a hero in my book.

Of course not. Batman's not the traditional hero. He's a hero because he devoted his life to keep innocent people safe from crime. The movie was about that.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

It's what defined the original concept of Batman. He exists to stop crime. Not to be politically correct with criminals (as they weren't with his parents).

Actually not. The original concept of Batman was birdman. And after the revamp of the concept he became a wise-cracking adventurer and detective dressed up as a Bat. They never thought about an origin for their character. That was a retcon.

In the movie, Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents, but as a force that stops as many criminals as he can. When he fiunds out that Jack napier (aka Joker) is his parents' killer, it's a coincidence, he never expected to find the one.

Yeah, he is a psychopath who mistakes every criminal for the killer of his parents.

This Batman has no reason to be fair to criminals.

Well, he is a feeling human being.

Of course not. Batman's not the traditional hero. He's a hero because he devoted his life to keep innocent people safe from crime. The movie was about that.

Of course he is a traditional hero. He is actually an archetype. The powerless hero born out of tradegy. And the movie was not about that, the movie Batman followed the 80s formula when every hero had to become a "flawed character" / anti-hero like Wolverine, because he was so popular, just like every hero became a troubled private life after the success of Spider-Man and every hero had to face crazy sci-fi adventures because of the success of the 50s and 60s Superman.

 

[El Payaso]

Actually not. The original concept of Batman was birdman. And after the revamp of the concept he became a wise-cracking adventurer and detective dressed up as a Bat. They never thought about an origin for their character. That was a retcon.

Batman started looking for revenge.

Yeah, he is a psychopath who mistakes every criminal for the killer of his parents.

Where did I imply he's a psychopath?

And no, he doesn't mistake criminals. He's aware they're not the one. That's what I said "Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents."

You could get good benefit out of reading properly. Good reader good replier.

Well, he is a feeling human being.

I don't know about "feeling." It's obvious that his parents' murder has turned him into a non regular/average feeling human being.

And may I ask, how is that reply supposed to be funny? Because that's a laughing emoticon right?

Of course he is a traditional hero. He is actually an archetype.

No, he's not. That's why people perceive him as Superman's opposite in many ways (even Superman himself feels like that).

The powerless hero born out of tradegy.

See? A brief description shows is not traditional. Powerless and tragic. Superman is far more traditional and is nothing like that.

And the movie was not about that,

It was about a powerless hero born out of tragedy.

the movie Batman followed the 80s formula when every hero had to become a "flawed character" / anti-hero like Wolverine, because he was so popular, just like every hero became a troubled private life after the success of Spider-Man and every hero had to face crazy sci-fi adventures because of the success of the 50s and 60s Superman.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Wolverine was created in the 70's.

 

[MysterioMenace]

It’s nice to see so many fans of Batman 1989. Of course it’s not perfect. I don’t think any of the Batman films are perfect comic depictions and if someone exclaims perfection…they’re either blind or lying. I found Burtons original Batman to be genius. I miss the more comic-world look in Nolan’s films. That’s one issue I’ve always had. Nolan’s Gotham is just the backdrop. Burtons Gotham was a character and I rightfully feel it should be a character in-and-of itself. It was beautiful! I think a composite of Burtons original film and Nolan’s two Batman’s would equal out to the best Batman film. We just need a director to come along years from now and do just that.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Batman started looking for revenge.

No he started because DC (National Periodicals) searched for another big character next to Superman, so they created a cool-looking guy in a batsuit who faced entertaining adventures. His origin was a retcon. And the fact that his parents died where referenced in the stories after that moment... well, about 5 times in 30 years?

Where did I imply he's a psychopath?

And no, he doesn't mistake criminals. He's aware they're not the one. That's what I said "Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents."

If he acts against the one who killed his parents... then it is an understandable motivation. If he mistakes every criminal for the murderer of his parents... then he is outright insane. And that's what Burton's Batman is.

I don't know about "feeling." It's obvious that his parents' murder has turned him into a non regular/average feeling human being.

Well, it's obvious that your opinion was shaped by the Burton movies and Miller's work. The Batman I know and read when I grew up was a real human being with emotions who had a few moments of melancholy about the death of his parents but wasn't really consumed by it. He was a billionaire so he decided to spend his life saving other people. That's as noble and "feeling" as it gets. He even took a small boy as ward (oh yes, "modern" Batfans would say he did it because he needs a target for the criminals, that's the reason he is dressed up in bright clothes and how insane it is, to take a 9 year old boy with you to fight crime )

And may I ask, how is that reply supposed to be funny? Because that's a laughing emoticon right?

No, he's not. That's why people perceive him as Superman's opposite in many ways (even Superman himself feels like that).

No. He is not. They are more like brothers. Superman is born out of tradegy, too. He did not only loose his parents, he lost his WHOLE species and lives his life as one of us but deep inside IS NOT one of us. That's tradegy. If we go by pre-crisis continuity he lost his foster parents, too and after that he decided to become SUPERMAN.

See? A brief description shows is not traditional. Powerless and tragic. Superman is far more traditional and is nothing like that.

Somehow I get the feeling you don't read comics, you watch movies. BTW, history is full of powerless heroes.

It was about a powerless hero born out of tragedy.

He is not a "Hero" he is a lunatic who blows up people with a smile.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Wolverine was created in the 70's.

D'oh. He BECAME popular in the 80s. And that influenced almost all superheroes. That's why they overplayed the tradegy of Batman by making it all Batman is about instead of just his point of birth. Batman was not always an ninja-psychopath.

 

[El Payaso]

No he started because DC (National Periodicals) searched for another big character next to Superman, so they created a cool-looking guy in a batsuit who faced entertaining adventures. His origin was a retcon. And the fact that his parents died where referenced in the stories after that moment... well, about 5 times in 30 years?

And when the origin story was set, vengeance was his original motivation.

If he acts against the one who killed his parents... then it is an understandable motivation. If he mistakes every criminal for the murderer of his parents... then he is outright insane. And that's what Burton's Batman is.

No. He’s a hero. He doesn’t go after just one guy as a personal revenge but as a force to fight all criminals like the one who killed his parents, saving innocent people who could become their victims. As I said: “In the movie, Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents, but as a force that stops as many criminals as he can.”

Btw, this is the second time I have to quote myself. You’d do us a big favour trying to learn how to read properly and save us the unnecessary spam.

Well, it's obvious that your opinion was shaped by the Burton movies and Miller's work.

I try to enjoy the best interpretations of every character.

The Batman I know and read when I grew up was a real human being with emotions who had a few moments of melancholy about the death of his parents but wasn't really consumed by it. He was a billionaire so he decided to spend his life saving other people.

Just like Burton’s Batman. Specially the bold letters.

"current comic-book story lines and the new film, "The Dark Knight," play to the character's tortured story as an emotionless vigilante"

^ sounds not like the average feeling human being.

He even took a small boy as ward (oh yes, "modern" Batfans would say he did it because he needs a target for the criminals, that's the reason he is dressed up in bright clothes and how insane it is, to take a 9 year old boy with you to fight crime )

It is very insane and irresponsible to encourage an underage to fight crime. I invite you to read my posts on the Robin threads (Batman begins Sequels section) where I back up the notion of Robin being an absolute anti-Batman concept and a bad idea for movies.

Ah, now I got it. The face laughs then stops and thinks “Hey, I have no actual reason to laugh at all” and then he keeps laughing at his own nonsense

No. He is not. They are more like brothers.

Superman disagrees. He has objected Batman’s methods many times.

Superman is born out of tradegy, too. He did not only loose his parents, he lost his WHOLE species and lives his life as one of us but deep inside IS NOT one of us. That's tradegy. If we go by pre-crisis continuity he lost his foster parents, too and after that he decided to become SUPERMAN.

His mission as a superhero is not against of those who triggered his tragedy (since they’re all dead). His mission as a superhero comes out of his convictions. Batman, instead, starts becoming a hero out of rage against the criminmals that killed his parents.

Somehow I get the feeling you don't read comics, you watch movies. BTW, history is full of powerless heroes.

Oh yes, Superman, Spiderman, Hulk, Wolverine, X-Men, Fantastic Four, all heroes without powers.

He is not a "Hero" he is a lunatic who blows up people with a smile.

You just described Joker. You might consider to watch a movie properly in order to idenify the right character when refering to him.

D'oh. He BECAME popular in the 80s. And that influenced almost all superheroes. That's why the overplayed the tradegy of Batman by making it all Batman is about instead of just the point of birth.

Yes, he was created in the 70’s. You might check your info before posting it so to save us the spam. Thank you.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

And when the origin story was set, vengeance was his original motivation.

It was more like "here you have your origin story" and then they went on to bring entertaining stories. THe murder of his parents? FOotnotes.

No. He’s a hero. He doesn’t go after just one guy as a personal revenge but as a force to fight all criminals like the one who killed his parents, saving innocent people who could become their victims. As I said: “In the movie, Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents, but as a force that stops as many criminals as he can.”

No. He enjoys scaring and blowing up criminals. That's Burton's Batman. Batman wants to stop crime and used his disguise and his methods AS TOOLS.

Btw, this is the second time I have to quote myself. You’d do us a big favour trying to learn how to read properly and save us the unnecessary spam.

I try to enjoy the best interpretations of every character.

Miller and Burton are hardly the "Best".

Just like Burton’s Batman. Specially the bold letters.

No. He did it for selfish reasons. To compensate his pain.

It is very insane and irresponsible to encourage an underage to fight crime. I invite you to read my posts on the Robin threads (Batman begins Sequels section) where I back up the notion of Robin being an absolute anti-Batman concept and a bad idea for movies.

It's a fantasy. Those characters are ICONS. You cannot psychoanalyze FICTONAL CHARACTERS. Yeah right. The creators of Batman invented Robin. Too bad they didn't know THEIR own CONCEPT. How funny is that?!

Ah, now I got it. The face laughs then stops and thinks “Hey, I have no actual reason to laugh at all” and then he keeps laughing at his own nonsense

To quote your favourite movie: "Life's been good to me"

Superman disagrees. He has objected Batman’s methods many times.

The post-crisis Superman. The guy who is a total whimp. He is better known as MARVELman. BTW, this was just because DC decided that Batman and Superman "could not be friends because they are SOOOO different". It was a time when the desperately wanted to be gritty and controversial. Learn your history, man.

His mission as a superhero is not against of those who triggered his tragedy (since they’re all dead). His mission as a superhero comes out of his convictions. Batman, instead, starts becoming a hero out of rage against the criminmals that killed his parents.

But soon he realised that it's just a child's view and he has to dedicate his life to a greater good. A classical hero's journey.

Oh yes, Superman, Spiderman, Hulk, Wolverine, X-Men, Fantastic Four, all heroes without powers.

how 'bout the Phantom, THe Spirit, Odysseus, GReen Hornet, Zorro...

You just described Joker. You might consider to watch a movie properly in order to idenify the right character when refering to him.

You know the scene. Big guy. Bomb attached. Booom!

Yes, he was created in the 70’s. You might check your info before posting it so to save us the spam. Thank you.

Of course he was created in the 70s. But he was not popular back then. Where did I say that he was created in the 80s?!

 

[El Payaso]

It was more like "here you have your origin story" and then they went on to bring entertaining stories. THe murder of his parents? FOotnotes.

In fact it is the starting point if every Batman incarnation in the last decades. Writers and movies keep coming back to it once and again in order to explain Batman's motivations.

No. He enjoys scaring and blowing up criminals. That's Burton's Batman. Batman wants to stop crime and used his disguise and his methods AS TOOLS.

As far as I know Batman scared and blew criminals up using his disguise and methods as tools.

Cheer up, you'll find out you'll be the main fevored with a proper reading.

Miller and Burton are hardly the "Best".

Amongst the best AND most successful. Nolan keeps references to Miller and thearmoured balck suit that Burton created. And, as Burton, Nolan decided to rule out Robin. Great minds think alike

No. He did it for selfish reasons. To compensate his pain.

Bruce Wayne, in Burton's or Nolan's movies, didn't decide to fight crime out of his kind heart. It was all due to his personal loss and pain.

It's a fantasy. Those characters are ICONS. You cannot psychoanalyze FICTONAL CHARACTERS. Yeah right. The creators of Batman invented Robin. Too bad they didn't know THEIR own CONCEPT. How funny is that?!

I find it tragic actually. They created a character just in order to appeal to younger audiences.

Luckily for us, people like Burton and Nolan rescued only the best elements of the Batman history.

That said... Fictional story and characters?? Ah, then some criminals being blown away by Batman is not a serious matter. It's all for fun.

To quote your favourite movie: "Life's been good to me"

The skill to reply properly hasn't been too good to you sadly.

The post-crisis Superman. The guy who is a total whimp. He is better known as MARVELman. BTW, this was just because DC decided that Batman and Superman "could not be friends because they are SOOOO different". It was a time when the desperately wanted to be gritty and controversial. Learn your history, man.

So comic books back up my version of the story. Thanks for proving my point man.

But soon he realised that it's just a child's view and he has to dedicate his life to a greater good. A classical hero's journey.

Yeah, in Batman Returns he saves Gotham City in spite that the killer of his parents is already dead (and that the city itself thinks Batman is a villiain after he's framed). A true hero is born.

how 'bout the Phantom, THe Spirit, Odysseus, GReen Hornet, Zorro...

I think we all know what sepoarates Batman from those: Batman is non traditional and darker. What geniuses such as Burton, Miller and Nolan have known how to preserve.

You know the scene. Big guy. Bomb attached. Booom!

Great scene.

Thanks for the memories.

Of course he was created in the 70s. But he was not popular back then. Where did I say that he was created in the 80s?!

Whatever decade he was created in, Batman was strong enough to not be influenced by him.

A darker Batman was influenced by the first comic books and it came to stay since it has brought the best stories. Burton's Batman is to date the most successful of the bat-movies.

 

[Chris Wallace]

It's what defined the original concept of Batman. He exists to stop crime. Not to be politically correct with criminals (as they weren't with his parents).

In the movie, Batman doesn't act for revenge against the one who killed his parents, but as a force that stops as many criminals as he can. When he fiunds out that Jack napier (aka Joker) is his parents' killer, it's a coincidence, he never expected to find the one.

This Batman has no reason to be fair to criminals.



I think the muggers were pretty much stopped from keep committing crime and they were brought to justice.

But Batman had a bigger plan with the mugger: "I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me."



And thus, there will be no more innocent victims at hands of any of those criminals.



Of course not. Batman's not the traditional hero. He's a hero because he devoted his life to keep innocent people safe from crime. The movie was about that.

I think you misunderstood my first sentence. In my eyes, the whole point of Bruce becoming Batman was to ensure that others wouldn't have to suffer the same fate that he did. And yet, while a crime that eerily mirrored his own experience transpired right before his eyes, he stood idly by & observed from a safe distance. Did he intervene? No. He just watched. Knowing how casually & cavalierly Napier dispatched his parents, you would think he would have taken a more proactive approach in making sure that didn't happen. Plus, the woman disobeyed the mugger's command, ("Don't scream".)which could have easily led to her, her husband and even her son getting shot, with no interference from a highly-trained, armored crime fighter. If you're wearing all this gear & not protecting the innocent, why bother going out at all? Then, he didn't tie the dude up or hand him over to the police-he just left him there. What's to have stopped him from shaking it off & going about his business?
And while I'm on the subject of the whole rooftop bit, Batman's lowering onto the roof made no sense. There was nothing above it, so where did he lower himself from. And why do the whole "bat-wing" thing if nobody's watching?
Anyways, I digress. When I mentioned vengeance before, I wasn't talking about for himself. Letting someone commit a crime & beating them up after the fact is an act of vengeance, nothing more. Not for himself, but for their victims.
And as for "no more innocent victims dying at the hands of these criminals", Batman's no-killing policy is in place for a reason; "It separates me from them." He can't become what he fights against.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Does Batman fight crime for the city or for himself?
Isn't Batman a criminal himself?
Does he cause even more chaos and crime by attracting criminals to the city?
Doesn't he encourage vigilantism?

All great questions, all part of what is so fantastic and intriguing about the Batman character. If we couldn't discuss this stuff, he woule be less intresting.

Nolan and Bale, over to you....

 

[El Payaso]

I think you misunderstood my first sentence. In my eyes, the whole point of Bruce becoming Batman was to ensure that others wouldn't have to suffer the same fate that he did. And yet, while a crime that eerily mirrored his own experience transpired right before his eyes, he stood idly by & observed from a safe distance.

If you watch the movie he was quite far from the crime scene. It was only the scream from the woman what caught his attention.

Did he intervene?

Yes.

He just watched.

As soon as he knew about the crime being committed he went right to the muggers and gave them the fright of their lives. One of them was sent directly to the hospital so he won’t be doing anithing criminal for some weeks IF he dares to relapse again.

Knowing how casually & cavalierly Napier dispatched his parents, you would think he would have taken a more proactive approach in making sure that didn't happen.

Sadly for Batman, the technology found in Minority Report is not available so he can be around but he can’t predict where and when the crime will be exactly committed.

Plus, the woman disobeyed the mugger's command, ("Don't scream".)which could have easily led to her, her husband and even her son getting shot, with no interference from a highly-trained, armored crime fighter. If you're wearing all this gear & not protecting the innocent, why bother going out at all?

Because after Batman’s visit to the muggers, it’s clear they won’t be daring to rob anybody again.

Somwhere in the road you got convinced that being Batman allows you to be everywhere at the right time. But one person can be only at one place at a time. Scientific fact. In Batman’s own words “This is not a perfect world,” not even for a crime fighter.

Then, he didn't tie the dude up or hand him over to the police-he just left him there. What's to have stopped him from shaking it off & going about his business?

Batman’s phantasmagoric presence. Those guys will be feeling Batman’s presence all around them for the rest of their lives. THAT is the point behind the suit and the weapons. They just saw a creature that was got shot and didn’t die. A creature than jumped off a roof and dissapeared in the air as if it wasn’t there at all. Superstition and ignorance in their minds will keep them afraid of their surroundings after seeing Batman. THAT’s why Batman is better than cops. Muggers don’t fear cops or jail anymore, so what if they’re sent into there. Corruption will keep them on the streets commiting crime soon afterwards. Not with Batman.

And, as an additional benefit that Batman intended, they’ll be telling everyone else about him, spreading the rumour and making the legend grow.

And while I'm on the subject of the whole rooftop bit, Batman's lowering onto the roof made no sense. There was nothing above it, so where did he lower himself from.

How can you prove there was nothing above? Or do you mean nothing above that we saw?

And why do the whole "bat-wing" thing if nobody's watching?

Because he deviated the Batwing dramatically upwards so to avoid the cathedral. Going above the clouds was just a natural consequence to that.

Anyways, I digress. When I mentioned vengeance before, I wasn't talking about for himself. Letting someone commit a crime & beating them up after the fact is an act of vengeance, nothing more. Not for himself, but for their victims.

Then good for him and the victims. Those muggers won’t feel safe from now on.

And as for "no more innocent victims dying at the hands of these criminals", Batman's no-killing policy is in place for a reason; "It separates me from them." He can't become what he fights against.

That’s no more than a cliché. What separates Batman from criminals is that Batman doesn’t atack innocent people and criminals do, Batman doesn’t do what he does out of personal material benefit and criminals do, Batman saves future innocent victims of crime and criminals will make more innocent victims. In Burton’s movies he’s far from becoming a criminal, which is what criminals are.

 

[DACrowe]

I haven't read all of the thread, but I've skimmed enough of it.

Why is there this one or the other mentality? Why such hostility and hate among Bat-fans. Sheesh. Burton and Nolan have very different styles and interpretations of the character. Some will prefer one vision over another. I personally like both as much as I can enjoy Frank Miller's Batman as I can Danny O'Neil's, or Jeph Loeb's or Paul Dini/Bruce Timm's.

Do I prefer one? Yeah, I think BB is a better movie than B'89 and BR, but I still like both of those movies a lot, own both on DVD and still watch them from time to time. There are things I like better about what Burton and co. did (Keaton's Batman voice and his presence relying on stares and silence as opposed to growling and loudness, for example). I can still enjoy both. It seems there are fans who simply love what is new and hate what is old or those who have nostalgia for what they grew up on and refuse to accept anything new.

Burton liked Batman Begins. Nolan liked Batman (1989). I'm sure everyone will be at least intrigued by The Dark Knight. The only professional artist involved with either vision that has expressed sour grapes is Jack Nicholson and he's...well Jack Nicholson.

But Burton's is a surrealist exercise in filmmaking that explores the psychological depths of its characters while using and reinventing conventions of film noir and German expressionism. Nolan is more driven by adapting it into a real world setting that relies on versimilitude and traditional character development and the existential need for Batman to exist in this (our) world. He doesn't want to develop the character through the environment and through just images but to actually delve into why and how they do what they do.

Different takes. You can prefer one, but you don't have to hate the other or accuse those who like the other of being stupid or not a real Batman fan.

P.S. Arguing "you had to be there" in 1989 to appreciate Batman is a terrible argument. A movie should stand on its own over the course of time and I personally think Tim Burton's Batman has, even if I prefer Batman Begins.

 

[co2]

Burton liked Batman Begins. Nolan liked Batman (1989). I'm sure everyone will be at least intrigued by The Dark Knight.

It's funny that people feel like they have to like one or the other while both of these guys like and have a mutual respect for each other's film.

Besides. We all know the real enemy here is Joel Schumacher.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I am so glad this thread keeps going!

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Whatever decade he was created in, Batman was strong enough to not be influenced by him.

A darker Batman was influenced by the first comic books and it came to stay since it has brought the best stories. Burton's Batman is to date the most successful of the bat-movies.

I am not answering the rest because I'm drunken at the moment...

But Batman was not strong enough. It's quite obvious that in the 50s/60s the used the Superman forumla on him, like the did in the 70s with the Marvel one and in the 80s they "Wolverine-ized" him. Sorry. Get over him. His stories changed with the times he lived in. BTW, the current Batman is much nicer.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Does Batman fight crime for the city or for himself?
Isn't Batman a criminal himself?
Does he cause even more chaos and crime by attracting criminals to the city?
Doesn't he encourage vigilantism?

All great questions, all part of what is so fantastic and intriguing about the Batman character. If we couldn't discuss this stuff, he woule be less intresting.

Nolan and Bale, over to you....

These "questions" are pointless because Batman IS NOT REAL and he could NEVER BE REAL. Please watch ****ing DEATH WISH movies, they are much more realistic.

So bring on some exciting adventure but not these pretentious psycho-dramas. Judge Dredd is more badass than than Batman will ever be.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I haven't read all of the thread, but I've skimmed enough of it.

Why is there this one or the other mentality? Why such hostility and hate among Bat-fans. Sheesh. Burton and Nolan have very different styles and interpretations of the character. Some will prefer one vision over another. I personally like both as much as I can enjoy Frank Miller's Batman as I can Danny O'Neil's, or Jeph Loeb's or Paul Dini/Bruce Timm's.

Do I prefer one? Yeah, I think BB is a better movie than B'89 and BR, but I still like both of those movies a lot, own both on DVD and still watch them from time to time. There are things I like better about what Burton and co. did (Keaton's Batman voice and his presence relying on stares and silence as opposed to growling and loudness, for example). I can still enjoy both. It seems there are fans who simply love what is new and hate what is old or those who have nostalgia for what they grew up on and refuse to accept anything new.

Burton liked Batman Begins. Nolan liked Batman (1989). I'm sure everyone will be at least intrigued by The Dark Knight. The only professional artist involved with either vision that has expressed sour grapes is Jack Nicholson and he's...well Jack Nicholson.

But Burton's is a surrealist exercise in filmmaking that explores the psychological depths of its characters while using and reinventing conventions of film noir and German expressionism. Nolan is more driven by adapting it into a real world setting that relies on versimilitude and traditional character development and the existential need for Batman to exist in this (our) world. He doesn't want to develop the character through the environment and through just images but to actually delve into why and how they do what they do.

Different takes. You can prefer one, but you don't have to hate the other or accuse those who like the other of being stupid or not a real Batman fan.

P.S. Arguing "you had to be there" in 1989 to appreciate Batman is a terrible argument. A movie should stand on its own over the course of time and I personally think Tim Burton's Batman has, even if I prefer Batman Begins.

Well said DAC, very good post