Batman 89 vs Batman Begins

[Batmannerism]

Tough comparison. Both were groundbreaking.

Batman 89 proved that Batman was viable on the big screen and brought some sense of the serious stories from the 80s.

Batman Begins was a more complex exploration of the transformation of Bruce Wayne into Batman - something that's a massive story, with vast potential, Gotham barely touched on it after how many seasons ?

All in all I dont think we can say one is better than the other, but I think we can say they are both great Batman films. To me the Dark Knight is still the ultimate Batman film, while other films have done individual elements of the characters or story better, as a whole TDK still stands above everything else.

 

[Frodo]

I don't really consider Begins groundbreaking. It is the first Batman film to really show how Bruce became Batman , so its a milestone in that sense.

It also revived the franchise, so its important in the cinematic history of Batman.

Begins is a well made , excellent film, but I've never seen it as groundbreaking.

The Dark Knight is the ground breaking and influential film. That's the film that has cast a long shadow, and is still one of the goal standards in the genre.

 

[fan4stic]

I think BB

 

[DeadlyWest]

Batman 89 was more important, in my opinion. Without that, it's unlikely Batman would've been as big of a star as he is today. And 89 definitely has things I prefer. To call the soundtrack iconic is beyond a given at this stage.

But the better movie? Begins, pretty easily. I'd even go as far as to call it the best live action Batman movie. TDK's a better movie overall, but I'd more consider that a crime drama with Batman characters than a Batman movie. You could easily change a few details and turn the movie into a standard noir detective movie and it'd arguably be just as good. Begins, on the other hand, only really works as a Batman movie. You can't have a scene where he calls an army of bats, into Arkham Asylum and have it NOT be a Batman movie. And by God is it a damn good one.

If only he didn't commit manslaughter at the end, I may even go as far as to call it a top contender for the perfect Batman movie.

 

[Herofan]

Batman Begins is a much better movie and also a better origin story, B89 is, despite still being a good depiction of Batman, almost only barely an origin story. It shows his early impacts and relationships with the police but BB basically also has that and a lot more, B89 has a little more on how the general public and media feel about Batman but not much more.

BB ending kind of inconclusively on Batman's big moral belief, concluding with "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", is, when you think about, a bit of a problem for the character but the movie still does a better job of exploring why he became and will continue to be Batman.

This is not even a valid comparison. Batman '89 was not a Batman origin story. It had one flashback scene, but that doesn't make it an origin story and was basically done to give Joker a personal connection to Batman. Apparently it was also shoe horned in during the writers' strike, and against Sam Hamm's wishes along with other things fans didn't care for in that movie.

The hardcore fans probably also didn't like that in BB the killer was also identified (though as Joe Chill) and killed off and Bruce, although before he became Batman, nearly did kill him off, but their expectations were lower or they were just pleased that he was a lot less murderous and more moral, against killing, in general.

 

[Zorro]

Batman Begins is a better film but I enjoy '89 way more as a cbm based on batman despite the inaccuracies. It feels like a Batman comic from that time

 

[Brother Jack]

But the better movie? Begins, pretty easily. I'd even go as far as to call it the best live action Batman movie. TDK's a better movie overall, but I'd more consider that a crime drama with Batman characters than a Batman movie. You could easily change a few details and turn the movie into a standard noir detective movie and it'd arguably be just as good. Begins, on the other hand, only really works as a Batman movie. You can't have a scene where he calls an army of bats, into Arkham Asylum and have it NOT be a Batman movie. And by God is it a damn good one.

I've never understood this criticism. You could say virtually the same thing about Year One, yet it's one of the most respected Batman stories ever told. As a narrative, Batman is fundamentally a "crime drama".

 

[hellblazer103]

I've never understood this criticism. You could say virtually the same thing about Year One, yet it's one of the most respected Batman stories ever told. As a narrative, Batman is fundamentally a "crime drama".

This

 

[Batmannerism]

Batman 89 was more important, in my opinion. Without that, it's unlikely Batman would've been as big of a star as he is today. And 89 definitely has things I prefer. To call the soundtrack iconic is beyond a given at this stage.

But the better movie? Begins, pretty easily. I'd even go as far as to call it the best live action Batman movie. TDK's a better movie overall, but I'd more consider that a crime drama with Batman characters than a Batman movie. You could easily change a few details and turn the movie into a standard noir detective movie and it'd arguably be just as good. Begins, on the other hand, only really works as a Batman movie. You can't have a scene where he calls an army of bats, into Arkham Asylum and have it NOT be a Batman movie. And by God is it a damn good one.

If only he didn't commit manslaughter at the end, I may even go as far as to call it a top contender for the perfect Batman movie.

I think your comments are very insightful - particularly about Elfman's score for '89

However, I believe there is some possible legal argument as to whether Batman committed manslaughter at the end - well, I suppose on a narrow definition of manslaughter he does - but an arguable defence of " defence of self or another " ( self defence would be available).

Happy to discuss this further, as I enjoy legal argument, but only if it won't bore everyone else.

 

[MilkmanDan]

The goal wasn't so much to show you how Batman came to be, it was to say "this is what Batman is". Basically, by the time Burton came on board, they wanted to hit the ground running from a narrative pov, and leave behind the long origin in earlier drafts over the decade .

I agree. '89 isn't really an origin story. It is however a great introduction to the character. I love how we're first introduced to Batman through the eyes of couple of criminals who talk about him like he's some kind mythical monster. And later Vicky Vale acts as a viewpoint character as we meet Bruce Wayne and learn about his backstory. I think it's an interesting way to tell a Batman story and it was probably really accessible to any audience members who may not have been fans of the character.

BB is a great movie but it clearly has the luxury of the knowledge that everyone already knows exactly where the story is going and they'll enjoy seeing Bruce Wayne before he became Batman. I don't think that would have been the case back in '89. People who mainly knew the character from the Adam West show might not have been particularly thrilled to watch Bruce study martial arts and purchase thousands of masks in preparation of becoming the superhero they came to see.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Keaton and Bale are both tied at Batman, Bale had the better Bruce, 89 had the better batmobile and soundtrack..... I definitely liked Begins much more as an overall product though.

 

[theMan-Bat]

That origin flashback in Batman (1989) is such a heartbreaking and haunting nightmare-like scene that gets to me every time. Those two gunshots shook my soul. And that neo-noir retro atmosphere in the alleyway is awesome with long shadows, billowing mist and 1930s style fedoras and trench coats.
In Fantazone #1 (1989) Batman (1989) scriptwriter Sam Hamm explained that, "At one point they did discuss doing it as a period piece, possibly in black and white with an art deco look to it. Tim [Burton] and I decided that the neatest way to do it would be to give it a 'retro-futuristic' look, the same sort of thing you see in Brazil [(1985) by Terry Gilliam]."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Fantazone" Issue #1 Summer 1989

Frank Miller didn't create Batman. Tim Burton's Batman (1989) went past Frank Miller's Batman: Year One Post-Crisis reboot origin with a hooker Selina Kyle, etc., and instead went all the way back to the 1939 original Detective Comics by Bill Finger and Bob Kane as source material to base his movie off of, as producer Michael Uslan had requested and shown him. Michael Uslan said, "I said 'I want to produce a definitive Batman movie.' A dark serious movie, just the way Bob Kane and Bill Finger created him in 1939. I only let Tim [Burton] see the original year of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger run, up until the time that Robin was introduced. I only let them see the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers and the Neal Adams/Denny O’Neil runs. I was very careful to not show the comics from the ’60s."
Michael Uslan: Man Behind the Batman - Part 1 - SuperHeroHype
In Starlog Yearbook vol. 5 (1989) Anton Furst explained, "We were very interested in the Bob Kane one, the original. We were going back to the original DC comic and the look of Batman as Bob Kane originally did it. But there was another one, The Killing Joke, which had a very strong, graphic look to it, and was based on the Joker. This Batman script that we're doing has the Joker as a major character. Those two really influenced us."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Starlog Yearbook" Vol. 5, 1989
It's not Tim Burton's fault that apparently most contemporary comic book guys have not even read those original 1939-1940s Batman stories [even though DC has reprinted them many times over the decades] because they don't fit in with whatever the current rebooted mess of a DCU continuity is in the monthly comics.

Batman (1989) scriptwriter Sam Hamm explained in Fantazone #1 (1989), "It struck me as a much better solution to treat his origin as a mystery and gradually work back to it."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Fantazone" Issue #1 Summer 1989
Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27 (1939) "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" and worked back to Batman's two-page origin flashback in Detective Comics #33 (1939) "Legend: The Batman And How He Came To Be."

Sam Hamm explained in Comics Scene #3 (1988), "I felt it was just like that original Batman story ["The Case of the Chemical Syndicate"] in 1939 which starts out with this mysterious Batman who goes off on his exploits. And the shock at the end is it [Batman] turns out to be Bruce Wayne. The twin agendas I thought were right to work with were: 1) Determine what is the kind of story structure that will make Batman sufficiently menacing. He's a frightening character. His whole gimmick, the only reason to wear the bat costume, is to frighten people. And 2) Do what that initial [1939] Batman story did and take Batman as a fait accompli. In other words, if you start with Batman and work backwards to [show he is] Bruce Wayne, then you have a structure that allows you to see this character's impact on the rest of the people in the story. You don't have to waste half-an-hour [on the origin and] getting him into the costume. People are paying to see the guy in the suit kick some bad guys. If you're paying to see Batman, then you want to see Batman."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Comics Scene" Issue #3 July 1988

However, the origin flashback in Batman Begins is unintentionally comedic to me the way Linus Roache's Thomas Wayne calmly says "It's fine" repeatedly to Richard Brake's Joe Chill pointing a gun at him and mugging him and even calmly says "It's okay" after he was shot and dying, and his wife was apparently already died.

 

[hellblazer103]

Batman Begins is a better film but I enjoy '89 way more as a cbm based on batman despite the inaccuracies. It feels like a Batman comic from that time

I'm pretty much the opposite on that lol. I think 89 is probably the more fun/rewatchable film but Begins felt more like a film that was actually about Batman. Although at least 89 feels more like a Batman film than Returns does lol

 

[Charzhin0]

One is a complete origin and the other is Batman already in his prime. I loved the concept of both movies so it's really difficult to compare them because the stories they are telling are not the same. I do prefer Begins though because the relationship between mentor and student of Ras/Bruce is more satisfying to watch.

 

[theMan-Bat]

That's funny because to me Begins felt more like a wannabe Bond film, with Bale as globetrotting adventurer Bond, Morgan Freeman basically as Bond's Q. Liam Neeson's Qui-Gon gone bad as the suave international Bond villain trope and the League of Shadows as SPECTRE assassins made into evil ninjas lol.

 

[Flint Marko]

I've got pretty hot takes on both Burton Batman movies, namely in that I think the first one is just fine and the second one is actually not very good at all.

I admire the production value, the sets, music, costumes, and a handful of performances, but beyond the window-dressing neither really hold up particularly well.

So, it's easily BB for me.

 

[Wheels]

That's funny because it me Begins felt more like a wannabe Bond film, with Bale as globetrotting adventuerer Bond, Morgan Freeman basically as Bond's Q. Liam Neeson's Qui-Gon gone bad as the suave international Bond villain trope and the League of Shadows as SPECTRE assassins made into evil ninjas lol.

I think it's mostly Fox's role that makes it feel so obviously Bond. Otherwise it's just 70s Batman. I get the preference for Bruce designing his own stuff though. I prefer that too.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I honestly got Bond vibes from Batman Forever

 

[DeadlyWest]

I think your comments are very insightful - particularly about Elfman's score for '89

However, I believe there is some possible legal argument as to whether Batman committed manslaughter at the end - well, I suppose on a narrow definition of manslaughter he does - but an arguable defence of " defence of self or another " ( self defence would be available).

Happy to discuss this further, as I enjoy legal argument, but only if it won't bore everyone else.

Sorry for the late response, haven't been on here in a while. But in my opinion legal argument doesn't matter much in terms of Batman's morality. I was mostly making a joke more than anything when referring to it as manslaughter. But I still contend that even bending Batman's morality to be less absolute breaks the intention of the rule in the first place. It's fiction's greatest double-edged sword because of how absolute Batman follows it.

It's a perfect reflection of the psyche of Bruce Wayne and just how fragile it is at a foundational level that if he took a life he'd see himself as no better than people like the Joker. For killing one person. What type of trauma that goes even beyond seeing your parents gunned down causes someone to view themselves in such a way? It just makes Bruce Wayne such a goddamn fascinating and interesting character already. But it goes even deeper than that, it's also a reflection of his morality. Uncompromising idealism in the face of an uncompromisingly pessimistic environment. He refuses to believe that some people can't change, that not everyone can be saved. Despite the thousands Joker has killed, he refuses to give into the idea that even someone as abhorrent as him can't be saved. Even though, honestly, he should. It's this very concept that makes Bruce Wayne my favourite fictional character of all time. He's so hopeful, so uncompromising in his idea that nobody is past the point of no return, that everybody can be saved and he'll be damned if he doesn't try to, that he will follow that morality without exception despite it directly making him a worse hero for it because of the severe ramifications of people like the Joker still being alive. It's true humanity and true compassion, but to a complete fault because something like that does not belong in a place like Gotham. But Batman does not care, he refuses to give up the idea that Gotham, if not people as a whole, are beyond saving. His absolute no killing rule is a perfect reflection of that.

To bend that, to make it more realistic and less absolute may make Batman technically a better hero because it is the only viable option sometimes to save the most people, but it makes him a far less interesting character because it removes what is both his greatest strength and his greatest flaw as a character.