Batman 89 Vs. TDK

[Ryan]

Sam Fisher says "TDK. B89 is the most overrated superhero movie in the history of mankind."
Thanks, I feel the same way. Although the first Spiderman movie comes pretty close. I still enjoyed Batman Begins as the best superhero movie I've seen, but in keeping with the thread, TDK is superior in everyway to B89 (except maybe for the batsuit).

 

[Rodrigo90]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Y-K3qxyyM

I dont know if anybody has seen these,but they are deleted scenes from B89. Worth a look

 

[El Payaso]

i'm with you.

just touching on the best joker debate, it's heath all the way for me.

dozens of actors could have done what nicholson did, but i can't think of many actors that have that "fearlessness" than nolan talked about being a requirement for taking on this new vision of the joker.

How could we know for sure actually. Probably many actors out there could have made a good Joker. The only ones we know for sure are Heat and Jack.

Ledger certaihnly did something amazing but back in 1989 people and critics were saying the same about Jack.

Now of course Nolan's "new vision" onm Joker required something different than what Nicholson did. But Jack did the traditional Joker perfectly. And he is also an actor that's characerized for having taken very challenging roles that few actors could handle well, Joker being one of them.

jack's joker was never definitive. it was fun. good, bordering on great -and back in the day, it was pretty impressive. but i never, ever would have said it was the best portrayal of the character in any medium, because it didn't come close. but heath... well, he's too good to top. in all liklihood, too good to equal, as well.

Well, Jack's Joker is as traditional as it could be. Someone else could come and say Ledger's Joker is a terrorist with make-up and therefore not what the Joker has been for decades in comics.

But Nicholson's Joker not being definitive? It was so definitive that the next incarnation of the character had to take a whole new route because the old traditional Joiker was already done. And Heat was the first to admit that about Nicholson's portrayal.

i just think it's amazing that heath took a role that was so clearly jack's and well known and brought something incredibly new and great to the table. he really nailed it.

Well, to begin with it was the Nolans who took the character and did something new with it.

But as you say, it is impressive how Ledger could do something new with a role "that was so clearly Jack's." The impressive thing is that few actors have been able to can come, play the same role as Jack and do it well.

 

[mothy]

Well, to begin with it was the Nolans who took the character and did something new with it.

of course.

ledger's joker has real dramatic power, much as anthony hopkins' hannibal lecter managed to accomplish. beyond the creepy factor and the absence of an origin, he creates a powerful depth for the character all on his own.

take, for example, the scene where he introduces himself to the mob - there's a hint of nervousness, of fear that they won't take him at his word, the whole scene through. and perhaps even a tinge of frustration and anger at being perceived as an outsider (he has undoubtedly felt isolated his whole life, after all, and there's a reason he finds batman to be such a kindred spirit).

i'd like to add the scene where the detonator doesn't work. the joker is played like a frustrated child that has his loillipop stolen (the detonator doesn't work), and then it has it given back to him (the hospital blows up).

the whole impression i have from this joker is of a wicked and very dangerous wounded child. and this makes him scarier. (like whittaker's psycho dictator idi amin in "the last king of scotland". a very different movie in content and tone based on real life events of course, but they are both scary because they have the mind of an angry child, and the assets to make their threats true)

 

[returntovoid]

My opinion on why I think Batman 89 is better than The Dark Knight:

Batman 89 has an iconic/groundbreaking/epic score by Danny Elfman that to me is synomous with the character of Batman and Gotham City, heck it was also used for BTAS later in 1992. The TDK score was good but nothing about it that I thought was iconic/groundbreaking/epic or anything.

This is debatable but I prefer Nicholson's Joker over Heath's Joker because the B89 Joker was very much like the classic Joker of the comic books. He had deadly toys to kill people, used laughing gas, fried a guy with a joy buzzer/talked to his stinking corpse, made a gag out of killing people, was really enjoying killing people and overall was more like The Joker rather than a real-world terrorist that he was in TDK (IMO, of course).

B89 Batsuit was better than that RoboCop looking one in TDK. The design for the B89 Batsuit was simpler/less busy, was way more intimidating and totally screamed Batman. Also, Batman used more of his iconic gadgets here than in TDK.

The Gothic/Film-noir Gotham City in B89 was very accurate to how it is in the comics rather than the clean metropolis in TDK that does not scream Gotham at all, although I thought Gotham in Batman Begins was better with at least the misty/dirty Film-noir component being present.

B89 balanced the dark/serious tone with fun/comic book style really well rather than going too serious/realistic like TDK.

B89 had more iconic shots than TDK had, although Batman Begins managed to get iconic shots.

Along with Batman Begins, this film gave Batman a intimidating presence. Batman had more iconic moments here than TDK and would be more in the shadows.

The timeless 1940's Crime film/Film-noir setting is genius, reminds me of BTAS and suits Batman's corrupt/crime infested world of Gotham City.

The pacing of TDK was too fast, too much was going on and left no time to breath whereas I didn't have this problem with B89.

 

[Bruce Malone]

My opinion on why I think Batman 89 is better than The Dark Knight:

Batman 89 has an iconic/groundbreaking/epic score by Danny Elfman that to me is synomous with the character of Batman and Gotham City, heck it was also used for BTAS later in 1992. The TDK score was good but nothing about it that I thought was iconic/groundbreaking/epic or anything.

Hans Zimmers score was defenitly epic in scope

This is debatable but I prefer Nicholson's Joker over Heath's Joker because the B89 Joker was very much like the classic Joker of the comic books. He had deadly toys to kill people, used laughing gas, fried a guy with a joy buzzer/talked to his stinking corpse, made a gag out of killing people, was really enjoying killing people and overall was more like The Joker rather than a real-world terrorist that he was in TDK (IMO, of course).

Sticking closer to the comics in appearance should not be synonymous with a better performance. Not to mention there are numerous variations on the Joker character

B89 Batsuit was better than that RoboCop looking one in TDK. The design for the B89 Batsuit was simpler/less busy, was way more intimidating and totally screamed Batman. Also, Batman used more of his iconic gadgets here than in TDK.

Here i'll agree to an extant. But the gadgets used in 89 were no more iconic. The Batgun was actually invented for the 89 movie


The Gothic/Film-noir Gotham City in B89 was very accurate to how it is in the comics rather than the clean metropolis in TDK that does not scream Gotham at all, although I thought Gotham in Batman Begins was better with at least the misty/dirty Film-noir component being present.

Nolan is trying to bring Batman into a real world and thats how he acheived the look.

B89 balanced the dark/serious tone with fun/comic book style really well rather than going too serious/realistic like TDK.

True but as for a better film a matter of taste.

B89 had more iconic shots than TDK had, although Batman Begins managed to get iconic shots.

Very debatable and alot has to do with nostalgia. We'll see tdk in 20 yrs.

Along with Batman Begins, this film gave Batman a intimidating presence. Batman had more iconic moments here than TDK and would be more in the shadows.

The timeless 1940's Crime film/Film-noir setting is genius, reminds me of BTAS and suits Batman's corrupt/crime infested world of Gotham City.

Again debatable on personal preferance

The pacing of TDK was too fast, too much was going on and left no time to breath whereas I didn't have this problem with B89.

i've heard the opposite of this from alot of people.

Overall I think both films are great and yes if someone finds one better it probably has to do with personal taste as opposed to one actually being better.

 

[Travesty]

^I have to agree with Returntovoid on just about everything he said, ESPECIALLY that last one. TDK moved WAYYYYYY to fast, and felt like they had 2-3 stories rolled into one, and therefore, couldn't come off as convincing as it should of. And about the iconic shot being "debatable" between the two films: What did TDK bring that was more iconic, as apposed to B89?

 

[Bruce Malone]

I dont know almost every scene involving the joker? Batman 89 has its iconic images because its 20 years old, nostalgia. Nothing released a year ago has the ability to be seen as iconic compared to a film that's been around in the publics mind for years.

Trust me 20 years from now TDK will be just as "iconic".

 

[Infinity9999x]

I dont know almost every scene involving the joker? Batman 89 has its iconic images because its 20 years old, nostalgia. Nothing released a year ago has the ability to be seen as iconic compared to a film that's been around in the publics mind for years.

Trust me 20 years from now TDK will be just as "iconic".

Sorry Bruce, I think TDK is the better film, hands down, but B89 has more of the iconic "picture spread" shots then TDK did. At least with Batman. And really, that's not too surprising. Look at who the director is. Burton lives for visuals.

However, I will say that TDK had a TON of now-iconic shots of the Joker. If you don't believe me, just google it. Heck, they've already got a wax statue of the Joker in the jail cell at the museum at Niagra Falls.

So as far as Mr. J goes, there's a ton of iconic shots.

 

[bane]

And about the iconic shot being "debatable" between the two films: What did TDK bring that was more iconic, as apposed to B89?

This.

 

[Travesty]

^I wont disagree with those pics, but if you really want me to, I can pull up about 40-50 from B89, if not more. I'm not saying TDK had none, it just had the least out of the two, and maybe, the least out of all Bat-flicks I've seen. Those pics didn't bring anything "more" iconic to anything we've seen on screen before.

 

[david icke]

^I wont disagree with those pics, but if you really want me to, I can pull up about 40-50 from B89, if not more. I'm not saying TDK had none, it just had the least out of the two, and maybe, the least out of all Bat-flicks I've seen. Those pics didn't bring anything "more" iconic to anything we've seen on screen before.

The only time we saw Batman perched on top of a building, looking out over the city, in the old series was the last shot of Batman89, we get it for a second and then the movie's over. The Dark Knight has that shot of Batman on a rooftop overlooking the city, and BB had a couple too.
The big difference is that these shots were actually of Batman in the middle of a patrol and were part of the story, just like the shots in a typically good Batman comic. With the Batman89 rooftop shot , it was just a pose to end the movie with.
They, TDK included, did bring some iconic shots to the table that hadn't been seen before in a BM movie, and they are the type of shots that should have been in there before.
Same with the shot of Batman floating down the stairs in BB when his cape expands out, how many times have we seen drawings like that? It used to bug me that we didn't get shots like that in the old series. Nolan and co have said they actually went out of their way to compose shots like that, just like the cool pics from the books.

edit: the thing is, they could never do those type of 'cape billowing in the wind' poses in the old movies because the cape was made of a heavy leather. With the memory cloth cape they could finally compose some shots like those of the comics with the wind catching the cape, while Batman pulled one of his gargoyle on the building poses.

 

[bane]

^I wont disagree with those pics, but if you really want me to, I can pull up about 40-50 from B89, if not more. I'm not saying TDK had none, it just had the least out of the two, and maybe, the least out of all Bat-flicks I've seen. Those pics didn't bring anything "more" iconic to anything we've seen on screen before.

Well I can post 50-60 pics from TDK that were more well and difficult to shoot from anything seen in B89.TDK had more variety in it's cinematography than B89, Wally Pfister did a great work especially using the Imax cameras.Yes those scenes didn't bring anything new, but atleast they weren't shot with miniatures and that asks for alot more practice and skills.

 

[Travesty]

The only time we saw Batman perched on top of a building, looking out over the city, in the old series was the last shot of Batman89, we get it for a second and then the movie's over. The Dark Knight has that shot of Batman on a rooftop overlooking the city, and BB had a couple too. The big difference is that these shots were actually of Batman in the middle of a patrol and were part of the story, just like the shots in a typically good Batman comic. With the Batman89 rooftop shot , it was just a pose to end the movie with.

The very first scene in B89 had him on top of the building, looking down, and then we seem him slowly glide down, right before fights the thugs.

They, TDK included, did bring some iconic shots to the table that hadn't been seen before in a BM movie, and they are the type of shots that should have been in there before.

Again, I'm not saying there wasn't anything "iconic" to the character, but nothing thats "more" iconic then what we've seen in other Bat-flicks, and to me, barely any as it is.

Same with the shot of Batman floating down the stairs in BB when his cape expands out, how many times have we seen drawings like that? It used to bug me that we didn't get shots like that in the old series. Nolan and co have said they actually went out of their way to compose shots like that, just like the cool pics from the books.

B89 had that when he crashed through the restaurant window to save Vicky Vale from the Joker, remember? And we're talking about B89 and TDK, not Begins, as I thought Begins was far better in terms of capturing Batmans iconic essence/atmosphere more then TDK.

edit: the thing is, they could never do those type of 'cape billowing in the wind' poses in the old movies because the cape was made of a heavy leather. With the memory cloth cape they could finally compose some shots like those of the comics with the wind catching the cape, while Batman pulled one of his gargoyle on the building poses.

And again, this was rarely seen in TDK, as well. Yes, we got great shots of Batmans cape billowing in the wind in BB, but it just wasn't really seen in TDK, and that's what we were comparing(ie.TDK vs B89), remember?

 

[david icke]

And again, this was rarely seen in TDK, as well. Yes, we got great shots of Batmans cape billowing in the wind in BB, but it just wasn't really seen in TDK, and that's what we were comparing(ie.TDK vs B89), remember?

Yeah, fair enough, thinking about TDK only now... we got that pretty cool shot of BM outside Gordon's house perched in darkness with the cape blowing slightly.
And the Bat-Pod had that added bonus of giving us really great billowing cape imagery. As they said on the dvd, that effect was somewhat accidental, as they had originally planned to have the cape wrap up into a backpack or something, until the stunt guy told them the draft from the bike would keep the cape up.

edit: I've said before, just after seeing TDK, that I was disapointed we didn't get more the 'Batman in the shadows' poses. It could've used a couple more iconic shots of him.

Re: the crashing into the museum in 89, the cape always looked pretty rigid to me in that shot, as if they had substituted some kind of harder rigged up version for that stunt.
The moment he swoops down on Napier in Axis C gets a cape flutter going, but the cape looks a little flimsy. I understand that they were rushed to an extent with that production though, they were not sure how they were going to shoot certain aspects of BM and did the best they could.
edit: My fav shot of Batman from that movie is when he opens his cape to the first two thugs.
edit: that first shot of him looking down from the building though, it's a terrible little computer graphic and you can hardly make out what it is.
The slow glide down is very good though.

 

[Travesty]

edit: and that first shot of him looking down from the building, it's a terrible little computer graphic that you can hardly make out what it is though.

Hehe, I don't even think it was CGI, I think it was just regular animation, although, I can't be for certain, but the fact is, the scene was there. You can't really knock the movie for it's technology, as it was made in 1989. It was fine then, and watching it now, it really doesn't make me cringe. That's almost like knocking on the originally Star Wars trilogy, and saying the newer prequels were much better, because the technology showcased the vehicles, atmosphere, and fight scenes better then the older trilogy. I'm not denying the "quality" of the picture, sound, or technology, but again, were comparing a movie that's 20 years old. Of course the newer movie is going to have better effects.

 

[david icke]

Hehe, I don't even think it was CGI, I think it was just regular animation, although, I can't be for certain, but the fact is, the scene was there. You can't really knock the movie for it's technology, as it was made in 1989. It was fine then, and watching it now, it really doesn't make me cringe.

Oh no, it wasn't fine then either, it's just a little blob! Not even a bat-blob!
I remember when i used to rent the BM vhs all the time when it first came out(we couldn't buy it like over in the US), and I would study that little blob and wonder what the hell it was supposed to be depicting. I knew it was supposed to be Batman doing something, but could not make out what. If I had been introduced to that movie with no fanfare, no opening credits, no picture on the box, it would not have been outlandish to think it was a shot of a pigeon overlooking the city and seeking out it's next victim to pigeon-crap on.

I have only listened to Burton's commentary once, maybe i got the idea he used a computer graphic from that, i think maybe he does say this.

But, c'mon, they could have done any number of shots to show BM looking down, without completely showing BM.
I seem to recall Burton saying that they were rushed and that was one shot he really disliked in the movie, but he didn't want to pull a Lucas and re-do it for the SE dvd release.
I kind of wish he had.
Sorry to go on about it, but that blob mystified me for years.

That's almost like knocking on the originally Star Wars trilogy, and saying the newer prequels were much better, because the technology showcased the vehicles, atmosphere, and fight scenes better then the older trilogy. I'm not denying the "quality" of the picture, sound, or technology, but again, were comparing a movie that's 20 years old. Of course the newer movie is going to have better effects.

Yeah, I mean, I went quite easy on the movie back there in that post, and was saying how they couldn't be blamed for some shots as they were rushed and were trying to figure out how to present Batman.
But that blob? No excuse for the bat-blob, they should've just left that shot out it was so badly done. It's not even needed, you could have just said that Batman came across those crooks on the rooftop after following the sound of the screams and overheard their conversation.

edit: Hope it didn't seem like I was shouting about a blob there, was just thinking back for first time in a while about that shot and I found it to be quite a funny scene in retrospect.
I'm really glad Burton didn't do what a lot of director's do and add cut scenes just for the sake of a SE dvd, I can't stand that. eg I love 'amadeus' and think it is a perfect movie, but prefer my old scratched lines unremastered dvd to the SE re-mastered version with lots of little scenes added that only make the movie a little less perfect.
The scenes added to the SE Batman Forever work because they were supposed to be there and were cut for the rating.
But.....I don't know.....maybe...just maybe.....it would have been a good idea.........to do something about that little blobby batman.

 

[mothy]

i don't think any of the dark knight images mentioned had any particular impact outside of batman fandom (which is the key thing, otherwise they're not iconic images - they're simply "memorable images for batman fans").

don't get me wrong - they're terrific, terrific moments, and i'll never forget the rapturous applause they rightly received in the cinema.

the thing about iconic images is they're rare. gold dust rare. that's why they're iconic and special.

i'm thinking of images from the batman series that would be among the most widely-recognised (and probably also most widely-spoofed) images in the history of cinema, such as janet leigh screaming in the shower.

 

[returntovoid]

Batman 89 has its iconic images because its 20 years old, nostalgia. Nothing released a year ago has the ability to be seen as iconic compared to a film that's been around in the publics mind for years.

I think The Lord of the Rings trilogy have very iconic moments and those three films were from the 2000's, not very old.

I don't think it has anything to do with the film being 20 years old.

Trust me 20 years from now TDK will be just as "iconic".

Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell.

Tbh, I didn't find anything iconic about TDK, end of. (Just my opinion, of course).

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think The Lord of the Rings trilogy have very iconic moments and those three films were from the 2000's, not very old.

I don't think it has anything to do with the film being 20 years old.



Maybe, maybe not. It's too early to tell.

Tbh, I didn't find anything iconic about TDK, end of. (Just my opinion, of course).

To be fair the lord of rings films were based on some of the most iconic works of litterature of the 20th century. zack snyder might have been able to film those books and still make them iconic.

Yes its too early to say how iconic TDK will be or wont be in twenty years although in my opinion it wont seem as dated as batman is now. I guess blame prince for that one though.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think it's a bit foolish to argue that there's nothing iconic about TDK, since, as I've already said, the images from the movie are already making their way into pop culture.

The wax statue of the Joker in jail at Niagra Falls is one example. Heath's take was popular enough that I thin it's safe to say his Joker is going to be ingrained into pop culture the way Hannibal was. And to go with that, the most iconic shots from the movie tend to involve Heath's Joker.

 

[Brother Jack]

I think The Lord of the Rings trilogy have very iconic moments and those three films were from the 2000's, not very old.

I don't think it has anything to do with the film being 20 years old.

I don't think he's talking about how old the film is as much as the audience's perception of it over time. After all most of what we call classic films were not considered as much when they were first released, it took years for them to be set apart as iconic. The same could be said of Burton's Batman, although it was a huge hit in its day. Curiously though most people only talk about a select few moments in it.

And, again, if you don't think there was an iconography in TDK I just don't know what to tell you.

 

[returntovoid]

People mostly say that The Joker stole the show in both The Dark Knight and Batman 89 but I don't completely agree with that.

I thought The Joker overshadowed Batman too much in The Dark Knight (I mean it in a bad way). Batman was not given enough iconic scenes, lacked the intimidating presence that he had in Batman Begins and I thought Christian Bale didn't maintain the role of Batman to how great it was in Batman Begins (I would blame this more on the script because David Goyer had a minimum contribution, Jonah Nolan just re-wrote Goyer's early draft).

Even though The Joker was the villain in Batman 89, I never felt he overshadowed Batman too much because Batman still had a intimidating presence, had iconic scenes, was not acting naive when it came to The Joker and didn't consider stop being Batman in a unmotivated way. I think Michael Keaton maintained his role as Batman in Batman Returns to how great it was in Batman 89.

I think Batman 89 was dark but it didn't take itself too seriously that it got too much whereas The Dark Knight took itself too seriously that it became like a crime-drama that you wouldn't be surprised if it got nominated for an Oscar. Batman 89 felt more like a comic book movie that was dark/spooky but balanced it out with the fun/comic booky aspects.

 

[Two-Face]

Jack Nicholson over shadowed Keaton just being Jack Nicholson.

 

[Travesty]

I thought The Joker overshadowed Batman too much in The Dark Knight (I mean it in a bad way). Batman was not given enough iconic scenes, lacked the intimidating presence that he had in Batman Begins and I thought Christian Bale didn't maintain the role of Batman to how great it was in Batman Begins (I would blame this more on the script because David Goyer had a minimum contribution, Jonah Nolan just re-wrote Goyer's early draft).