Batman/Batman Begins: The comparision

[raleagh]

It didn't steal anything, as how can a movie series steal from itself?

It's like saying Superman Returns stole the theme tune from Superman the Movie.

hell, it stole everything else too.

 

[Two-Face]

huh?

 

[raleagh]

Superman Returns stole various parts of the script (it really did take homage to an all new level!), the Lex Luthor's land scheme, the way Lex gets the kryptonite, Lex's woman companion that foils his plan by falling for Superman.

i could be here all day!

 

[El Payaso]

Superman Returns stole various parts of the script (it really did take homage to an all new level!), the Lex Luthor's land scheme, the way Lex gets the kryptonite, Lex's woman companion that foils his plan by falling for Superman.

i could be here all day!

I think SR was meant to be part of the same previous franchise. BB was intended to be a reboot not connected with the previous franchise.

 

[Penismightier]

Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne was better than Bale's because he had that crazy side. When I think of Batman I don't think of a happily balanced superhero/billionaire playboy. "Obviously a man that dresses up like a bat is going to have some serious issues". Bale didn't really show that.

Jack was pretty much perfect as to how The Joker should be portrayed in a film.

I think I like Caine and Oldman better as Alfred and Gordon, respectively. Caine's Alfred seems more involved than Gough's, and Oldman just looks like a perfect Gordon.

I look at the Batmobile from 89 and say "That's the Batmobile". I see the tumbler and it feels like it's an interesting take on Batman's vehicle.

As for the aesthetics of Gotham, 89 blows Begins out of the water. Burton's Gotham, with all of the art deco architecture, was a German expressionistic wonderland. Nolan's Gotham in Begins was Chicago at night with some brown filters. Nolan's Gotham also felt like New York or Chicago, while Burton's felt like an entirely different city in a different universe.

I'm ready to call the batsuits a tie. Neither of them were outstanding. I realize that spandex won't really work in a movie, but I have a feeling that kevlar would look great. Anything but bulky rubber.

As for the love interests, Basinger and Holmes are basically tied in my book. I'm of the thought that too many movies have tacked on love interests. That being said, I think 89 included Vicky Vale into the plot than Begins with Rachel Dawes. But in the end, both movies could have done without them.

And finally, Grissom beats out Falcone just because I got to hear Jack Palance call Jack Nicholson "Sugar Bumps"

 

[Cyrusbales]

I don't understand how someone as common sounding as Caine could play Alfred. He would never make it as a professional butler with such poor diction.

 

[slave2catwoman]

I thought that too! His accent was very low brow for a butler.

 

[slave2catwoman]

I am okay with some things being left to imagination. But if you have fantastic, nearly impossible seeming things, I want to know where it all came from. I have always been a huge fan of origin stories, and I love processes. I really like the way the cave was still unfinished at the end of Begins.

 

[Cyrusbales]

BB is a dull origin story for me, it follows exactly the same set out formula of so many other films and fails to be imaginative. Hence why it falls down.

B89 was the first big batman film really, and it didn't do all of the origin crap, and it REALYL worked well, however BB, now that EVERYONE knows all about batman, they have to spell out every single element to the audience. Oh joy... :|

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'm not a big fan of origin movies. I prefer a brief-telling backstory and mystery and fantasy over "teh gritt 'n realism".

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I think Bale and Keaton are both very effective in their respective films. Neither would work in the other's film. What I love about Keaton's Bats is that he doesn't need to shout at people. He just walks around with that look in his eyes that says, "I'm going to kill you." And often he does just that. Not necesarily the way Batman should be played, but it works perfectly for that particualr film.

 

[WalterKovacs]

its funny, the batmobile, leading lady, villain, music, and many other things were better than their counterparts from 2005. whats funny is that the 2005 version is still a better movie. its the script thats better. that being said, i think the bruce, alfred, suit, and gordon were all better in begins. I think the reason people favor the 89 version is because it not only is it in the spirit of batman, but it helped define for a lot of people what the spirit of batman is.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Script in BB was one of the WORST bits, one cliche line after another!

 

[slave2catwoman]

I am not a fantasy lover. Drama and science fiction. I like rules and parameters. Otherwise, you can just do anything and I have to accept it.

 

[Mr. LOL]

Well, they kind of are apples and oranges. Just with common and similar characters. Batman '89 is like a great live action cartoon. It's fantastic with visuals, but at the same time it's story can only be seen through a looking glass. There is nothing there that draws you into the world from a character or story stand point. No one to relate to besides Knox and Viki Vale, really. The movie plays the mythic card well, but in doing so it leaves us devoid of any character development or heart. It feels way too distant at times.

Batman Begins on the other hand might be more sober in the visuals department, it is however alot more intimate and engaging with it's story and characters. By the story following more closely to the main character, and fleshing him out as so ... he's becomes less 2-D, and more relatable and likeable. The trade off with this is that the movie and character sacrifices some of that mystery and wonder surrounding the Batman character. But I definetely think the positives outweigh the negatives, because it comes to the point where you're cheering on the character not just because he's Batman, but because you believe in Bruce Wayne, the man inside the suit. Not just the guy with the black bat ears and cape. You want Bruce Wayne to succeed, because in the film he's more humanized, and we see his struggles. Thus making the story much more impactful as we follow Bruce, because we feel the actual obstacles he faces as threatning.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Well, they kind of are apples and oranges. Just with common and similar characters. Batman '89 is like a great live action cartoon. It's fantastic with visuals, but at the same time it's story can only be seen through a looking glass. There is nothing there that draws you into the world from a character or story stand point. No one to relate to besides Knox and Viki Vale, really. The movie plays the mythic card well, but in doing so it leaves us devoid of any character development or heart. It feels way too distant at times.

Batman Begins on the other hand might be more sober in the visuals department, it is however alot more intimate and engaging with it's story and characters. By the story following more closely to the main character, and fleshing him out as so ... he's becomes less 2-D, and more relatable and likeable. The trade off with this is that the movie and character sacrifices some of that mystery and wonder surrounding the Batman character. But I definetely think the positives outweigh the negatives, because it comes to the point where you're cheering on the character not just because he's Batman, but because you believe in Bruce Wayne, the man inside the suit. Not just the guy with the black bat ears and cape. You want Bruce Wayne to succeed, because in the film he's more humanized, and we see his struggles. Thus making the story much more impactful as we follow Bruce, because we feel the actual obstacles he faces as threatning.

Perfect.

 

[Warhammer]

Seconded.

 

[TwilightPro101]

One thing that makes Begins way better is that everything in Begins was explained. In the 1989 move, we have no idea where or how Bruce got all that stuff (Where does he get those wonderful toys?). In Begins, we see him discovering and fixing up the cave, we know how he gets the car, the costume, the weapons.

That's where I completely disagree.

I have no interest in seeing Bruce Wayne spray paint a suit and forging bat-stars. Batman '89 left us in a mystery, Joker asked "Where does he get those wonderful toys". It's up to you to decide that. As Guillermo Del Toro once said, the fantasy in films is diminishing. Today every film has to explain every little thing to you. Films are already visual, so something should be left to your imagination.

In a way I agree with both of you, but even know I find it hard to handle the lack of depth that was presented in BATMAN '89. I loved it as a kid, but the first two BATMAN movies really have bare bones characters and depth. Yes, there is development but motivation and little character is ever really present.

Their still great visual movies but they need that push to keep some audiences.

 

[TwilightPro101]

Well, they kind of are apples and oranges. Just with common and similar characters. Batman '89 is like a great live action cartoon. It's fantastic with visuals, but at the same time it's story can only be seen through a looking glass. There is nothing there that draws you into the world from a character or story stand point. No one to relate to besides Knox and Viki Vale, really. The movie plays the mythic card well, but in doing so it leaves us devoid of any character development or heart. It feels way too distant at times.

Batman Begins on the other hand might be more sober in the visuals department, it is however alot more intimate and engaging with it's story and characters. By the story following more closely to the main character, and fleshing him out as so ... he's becomes less 2-D, and more relatable and likeable. The trade off with this is that the movie and character sacrifices some of that mystery and wonder surrounding the Batman character. But I definetely think the positives outweigh the negatives, because it comes to the point where you're cheering on the character not just because he's Batman, but because you believe in Bruce Wayne, the man inside the suit. Not just the guy with the black bat ears and cape. You want Bruce Wayne to succeed, because in the film he's more humanized, and we see his struggles. Thus making the story much more impactful as we follow Bruce, because we feel the actual obstacles he faces as threatning.

Ok, someone else sums it up better.

 

[slave2catwoman]

One dumb cliche' that both movies shared was the intrepid reporter/lawyer/photographer girlfriend who just happens to be involved with the hero in both identities.

 

[Crook]

Gordon - B89(No by that much, I hated the overly comicall sense in Oldman)

 

[slave2catwoman]

The 89 Gordon seemed to me like one of those kindly, yet totally ineffectual kings (father of the princess) in a Disney cartoon.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Batman Begins on the other hand might be more sober in the visuals department, it is however alot more intimate and engaging with it's story and characters. By the story following more closely to the main character, and fleshing him out as so ... he's becomes less 2-D, and more relatable and likeable. The trade off with this is that the movie and character sacrifices some of that mystery and wonder surrounding the Batman character. But I definetely think the positives outweigh the negatives, because it comes to the point where you're cheering on the character not just because he's Batman, but because you believe in Bruce Wayne, the man inside the suit. Not just the guy with the black bat ears and cape. You want Bruce Wayne to succeed, because in the film he's more humanized, and we see his struggles. Thus making the story much more impactful as we follow Bruce, because we feel the actual obstacles he faces as threatning.

Funny thing, I agree with the sentiment posted here, but it's also the problem with BB. I do care about Bruce Wayne and not Batman. Everytime Bats was on screen, it was just sort of a drag. No flair or excitement about him(except the monster scene). I was totally with the Bruce Wayne story because the movie was a well done Bruce Wayne drama and not a fantasy comic film.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'm not too old, please....come back dear lady!!!

 

[BubbaGump]

Well, they kind of are apples and oranges. Just with common and similar characters. Batman '89 is like a great live action cartoon. It's fantastic with visuals, but at the same time it's story can only be seen through a looking glass. There is nothing there that draws you into the world from a character or story stand point. No one to relate to besides Knox and Viki Vale, really. The movie plays the mythic card well, but in doing so it leaves us devoid of any character development or heart. It feels way too distant at times.

Batman Begins on the other hand might be more sober in the visuals department, it is however alot more intimate and engaging with it's story and characters. By the story following more closely to the main character, and fleshing him out as so ... he's becomes less 2-D, and more relatable and likeable. The trade off with this is that the movie and character sacrifices some of that mystery and wonder surrounding the Batman character. But I definetely think the positives outweigh the negatives, because it comes to the point where you're cheering on the character not just because he's Batman, but because you believe in Bruce Wayne, the man inside the suit. Not just the guy with the black bat ears and cape. You want Bruce Wayne to succeed, because in the film he's more humanized, and we see his struggles. Thus making the story much more impactful as we follow Bruce, because we feel the actual obstacles he faces as threatning.