BB vs B89

indy4avvycu7.jpg


Hello, Vinny. It's your Uncle Bingo. Time to pay the check!
It's so awesome imagining Indy saying that.
 
You know, there are real cities with ridiculously lareg statues....
I guess I should of said I was talking about the rediculously large ones in Batman and Robin.

There were daytime shots, or did you miss Joker throwing the feather pen into the guy's neck?
And seeing as it's a Batman movie, nighttime should be more dominant as opposed to daytime.
The skies were always overcast, no sunlight.

He may not have directed it, but a whole lot of his ideas were used in the movie.
I agree, I'm just not a fan of Burton's.

It's a movie. Do you think all movies are real?
No! It all just looked way to fake in Batman Returns, here's an example, the scene where cobblepot is running from the cops and jumps in the water, that whole set looked fake as heck with the snow and trees, yes it looked fake.
 
Its still my favourite of the movies though it is like an opera in motion Batman begins has the best script and has some awesome acting talent but still fails to rouse me int he same way as B89 and BR someone said it on these boards once Nolan got the look of batman right but he didnt get the soul of him in BB.
 
I grew up with Batman 89 practically. It was my first "big" movie, where I collected cards, magazines, shirts...everything. I saw the movie on opening day and loved it. Bought it on VHS and watched it constantly. It was the first movie I could really quote passionately. Forever it was my favorite movie.

But now, it so clear that Batman Begins is EASILY a better movie. Batman 89 has terribly boring a-z plot, if you could even say it has a plot. Keaton while OK as Batman is nowhere near Bale in angst, size, look, or physicality. Joker dies, which is ridiculous, and Gotham feels tiny, lifeless, and claustophobic.

The real test is watching them close together. I haven't seen B89 in a very long time, and so I watched both and I could barely make my way through it. BB on the other hand, I could watch that all the time, like I could with B89 waaay back when.

Talking about capturing the soul of Batman. LOL. B89's Batman didn't have the anger and drive of Bale's Batman. He never seemed on the edge of sanity, where he could almost kill but took that step back right before hand, whereas Keaton's Batman would kill. Its obvious Burton doesn't know Batman, and instead turned it into an opportunity to make the star of the show the gothic grimness of his twisted little imagination.
 
I grew up with Batman 89 practically. It was my first "big" movie, where I collected cards, magazines, shirts...everything. I saw the movie on opening day and loved it. Bought it on VHS and watched it constantly. It was the first movie I could really quote passionately. Forever it was my favorite movie.

But now, it so clear that Batman Begins is EASILY a better movie. Batman 89 has terribly boring a-z plot, if you could even say it has a plot. Keaton while OK as Batman is nowhere near Bale in angst, size, look, or physicality. Joker dies, which is ridiculous, and Gotham feels tiny, lifeless, and claustophobic.

The real test is watching them close together. I haven't seen B89 in a very long time, and so I watched both and I could barely make my way through it. BB on the other hand, I could watch that all the time, like I could with B89 waaay back when.

Talking about capturing the soul of Batman. LOL. B89's Batman didn't have the anger and drive of Bale's Batman. He never seemed on the edge of sanity, where he could almost kill but took that step back right before hand, whereas Keaton's Batman would kill. Its obvious Burton doesn't know Batman, and instead turned it into an opportunity to make the star of the show the gothic grimness of his twisted little imagination.

I could watch back to back and not have any problems doing it, and I grew up on B89.

The plots to me are on par, each with their own flaws.

Both captured the soul of Batman, each in their own ways.

BB's Batman was driven and angry. B89's Batman was haunted and cold.

BB's Batman was based on the Batman of the last 30 years in which Batman made the decision not to kill. B89's Batman is based on the Batman of the early Bob Kane stories, where Batman killed.

Both Nolan and Burton understood Batman, just interpreted it differently. Nolan celebrated the hero's journey side of Batman and his heroic nature while Burton focused on the mystery and darkness of the character.
 
I grew up with Batman 89 practically. It was my first "big" movie, where I collected cards, magazines, shirts...everything. I saw the movie on opening day and loved it. Bought it on VHS and watched it constantly. It was the first movie I could really quote passionately. Forever it was my favorite movie.

But now, it so clear that Batman Begins is EASILY a better movie. Batman 89 has terribly boring a-z plot, if you could even say it has a plot. Keaton while OK as Batman is nowhere near Bale in angst, size, look, or physicality. Joker dies, which is ridiculous, and Gotham feels tiny, lifeless, and claustophobic.

The real test is watching them close together. I haven't seen B89 in a very long time, and so I watched both and I could barely make my way through it. BB on the other hand, I could watch that all the time, like I could with B89 waaay back when.

Talking about capturing the soul of Batman. LOL. B89's Batman didn't have the anger and drive of Bale's Batman. He never seemed on the edge of sanity, where he could almost kill but took that step back right before hand, whereas Keaton's Batman would kill. Its obvious Burton doesn't know Batman, and instead turned it into an opportunity to make the star of the show the gothic grimness of his twisted little imagination.

Your beligerance is staggering.
 
But now, it so clear that Batman Begins is EASILY a better movie. Batman 89 has terribly boring a-z plot, if you could even say it has a plot. Keaton while OK as Batman is nowhere near Bale in angst, size, look, or physicality. Joker dies, which is ridiculous, and Gotham feels tiny, lifeless, and claustophobic.

Keaton would destroy Bale with his stare alone. Nolans Chicago based Gotham City is insignificant compared to Anton Fursts massive architectual designs.


Talking about capturing the soul of Batman. LOL. B89's Batman didn't have the anger and drive of Bale's Batman. He never seemed on the edge of sanity, where he could almost kill but took that step back right before hand, whereas Keaton's Batman would kill. Its obvious Burton doesn't know Batman, and instead turned it into an opportunity to make the star of the show the gothic grimness of his twisted little imagination.


"Im not going to kill you, but I dont have to save you."

I still laugh at this line. Dont get me on the Nolans Batman doesnt kill thing. Every directors Batman has killed.

I think Keaton and Burton had a very angry Bruce/Batman. Edge of sanity. gothic grimness. To me, those are all parts of Batman.

I think Burton, and yes, even Schumacher, had a better grip on the Batman character than Nolan does. In my opinion Nolan just gave us a street vigilante in a cape and cowl.


Now, dont get defensive on this. Im not attacking your views. Some of my comments were tongue in cheek, others were my serious reponse to your points of view in this open discussion.
 
Keaton would destroy Bale with his stare alone. Nolans Chicago based Gotham City is insignificant compared to Anton Fursts massive architectual designs.





"Im not going to kill you, but I dont have to save you."

I still laugh at this line. Dont get me on the Nolans Batman doesnt kill thing. Every directors Batman has killed.

I think Keaton and Burton had a very angry Bruce/Batman. Edge of sanity. gothic grimness. To me, those are all parts of Batman.

I think Burton, and yes, even Schumacher, had a better grip on the Batman character than Nolan does. In my opinion Nolan just gave us a street vigilante in a cape and cowl.


Now, dont get defensive on this. Im not attacking your views. Some of my comments were tongue in cheek, others were my serious reponse to your points of view in this open discussion.
But, to be fair, the comic Batman is - generally - hardly "on the edge of sanity". If anything, for the largest part of his history, he's been portrayed as a very sane, very intelligent and even courteous person who just happens to put on a Batman costume and kick peoples' ass.
 
But, to be fair, the comic Batman is - generally - hardly "on the edge of sanity". If anything, for the largest part of his history, he's been portrayed as a very sane, very intelligent and even courteous person who just happens to put on a Batman costume and kick peoples' ass.

I'm not sure if his intelligence and courtesy are the issue.

But bear in mind we're dealing with a man who takes it upon himself to spend 15 years training himself to mental and physical perfection just so he can come back home, don a costume in homage to a Bat, and fight crime as an overzealous vigilante.

His deep sense of sanity will always be up for debate, and that's what makes the character fun and interesting. Just how sane can he be?

True he has a sense of morality, a sense of mortality, and understands the nature of right and wrong.

But it's nearly safe to say that "Batman" is the persona Bruce's fractured psyche create in light of his parent's murders.

When someone forsakes who they once were, Bruce Wayne, and instead uses it as a mask for their true self, Batman...he's got to be insane to some degree.

Plus you'd HAVE to be insane to try and tackle the goal of ridding one of, if not THE, most corrupt cities completely free of crime. Only a mad man would take on such an unattainable goal.

Fortunately, Batman's madness serves the status quo and upholds justice and civility rather than anarchy.

CFE
 
I'm not sure if his intelligence and courtesy are the issue.

But bear in mind we're dealing with a man who takes it upon himself to spend 15 years training himself to mental and physical perfection just so he can come back home, don a costume in homage to a Bat, and fight crime as an overzealous vigilante.

His deep sense of sanity will always be up for debate, and that's what makes the character fun and interesting. Just how sane can he be?

True he has a sense of morality, a sense of mortality, and understands the nature of right and wrong.

But it's nearly safe to say that "Batman" is the persona Bruce's fractured psyche create in light of his parent's murders.

When someone forsakes who they once were, Bruce Wayne, and instead uses it as a mask for their true self, Batman...he's got to be insane to some degree.

Plus you'd HAVE to be insane to try and tackle the goal of ridding one of, if not THE, most corrupt cities completely free of crime. Only a mad man would take on such an unattainable goal.

Fortunately, Batman's madness serves the status quo and upholds justice and civility rather than anarchy.

CFE
While yes, insanity fits perfectly with his character history, what I'm talking about is his personality. I mean, if you read a comic from the 70s, or even, 60s, it's painfully, painfully obvious this isn't some deeply disturbed mad genius. It's a regular guy in a pair of tights beating up bad guys. And while some fans may want to ignore the existence of that era of Batman (not that I'm saying you're one of them), it did exist, and you really can't fault a director for portraying Batman as such.
 
Oh I agree that with the comics there have been many variations on Batman/Bruces sanity. Look at the 50's to mid 60's. He was a daylight runnin', happy crimefighter workin' with the police. He knew what he was doing. I dont think he was at all "insane" or close to it. Besides, we could blame it on the drugs back then. Personally, I love the mid 60's to early 80's of comics. Thats my favorite version of Batman. However, quite recently in comics, he did beome a bit insane. His withdrawal from the "batfamily" and just about everyone else. His almost reckless behavior that caused injuries almost every night. I believe on the comics board he's called the ******* Batman. It wasnt until the Infinite Crisis reboot they brought him back to the more accessible Batman.

Anyway, I agree there are different takes on his psyche. I acknowledge that. However, what I was trying to bring to light, was that along with many other elements, there have been different interpretations of Batman/Bruce. So, to say Burton didnt get Batman because he made him a little bit "nuts" or on the "edge of sanity", is wrong.
 
Batman was stylish, dark and witty, and is definetly the more fun-to-watch of the two. It would be a classic (actually, it sort of is) if it weren't for the loose storytelling, general lack of interest of Batman himself in favour of Mistah J, and occasionaly flat characters.
Batman Begins is the less patchy of the two, in my opinion.
 
I'm not bashing BB, but anyone who needed an entire movie to explain step by step why and how Bruce became Batman, kind of lacks imagination and doesn't sound much of a fan to me.

agreed. i actually chose the one that ui knew most ppl would not choose,. but i went with "i enjoyed Returns/Forever better", and NOT because i liked forever, i hated that. i wish they just changed it to "i like just Returns better", cuz i actually liked Returns the best out of all the batman films so far. it just fit my taste better, i like my batman Dark.
 
agreed. i actually chose the one that ui knew most ppl would not choose,. but i went with "i enjoyed Returns/Forever better", and NOT because i liked forever, i hated that. i wish they just changed it to "i like just Returns better", cuz i actually liked Returns the best out of all the batman films so far. it just fit my taste better, i like my batman Dark.

Intresting, because as Burton himself says on the DVDs, as many people saw Returns as lighter (than the '89 original) as darker. I think Batman himself is less intense in Returns, he actually talks to a few bad guys occasionally before destroying them. :woot:
 
Intresting, because as Burton himself says on the DVDs, as many people saw Returns as lighter (than the '89 original) as darker. I think Batman himself is less intense in Returns, he actually talks to a few bad guys occasionally before destroying them. :woot:
And BR seemed - at least to me - to be more stylized than B89...which probably added to it seeing less grounded and "lighter".
 
Oh I agree that with the comics there have been many variations on Batman/Bruces sanity. Look at the 50's to mid 60's. He was a daylight runnin', happy crimefighter workin' with the police. He knew what he was doing. I dont think he was at all "insane" or close to it. Besides, we could blame it on the drugs back then. Personally, I love the mid 60's to early 80's of comics. Thats my favorite version of Batman. However, quite recently in comics, he did beome a bit insane. His withdrawal from the "batfamily" and just about everyone else. His almost reckless behavior that caused injuries almost every night. I believe on the comics board he's called the ******* Batman. It wasnt until the Infinite Crisis reboot they brought him back to the more accessible Batman.

Anyway, I agree there are different takes on his psyche. I acknowledge that. However, what I was trying to bring to light, was that along with many other elements, there have been different interpretations of Batman/Bruce. So, to say Burton didnt get Batman because he made him a little bit "nuts" or on the "edge of sanity", is wrong.
Oh, I agree.

Personally, my problem with BB isn't Batman's characterization...just Nolan's direction. Blah.
 
While yes, insanity fits perfectly with his character history, what I'm talking about is his personality. I mean, if you read a comic from the 70s, or even, 60s, it's painfully, painfully obvious this isn't some deeply disturbed mad genius. It's a regular guy in a pair of tights beating up bad guys. And while some fans may want to ignore the existence of that era of Batman (not that I'm saying you're one of them), it did exist, and you really can't fault a director for portraying Batman as such.

I see, and agreed. I suppose it just boils down to the fact that I, like so many members on here, was introduced to the character mainly in part to Burton's films.

It's quite refreshing to have open and intelligent discussion once in awhile before reverberating back to the typical "BB sux" or "Burton sux" nonsense...;)

Oh, I agree.

Personally, my problem with BB isn't Batman's characterization...just Nolan's direction. Blah.

just a side note, but I was hoping you could elaborate.

Not for the sake of needless argument, just curious...

CFE
 
Returns may have been considered "lighter" by burton, but thats because he is insane. if he could actually look at Returns and say its lighter then B89, then he must be off his rocker cuz Returns was just nihlistic. there was nothing light about returns although some would mention the rocket penguins but that is actually pretty demented. the general consensus in '92 for Returns was that it was dark. TOO dark for WB who probabaly wet there pants after seein it. srsly, if they knew that years later a "dark" batman would be in, i bet they never would have fired burton. but its all about the buck, unfortunatly. and when did batman ever talk to the villians before killin them? i dont remember that. like in B89, keaton was pretty chill and hardly talked. and yes, both gothams have here differences, but the Returns gotham and B89 gotham have many similoarities. the opening scene of gotham city for instance, is allmost the same in both films. heavily stylized but nonetheless awsome to look at. also it was different because returns gotham was full of snow while in B89 it was summer time i would assume, so the city looked much cleaner because of the snow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"