More greatly appreciate Keaton/'89 Batman?

[Super_Ludacris]

we go hard (no homo) in these thread debates son...

 

[The Sage]

^ What Luda said, LOL.

But this debate is going in circles and I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I'll just say BB is the better written movie, but B89 is more fun to watch. One aims for realism, the other for fantasy, and I love both aspects.

 

[El Payaso]

And thats my point it hasnt aged really well, and other people are saying this, so cant say people are wrong for thinking that.

Another POV would be it has aged really well, and other people are saying this, so cant say people are wrong for thinking that.

So since there are supporters and detractors for both movies, I guess the topic can't be closed under that argument.

And I was trying to say I think people embraced burton's movies because back then it was either there first time seeing back when they were young or it was the first Batman movie and they were happy it wasnt Adam West.

Yesd, you think that way. No surprise since that theory would be perfect to support your own points.

But you cant fault people for thinking it's inferior.

Some people.

And I don't blame them. Some of them think that way, some don't.

All the time people use Burton's movies to say they were great because they were better than Schumacher's stuff or that Burton conveyed a well stylsed movie. But with advances in the genre and BB turning out for many as the best Batman movie you cant fault others for thinking Batman wasnt all that when you consider what it could have been.

I don't blame them since if we look for the numbers, more people thought B89 was the big deal 16 years before than people did about BB last year. I know I know, numbers don't prove a thing. My point? Why defending a point talking about 'what other people think and say' then (which btw we cannot say for sure)?

It's still wackest scene in the movie hands down. What was it's purpose? To scare Vicki Vale? Where was the opportuinty to show Joker doing some crazy.

The movie showed Joker killing, electrocuting, and being sadic, but 16 years later that looks 'not too crazy' for some people. Sure, times change. But to say 'he didn't any crazy stuff', 'he was inoffensive', please.

I'm glad Nolan is making a darker Joker but I won't look back and laugh at a 1940's comic book just because it's not what comics are today. I won't go and see a Chaplin movie saying 'Pft, he doesn't even talk.'

Sure but what I've been saying is what happens when you compare both worlds? What comes out? Even though Batman was and could be associated with Fantasy, Nolan manage to redefine the character from a mainstream POV back to how he's been in some of the more gritty graphic novels and stories which define him (Tim Sale/Jeph Loeb's work, Jim Lee, Grant Morrison or even the old 70's books from Adams that brought him back from the 60's camp. They always captured a sense of authenticity or were written if a very believeable way which allowed you as the reader to not have to believe it's that much of a fantasy world). Fantasy is always been a part of his stories but when you compare the realism is so much better.

I'm aware about subtext anyone who realise on style is gonna use subtext through iconography to tell a story. But it was like I was telling CConn, subtext and stylised iconography do not neccessairly mean great films.

Realism does not necessarily means great films.

If anything it showed how fantasical theatrics breed in a fantasy world. It wasnt REAL darkness. Real darkness is Joker coming in poppin a woman and instead of killing her he makes her suffer being paralysed as a message to Batman that's a dark move.
"Kill a nygga and dump em, you sayin nothin/Kill a nygga and leave em breathing now you sayin something/leave there spirt wheezing"- Jay-Z

In 20 years the cool people will be saying the "real" Joker would be cannibal. When Joker was created, he wasn't crippling girls. He has changed adapting himself to new times, so it's useless to state how the 'real' Joker is based on recent comics. From that POV the Joker was created as not the 'real' Joker.

It's not though when you compare, all you gotta ask is who told a more clearer, intresting and consice Batman stories. Maybe cause then the older one looks flawed it might leave a fan confused like "damn it really wasnt all that when...when you look at it like this" but nah It aint hard to tell.

No, you gotta ask a lot more. The story of BB was far more consice, but the dialoges and one liners were pretty cheap along with the last-minute moral maxims (why do we fall? It's not who I am underneath)

The more I see both the more balance I see between their goodies and weaknesses in both films.

Well you heard and saw wrong lol as usual lol. Batman Begins seems to get better watch everytime I watch it, I like it. The fact that other people support my view aint my fault, that's just a credit to someone emphatically delivering a product liked by many.

And BB was good and I can tell you this also.

The fact you come here to start another war in a B89 positive thread is no one faults either.

 

[Stupify_me]

I didn't say that. If your only purpose on these boards is to go around ranting about how much you hate Tim Burton, that's pretty pointless. Go ahead and resort to name calling if you want, but thats immature.

You are the one who resorted to name calling but nice attempted to pass the blame around.

My only purpose is not to Bash Burton I have other purposes on these boards I believe this is the only thread where I even mention him because this is sort of about him.

 

[Bat Attack]

You are the one who resorted to name calling but nice attempted to pass the blame around.

My only purpose is not to Bash Burton I have other purposes on these boards I believe this is the only thread where I even mention him because this is sort of about him.

Aw, too bad, so sad.

 

[Stupify_me]

Aw, too bad, so sad.

Umm ok...

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Another POV would be it has aged really well, and other people are saying this, so cant say people are wrong for thinking that.

So since there are supporters and detractors for both movies, I guess the topic can't be closed under that argument.

But what cant be denied is how there's been a wave of pundits that have said Batman Begins is the best batman movie. It took the crown from B89 and a lot of people have criticised Burtons flicks for being to much of a Burton reimaging. Generally speaking he gets a certain deal of criticism for that, that can be his achillies heel. And again all I or other people who believe this perspectiv do is compare the two.

Yesd, you think that way. No surprise since that theory would be perfect to support your own points..

But you cant deny that, remember on Batman 89's dvd there was a lot of emphasis on making sure the movie was not like the old adam west series. Standards have grown and as the superhero/comic book grows the bar is raised. So much so that movies that were once praised can be criticised. You mention in an earlier post the thought Spider-Man 1 was a complete piece of shyt IYO. That's a perfect example of what I mean. Wen Spiderman first came it was praised a lot by critics for resurecting superhero movies (Blade and X-Men kept it on life support but Spidey really brought it back) by the time the second rolled out people had seen X-Men 2 and were like Spidey wasnt all that or there expectations were grown. Enter Spidey 2, great action, classic love story. The result? Mass critical praise and another big box office run. Now people look back on Spidey 2 after BB and say man Spidey 2 was too much of a love story. Enter Spidey 3 and all indications by the trailer show there gonna make a great dark story. Of course not everyone loved each one when they first came (like you) but generally speaking amongst fans it was cool when they came out but as the franchises progresses the bar is raised so much more that you get the rare exampe of franchises progressing rather than digressing. Progression and improvment results in risen standards which make it easier to identify flaws with predecessors. That's wha I'm trying to show. You can still enjoy Batman 89 I've said several times in this thread, I like it. But if I have to compare from a critical standpoint and dissect then I can see a huge difference. That's what I'm trying to explain but I suspect some guys are skimming through my posts and reading this cause there bringing up the same cycle and think this is the same Burton vs. Nolan thing, and I'm trying to show from a partisian point that when dissecting there's tons of room to critique.

Some people.

And I don't blame them. Some of them think that way, some don't.

But all I'm doing is showing why they think that way. Remember standards grow so critical aspects from a story making aspect are little stronger.

I don't blame them since if we look for the numbers, more people thought B89 was the big deal 16 years before than people did about BB last year. I know I know, numbers don't prove a thing. My point? Why defending a point talking about 'what other people think and say' then (which btw we cannot say for sure)?

Because the main question posed in this thread was "Do we greatly appreicte Batman 89 now", I'm saying why I dont. Because there was a better Batman movie. And whether you agree with it or not a lotta have come out and said this too and some say that looking back now Burton's films really werent all that. Not a totally uncomprimised view is it? They can say why. As far as question or defending the point why think and say, you always use other testification to support your theory. It backs credibilty to your argument. Basic debate tatics and if we cant talk about stuff like this, why even be on a message board?

The movie showed Joker killing, electrocuting, and being sadic, but 16 years later that looks 'not too crazy' for some people. Sure, times change. But to say 'he didn't any crazy stuff', 'he was inoffensive', please.

But this critical aspect of Burton's Joker and Jack's potrayl cant be denied. Some have said Nicholson was playing himself or merely reinacting the character in the shinning. Good performance as a villian in a time where a little hamming (which I dont see as a 100% bad thing subjectivley speaking it works in some aspects it doenst in others) is all that's needed. But I think the critics think of some great Joker tales where ther was room to dig a bit deeper (imagine if they potrayed the Joker like how was in the Killng Joke for example and show depth and history like that and show a tragic side to him, hypothetically). So when sees a scene where when they think of Joker he does one thing and he does the other they can criticise it. There's nothing wrong with criticising and saying those things

I'm glad Nolan is making a darker Joker but I won't look back and laugh at a 1940's comic book just because it's not what comics are today. I won't go and see a Chaplin movie saying 'Pft, he doesn't even talk.'

But this goes back to my comparative anaylsis. Batman Begins story was good because it was the type of movie that could have been written in any era (80's, 70's, 90's) it had a straightfoward core origin story. Burton's Batman was a product of it's time in the 80's where visuals made a blockbuster more appealing. Nowasdays and pretty much since 99 when movies like the first Matrix and early Marvel blockbusters implement strong faithful ties to the story or smart storytelling and not just fantasical fun to redefine blockbusters with a touch to timeless storytelling works. So although like I said it was ok for it's time, Begins comparativley speaking strongly redefine batman to a mainstream POV by implementing a theme that was around for so long but never on the big screen the origin of how he was and the main dark, dective spirit in grittyness. Hence why some pundits said "they finally got it right".

Realism does not necessarily means great films.

But when done right: classic. Say hi to Batman Begins

In 20 years the cool people will be saying the "real" Joker would be cannibal. When Joker was created, he wasn't crippling girls. He has changed adapting himself to new times, so it's useless to state how the 'real' Joker is based on recent comics. From that POV the Joker was created as not the 'real' Joker.

But why do you think comic book and superhero movies are now more culturally relevant, more popular and respected. Well aside from the social context and comparison, the popular opinon is that they have stuck to the source of the material and captured a spirit of definition to the character that has been there and these films concentrate on this more than anything to bring to the forfront of the movies. So just like Nolan clearly defined Batman he can do that with the Joker (and then the Jack Nicholson fans will come in and disagree even though Nolan may create Ledger to be just like the Joker of the classic defintive storylines like Killing Joke just like Nolan did with Batman and stuff like Year One and the Sale/Loeb and Adams material.Then that makes his performance potentially credible from fan POV)

No, you gotta ask a lot more. The story of BB was far more consice, but the dialoges and one liners were pretty cheap along with the last-minute moral maxims (why do we fall? It's not who I am underneath)


The more I see both the more balance I see between their goodies and weaknesses in both films.

Those Moral Maxims also happen to be attached to the most succesful superhero storylines (Spiderman's great power comes great resonsiblity). They highlight the basic aspect of there appeal for many people hence why there popular. By capturing this not matter how basic some may percieve it has a mass appeal, so it's understandable and justified. It's inspiring

And BB was good and I can tell you this also.

The fact you come here to start another war in a B89 positive thread is no one faults either.

Well excuse me for coming in answering the question that was posed in the title from my perspective and justifying. I didnt know it was Burton/Keaton pep rally with nyggas straight chest bumping, whoo-hooing, high fiving and basically patting each other across the ass to the sounds of "Partyman" lol. Nah I'm playing.
It was simple someone said they thought Keaton was the best, I just why I think not and we discussed it and gave my opinon on the subject of this thread. Yeah I dissed aspects but I said I liked it as a Tim Burton so I'm not hating and it's not like I'm making troll threads that are anti-Burton nor am I insulting people personally. We debate it out, it's cool. It's not like people are thowing up overthemselves like the dude in Clerks 2 when they someone disses there fantaism.