More greatly appreciate Keaton/'89 Batman?

[Cinemaman]

This is by far the worst list I've ever seen. How can you claim that West was the best Bruce Wayne? Or that Clooney and West were better Batmans than Kilmer? And how can you say that Bale isn't the best Wayne? His performance in BATMAN BEGINS was the most diffinitive story of Bruce Wayne on film. It actually featured him as a character unlike the movies with Keaton, Kilmer, West and Clooney.
Did you actually watch any of the movies?

My list:

BATMAN:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) Clooney
5.) West

Wayne:
1.) Bale
2.) Keaton
3.) Kilmer
4.) West
5.) Clooney

-R

Agreed.

 

[Cinemaman]

That's cool.

Yeah, I loved BB and Bale did a great job.

But I also must admit, that Keaton was great as Bruce Wayne and Batman.

When I usually watch B89 or BR, I am very glad to see him on screen, because he also was Batman #1 for me in my childhood

 

[Super_Ludacris]

See the beast, be the beast? WTF?

Bale saw Batman as a man driven with the intensity of a beast which why he showed a beast like tone and growl as Batman. He even explained that just little method acting thing. What's so hard to understand about that?

The same critics and articles that berated Keaton when he got cast are the same ones who praised him his performance. The fact that people are still arguing and defending him is a testament to his performance. He came off as a tortured soul on a mission who gets distracted by the possibility of having a normal life. Not showing it from his perspective retained the mystery of Batman and made it even more so great as everything came together towards the end.

And that scene in Vicki Vale's place is solid gold.

But those same critics who have reviewed movies for 20 years have said Begins is the best adaptation. If you want contrete examples look at Roger Ebert. The implicit argument here is that the movie hasnt aged well and Batman Begins shows that. I didnt say it was bad movie I said 5 times it's good for what it is but its flawed and if it came out in 2006 with movies being done this well it would get slated for being too flamboyantly custom to Burton's presence. It never got the same amout of reviews that were postive as BB. I am saying that if you compare the two and analyse them then you can really B89 apart and show and see flaws. All movies have flaws and I'm telling where one film did one thing better than the other. I'm comparing not slating but you dont seem to get this. You like to argue and have a history of it.
As far as Vicki Vale's scene goes. It was corny, lotta people felt that way. But I dont have to hear it from other people to know that myself. If Joker was in there he would cap vale Barbara Gordon style. Keaton's whole "Come on you wanna get nuts" is corny as shyt to me. He caps him and he falls, what was that a BB gun? It was stupid and made Joker seem less threating. Like to me that was an opportuinty to show how evil he was. All the dude was fart and leave at the end lol wtf?

Not even close to a no contest. Burton captured the atmosphere, mood, and tone of Batman. His Gotham City was great. I love that Batman Begins did a gritty portrayal and worked hard at making everything realistic, but I love how BATMAN embraced that it was also based on a fantasy character and wasn't ashamed of it.

Sure his city was great because he created his world. I said it was a great Tim Burton movie with music and over the top early 20th centurty meets goth style but when you look at it now there's so much emphasis on style and lacks the sophistaction and explination of a Nolan version. And again when you compare it loses out. You can embrace the fantasy, but when someone makes a version that captures the core spirit so authentically, real shyt wins.

Great movies explore stories in-depth. Whether origins are explored or not depends on the focus of the story, and Batman's origin wasn't the focus of the story.

That's why I dont think looking back now it wasnt a great story at all, it was focused on great style that was customised Burton but I really dont think as a Batman story it covered depth and I've explained why by taking the one version that was an orgin story to one that wasnt.

Did you miss this on purpose?

Nah but did you miss my counter point to that back a few posts on purpose? Begins works by showing how the fear leads to vengangce (becoming the thing he fears the most). Back in 1989 they show that like I said only the most hard core of fans would connect. Begins showed that world that may be blatant to you and me but redefines the character in a mainstream aspect by showing the journey, and little things that make him a great character. So again comparativley (which has been the basis of my case) It's just simply better to the point that comparing shows how inferior it was and looked like he didnt even care about it ( he dont even go through it on commentary on the DVD it's all style, style, jack, goth, dark etc)

Emoted? That means showing emotion? Wouldn't that be a good thing?.

Batman (the character) is emoted, this (89) is understated. Not subtle understated.

And Burtonites don't have to forget a f**king thing, LOL.

Of course they dont, which was my point in my last post and they come through to always remind us cause they dont wanna let go of the inferior past. You can love the movies but when you compare, lets do the analysis here and explore each one's depth you know which is better.

It's just a movie? For real? You f**king serious? I didn't know that ****.

Obviously not, you dont read what people say when they answer your question or explain so I can figure you would think that...

And Chris Nolan ain't Bob Kane either. But wait, wait...Bob Kane liked Batman 1989.

Of course, look how low standards were back then all he had to compare was Adam Wesr's jawn. If he was alive today of course he would liked Batman Begins more, the writers who have wrote Batman over the years too. That maybe an assumption but it's an educated assumptions because let's keep it realer than real: it was one for the fans and they loved it.

Do you base your opinion on what others think like a tool or do you form your own? I agree that BB is the better written movie, but B89 is more fun to watch. It's a great Batman and Tim Burton movie, just as BB is a great Batman, and Chris Nolan movie.

So wait because I use other examples of people who feel that way I'm a tool? It's call backing up and supporting your theory. If you like Begins because it had better writing that automatically by your logic makes you a tool too. LOL! You gotta include the fact that it was emphatically praised from a peer and critical standpoint that it gives it credibility and is a strong pro for it.

 

[Stupify_me]

Am I the only one that hated the look of Gothem in 89? I really hate Tim Burton I hate his style I hate what he does in all his movies. I thought he made the movie look so ugly as he does with every thing he directs. I thought Batman TAS looked better than the Burton world it was just so damn ugly.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

For cheap laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbAEmvZyKQ

 

[fabman]

BRUCE WAYNE / BATMAN
1) Christian Bale - Michael Keaton
2) Val Kilmer
3) George Clooney
4) Adam West

 

[Stupify_me]

For cheap laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbAEmvZyKQ

I want to know why they cut him off.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I want to know why they cut him off.

Bumble told them to

 

[CConn]

The movie had a lot of depth, it just didn't spell it out for you. You don't need a monologue to understand the character, you watch his actions, and you watch his actions through the eyes of the other characters. There's more than one way to create depth. Not everything has be talk about how they feel for you to understand.

That's one thing people really don't seem to be able to appreciate anymore; subtle filmmaking.

Batman Begins is a very...obvious film. It's plot-driven. It's psychological themes, and it's morals are all stated, and shown, and really laid all out for you to see. And...there's nothing wrong with that. I think BB's a better movie than B89 too, but it's not the only way to make a movie, it's not the only way to present deeper themes and subtexts - psychological, moral, whatever.

You can do things subtly. And Burton always prescribed more to that method of filmmaking. Batman Returns actually features a perfect example with how the villains in the movie - Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck - represent the three sides of Batman/Bruce Wayne. Now that's never particularly said or outwardly shown, but it's there, it makes a point about Batman's personality, and y'know, is as deep as any psychological observation of the character. But most people probably don't even notice that it's there. Unfortunately.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Subtley and subtext doesnt make it clever though. I mean jesus if there's one thing I know from Media Studies is that it can be shown in all movies in some way shape or form even BB had symbolism. Of course the very arty directors like Burton can put a lot of stock in it and as far as the 3 villians in returns being a symbol of similarity to Bruce/Batman it's an obvious element, cause even in the comics the big villians were seen as a parallel to Batman (prime example Catwoman and Batman relationship) but it all depends on how well it's executed and if it's hammed up a little then it people may not like that.
Ultimatley throwing arty symbolism shots is if anything over-stated and generic and overambitious (god, how many student filmakers movies put that shyt?). It's because of that people apperciate a story that tells it staight and to the point and even in those films there's subtexts and narration through there not bog down in artsy fartsy techniques like say the Matrix sequels and shrouded in enigma, generic narrative shots or hammed acting.

 

[JLBats]

That's one thing people really don't seem to be able to appreciate anymore; subtle filmmaking.

Batman Begins is a very...obvious film. It's plot-driven. It's psychological themes, and it's morals are all stated, and shown, and really laid all out for you to see. And...there's nothing wrong with that. I think BB's a better movie than B89 too, but it's not the only way to make a movie, it's not the only way to present deeper themes and subtexts - psychological, moral, whatever.

You can do things subtly. And Burton always prescribed more to that method of filmmaking. Batman Returns actually features a perfect example with how the villains in the movie - Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck - represent the three sides of Batman/Bruce Wayne. Now that's never particularly said or outwardly shown, but it's there, it makes a point about Batman's personality, and y'know, is as deep as any psychological observation of the character. But most people probably don't even notice that it's there. Unfortunately.

I disagree. I don't think that Burton doesn't bring that up because he's subtle. I think he doesn't bring it up because he doesn't realise it himself. I don't think he's bad at creating great images, but he sucks at actually telling the story. What he needs is to reign in his overtly self-indulgent side.

And also, while you may think that all the themes and meaning in Batman Begins are stated, I disagree, and I've actually listened to an academic analysis that supports this. The "truth lies beneath" motif, the subtle rehabilitation of Bruce over the course of the film leading up to that gorgeous scene in the sunlight outside the burnt mansion, the subtle interweaving of Bruce's family legacy were all done in a way that was not only as subtle as anything in Burton's films, but was more cinematic.

Also, I have to question what you're expecting of subtlety in a film. Christ, even some of the greatest films in history outright state the goals and themes within the first ten minutes. Chinatown did (I own a signed copy of the screenplay, incidentally) in a deleted line, and several that WEREN'T deleted. So did Vertigo. It seems to me that the complaint of Begins being an obvious film is an easy one, but it's not quite so obvious. It has very obvious layers TO it, obviously.

 

[Bat Attack]

Am I the only one that hated the look of Gothem in 89? I really hate Tim Burton I hate his style I hate what he does in all his movies. I thought he made the movie look so ugly as he does with every thing he directs. I thought Batman TAS looked better than the Burton world it was just so damn ugly.

You know what you would love? The IMDb.com boards. Those are full of trolls who bash Burton (much like yourself) so you'd be right at home. Now go watch your beloved Batman Begins.

 

[CConn]

Subtley and subtext doesnt make it clever though.

I didn't say Burton was trying to be clever. All I said was that's the style in which he makes his films.

I mean jesus if there's one thing I know from Media Studies is that it can be shown in all movies in some way shape or form

Exactly what I was saying. Just because some films make that subtext more apparent (ala BB) doesn't mean it's not there (ala B89).

even BB had symbolism.

I never said BB didn't have symbolism. I said it had tons of it, in fact.

Of course the very arty directors like Burton can put a lot of stock in it and as far as the 3 villians in returns being a symbol of similarity to Bruce/Batman it's an obvious element, cause even in the comics the big villians were seen as a parallel to Batman (prime example Catwoman and Batman relationship) but it all depends on how well it's executed and if it's hammed up a little then it people may not like that.

Well, duh. If a movie isn't made well, people aren't going to like it. That can be said for any style of filmmaking. It really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Ultimatley throwing arty symbolism shots is if anything over-stated and generic and overambitious (god, how many student filmakers movies put that shyt?).

Where'd you get this "artsy symbolism shots" from? All I said was that Burton puts themes in his movies that require the audience to figure them out on their own rather than spelling it out for everyone.

It's because of that people apperciate a story that tells it staight and to the point and even in those films there's subtexts and narration through there not bog down in artsy fartsy techniques like say the Matrix sequels and shrouded in enigma, generic narrative shots or hammed acting.

I'd hardly say Burton's Batman films are anything like the The Matrix. And if you consider Keaton's acting hammy...I may laugh more than I did watching that Kevin Smith lecture.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I mean Movies in general, you get a lot of directors who do artsy fartsy shots to hide a good script and people pick up on it and I was using the matrix sequels as general examples. I didnt say keaton hammed it up but you could make the case the villians did in all his movies. As far as themes go there in all types of movie, that's like first year media studies shyt right here....

 

[JLBats]

The villians all hammed it up. Keaton played a very one note version of Batman.

 

[CConn]

I disagree. I don't think that Burton doesn't bring that up because he's subtle. I think he doesn't bring it up because he doesn't realise it himself. I don't think he's bad at creating great images, but he sucks at actually telling the story. What he needs is to reign in his overtly self-indulgent side.

You didn't find the strong themes and moral observations of Edward Scissorhands intriguing? From illustrating points as simple as, well, you can't judge a book by its cover, to how petty, selfish, and misunderstanding people and society can be.

And I like to think that same theme runs over into Charlie and the Chocolate Factor - that, even though people and society can be real *****es at times, it's really quite pointless to isolate yourself from them as, on some level, you always need them despite how much grief they can cause.

That's just two examples now. Big Fish is pretty littered with them as well - although, honestly, I haven't spent any time figuring those out yet personally. And even subtle things like Bruce Wayne's characterization in B89 is telling of Burton's beliefs on genius and how people function.

Granted, most of his stuff comes from his gothy, outsider prospective that honestly may not gel with some people, but that hardly invalidates his quality. IMO.

And also, while you may think that all the themes and meaning in Batman Begins are stated, I disagree, and I've actually listened to an academic analysis that supports this. The "truth lies beneath" motif, the subtle rehabilitation of Bruce over the course of the film leading up to that gorgeous scene in the sunlight outside the burnt mansion, the subtle interweaving of Bruce's family legacy were all done in a way that was not only as subtle as anything in Burton's films, but was more cinematic.

It had subilities in it, but it wasn't a subtle film. And that, as I say at the end of this post, isn't a bad thing. I don't know why you feel the need to turn this into some kind of petty contest.

Also, I have to question what you're expecting of subtlety in a film. Christ, even some of the greatest film's in history outright state the goals and themes within the first ten minutes. Chinatown did (I own a signed copy of the screenplay, incidentally) in a deleted line, and several that WEREN'T deleted. So did Vertigo.

Obviously. And those are two films I love (well, I haven't seen Chinatown yet, but let's pretend). But two of the greatest films in history are extremely ambiguous. Taxi Driver and Blade Runner for example. Neither outright said "hey, this is Deckard, he's an android!", "hey, this is Travis Bickle, he's confused about his role in society!" No, they let the audience deduce that themselves through observing the characters' actions and personalities and so forth.

It seems to me that the complaint of Begins being an obvious film is an easy one, but it's not quite so obvious. It has very obvious layers TO it, obviously.

It wasn't a complaint against BB in the least. You misunderstand the point of my post greatly. Neither method is superior to the other. They're just different. And both can, and should, be enjoyed in their own way. I really don't see what's so disagreeable about that statement.

 

[CConn]

The villians all hammed it up. Keaton played a very one note version of Batman.

Granted one of Burton's villains was the Joker. A character who's intuitively hammy.

And I'd hardly say Catwoman in BR was any hammier than Cillian Murphy's portrayal of Scarecrow.

Penguin...eh, I'll give you that. Still, I think I would have enjoyed him much less if DeVito played it lowkey. The Penquin isn't exactly of starring character quality. As Nolan realizes.

 

[JLBats]

You didn't find the strong themes and moral observations of Edward Scissorhands intriguing? From illustrating points as simple as, well, you can't judge a book by its cover, to how petty, selfish, and misunderstanding people and society can be.

And I like to think that same theme runs over into Charlie and the Chocolate Factor - that, even though people and society can be real *****es at times, it's really quite pointless to isolate yourself from them as, on some level, you always need them despite how much grief they can cause.

That's just two examples now. Big Fish is pretty littered with them as well - although, honestly, I haven't spent any time figuring those out yet personally. And even subtle things like Bruce Wayne's characterization in B89 is telling of Burton's beliefs on genius and how people function.

Granted, most of his stuff comes from his gothy, outsider prospective that honestly may not gel with some people, but that hardly invalidates his quality. IMO.

That's really a theme thing, and I was taking issue with his self-indulgence and storytelling ability. I don't mind his thematics, since that really is more of a script issue.

It had subilities in it, but it wasn't a subtle film. And that, as I say at the end of this post, isn't a bad thing. I don't know why you feel the need to turn this into some kind of petty contest.

I'm not turning it into a petty contest. You made a comment, I made a rebuttal.

Obviously. And those are two films I love (well, I haven't seen Chinatown yet, but let's pretend). But two of the greatest films in history are extremely ambiguous. Taxi Driver and Blade Runner for example. Neither outright said "hey, this is Deckard, he's an android!", "hey, this is Travis Bickle, he's confused about his role in society!" No, they let the audience deduce that themselves through observing the characters' actions and personalities and so forth.

Really, neither one is the subtlest film either. There are several times that Travis' motivations are verbalised, and even if it wasn't as much as Batman Begins, it was enough, and it was the necessary amount. Batman Begins is not quite as subtle as either film, but it's also not one of the best movies ever made.

It wasn't a complaint against BB in the least. You misunderstand the point of my post greatly. Neither method is superior to the other. They're just different. And both can, and should, be enjoyed in their own way. I really don't see what's so disagreeable about that statement.

I disagree with the statement. It's not even that it's a complaint. I just disagree with it.

As well, my biggest problems with the Burton films don't lie just in thematics. They lie in his overly self-indulgent moments and a weak narrative structure, not to mention an interpretation of Batman I sincerely disagree with. I think Batman Begins does a much better job as a film.

 

[Stupify_me]

You know what you would love? The IMDb.com boards. Those are full of trolls who bash Burton (much like yourself) so you'd be right at home. Now go watch your beloved Batman Begins.

So if you don't like tim burton your a troll? Wow grow up man most of the other people on here can have a discussion with out being an ass why can't you?

 

[Bat Attack]

So if you don't like tim burton your a troll? Wow grow up man most of the other people on here can have a discussion with out being an ass why can't you?

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.

 

[CConn]

That's really a theme thing, and I was taking issue with his self-indulgence and storytelling ability. I don't mind his thematics, since that really is more of a script issue.

You think those themes would have been in those movies if not for Burton? That's what the man's movies are all about - next to the visual direction, at least.

I'm not turning it into a petty contest. You made a comment, I made a rebuttal.

About Batman Begins' quality when I had made no statements about such. To be clear - BB is the better movie. But, IMO, just because BB is fanastically fantastic, doesn't mean Burton's movies are horrible just because they don't follow the follow the beat of the same drummer, so to speak. And hell, I enjoy that they're so different. It's nice to have such varity in adaptations of my favorite character.

Really, neither one is the subtlest film either. There are several times that Travis' motivations are verbalised, and even if it wasn't as much as Batman Begins, it was enough, and it was the necessary amount. Batman Begins is not quite as subtle as either film, but it's also not one of the best movies ever made.

I would say BB is not nearly as subtle. Still, that's semantical. Point being; a movie doesn't have to be totally direct in its messages to be affective.

I disagree with the statement. It's not even that it's a complaint. I just disagree with it.

You disagree with what? That subtle films aren't as good as to the point, plot-driven ones, or that Burton just doesn't do sutble films well?

As well, my biggest problems with the Burton films don't lie just in thematics. They lie in his overly self-indulgent moments and a weak narrative structure.

So you're saying you enjoy more plot-driven movies? Fine. But personally, I can enjoy both.

not to mention an interpretation of Batman I sincerely disagree with. I think Batman Begins does a much better job as a film.

As I said before, BB is definitely the better movie.

 

[JLBats]

You think those themes would have been in those movies if not for Burton? That's what the man's movies are all about - next to the visual direction, at least.

Regardless, it's not about his directorial style, which is what we're talking about. I consider thematics to be mostly a script issue, although visualising them is up to the director.

About Batman Begins' quality when I had made no statements about such. To be clear - BB is the better movie. But, IMO, just because BB is fanastically fantastic, doesn't mean Burton's movies are horrible just because they don't follow the follow the beat of the same drummer, so to speak. And hell, I enjoy that they're so different. It's nice to have such varity in adaptations of my favorite character.

Perhaps.

I would say BB is not nearly as subtle. Still, that's semantical. Point being; a
movie doesn't have to be totally direct in its messages to be affective.
You disagree with what? That subtle films aren't as good as to the point, plot-driven ones, or that Burton just doesn't do sutble films well?

I disagree with your characterisation of Begins as an obvious film.

So you're saying you enjoy more plot-driven movies? Fine. But personally, I can enjoy both.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

Also, I'm still sort of at a loss as to what the theme of Batman actually was. It could very well be that Batman is different from the people who "Get up, go downstairs, eat breakfast, kiss someone goodbye" etc., but that was verbalised.

 

[The Sage]

Bale saw Batman as a man driven with the intensity of a beast which why he showed a beast like tone and growl as Batman. He even explained that just little method acting thing. What's so hard to understand about that?

I've read that interview plenty of times. I just thought that was a silly way to reference it. You're better than that dawg.

But those same critics who have reviewed movies for 20 years have said Begins is the best adaptation. If you want contrete examples look at Roger Ebert. The implicit argument here is that the movie hasnt aged well and Batman Begins shows that. I didnt say it was bad movie I said 5 times it's good for what it is but its flawed and if it came out in 2006 with movies being done this well it would get slated for being too flamboyantly custom to Burton's presence. It never got the same amout of reviews that were postive as BB. I am saying that if you compare the two and analyse them then you can really B89 apart and show and see flaws. All movies have flaws and I'm telling where one film did one thing better than the other. I'm comparing not slating but you dont seem to get this. You like to argue and have a history of it.

I've read his review, I agree that BB's the better written movie and all, but I think it's aged pretty well. I think if B89 came out this year with the technology available it would've looked fantastic.

As far as Vicki Vale's scene goes. It was corny, lotta people felt that way. But I dont have to hear it from other people to know that myself. If Joker was in there he would cap vale Barbara Gordon style. Keaton's whole "Come on you wanna get nuts" is corny as shyt to me. He caps him and he falls, what was that a BB gun? It was stupid and made Joker seem less threating. Like to me that was an opportuinty to show how evil he was. All the dude was fart and leave at the end lol wtf?

LOL, that wasn't a fart, that was Joker making noises with his mouth. Joker shot him with a gun, Bruce had put a metal plate underneath hi, no BB gun. Simple as that.

Sure his city was great because he created his world. I said it was a great Tim Burton movie with music and over the top early 20th centurty meets goth style but when you look at it now there's so much emphasis on style and lacks the sophistaction and explination of a Nolan version. And again when you compare it loses out. You can embrace the fantasy, but when someone makes a version that captures the core spirit so authentically, real shyt wins.

Well here the issue is perspective. I think both Burton and Nolan captured the spirit of Batman in different ways, with Nolan opting for a more urban realistic world while Burton went for the fantastical dark world. Neither are wrong, because Batman really inhabits both of those worlds.

That's why I dont think looking back now it wasnt a great story at all, it was focused on great style that was customised Burton but I really dont think as a Batman story it covered depth and I've explained why by taking the one version that was an orgin story to one that wasnt.

I think it did, it just didn't make everything obvious for you to see. You have to read behind the lines and see the subtext. That's what I love about Burton's Batman movies, and with Goyer gone, that's some of what I'm expecting with the Nolan Brothers.

Nah but did you miss my counter point to that back a few posts on purpose? Begins works by showing how the fear leads to vengangce (becoming the thing he fears the most). Back in 1989 they show that like I said only the most hard core of fans would connect. Begins showed that world that may be blatant to you and me but redefines the character in a mainstream aspect by showing the journey, and little things that make him a great character. So again comparativley (which has been the basis of my case) It's just simply better to the point that comparing shows how inferior it was and looked like he didnt even care about it ( he dont even go through it on commentary on the DVD it's all style, style, jack, goth, dark etc)

BB showed how taking you can take your fear and turn it into vengeance, and B89 showed how darkness breeds darkness, how it's a cycle.

Batman (the character) is emoted, this (89) is understated. Not subtle understated.

I disagree.

Of course they dont, which was my point in my last post and they come through to always remind us cause they dont wanna let go of the inferior past. You can love the movies but when you compare, lets do the analysis here and explore each one's depth you know which is better.

It's hard to do that considering that they're two types of films, each made differently from the other.

Obviously not, you dont read what people say when they answer your question or explain so I can figure you would think that...

Well obviously I know it's just a movie, but that's not the point of the discussion, is it?

Of course, look how low standards were back then all he had to compare was Adam Wesr's jawn. If he was alive today of course he would liked Batman Begins more, the writers who have wrote Batman over the years too. That maybe an assumption but it's an educated assumptions because let's keep it realer than real: it was one for the fans and they loved it.

I'm sure he would love Batman Begins, but I'm sure he'd still love B89 as well.

So wait because I use other examples of people who feel that way I'm a tool? It's call backing up and supporting your theory. If you like Begins because it had better writing that automatically by your logic makes you a tool too. LOL! You gotta include the fact that it was emphatically praised from a peer and critical standpoint that it gives it credibility and is a strong pro for it.

Sounded like to me you liked BB based on the opinions of others and not your own.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I've read that interview plenty of times. I just thought that was a silly way to reference it. You're better than that dawg.

Again, you go without reading what I wrote. I said it didnt turn out perfect when he tried (although when he used his own voice as Batman it was perfect like the scene in Arkham with Gordon and him). Regardless though that was a respectable move from a method actor to try that.

I've read his review, I agree that BB's the better written movie and all, but I think it's aged pretty well. I think if B89 came out this year with the technology available it would've looked fantastic.

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

LOL, that wasn't a fart, that was Joker making noises with his mouth. Joker shot him with a gun, Bruce had put a metal plate underneath hi, no BB gun. Simple as that.

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. Only thing worse was that forced entrance to Prince (put that on Jon Peters. Shiiet the Batman Soundtrack wasnt even Prince's best work. Purple Rain hands down)

Well here the issue is perspective. I think both Burton and Nolan captured the spirit of Batman in different ways, with Nolan opting for a more urban realistic world while Burton went for the fantastical dark world. Neither are wrong, because Batman really inhabits both of those worlds.

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 think it did, it just didn't make everything obvious for you to see. You have to read behind the lines and see the subtext. That's what I love about Burton's Batman movies, and with Goyer gone, that's some of what I'm expecting with the Nolan Brothers.

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. And if we gonna really deep a lotta people have criticise great filmakers from hurting there own stories with style and yeah there's tons who use that I like for then using iconographical subtext but criticism for them is justified too (See Spike Lee and Oliver Stone. And Tim Burton aint phucking with them though cause all he got is his style and at least they got classics due to the issues raised in there movies but I digress. Look at how Lee's Inside Man was embraced when he played it straight by his standards). Sometimes filmakers overuse it like a first year film and media student who just learn the stuff.

BB showed how taking you can take your fear and turn it into vengeance, and B89 showed how darkness breeds darkness, how it's a cycle.

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

It's hard to do that considering that they're two types of films, each made differently from the other.

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.

Well obviously I know it's just a movie, but that's not the point of the discussion, is it?

Well it's a flaw, especially when your trying to respond to every paragraph I put out. If I'm answering stuff what's the point in validfying. You like the movie but were comparing. You get me?

I'm sure he would love Batman Begins, but I'm sure he'd still love B89 as well.

Well he said he loved the Adam West series and Schumachers stuff too...poor old man would have kept it diplomatic to the grave.

Sounded like to me you liked BB based on the opinions of others and not your own.

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.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I'm fully behind this thread and discussion, BUT PLEASE! I'm tired and can't be bothered with posts longer than a paragraph! lol. Short and sweet anyone?