More greatly appreciate Keaton/'89 Batman?

[Super_Ludacris]

And this isn't shown in the B89 film? That his parents' death led to him to wanting revenge?

Well you cant have a Batman film without his parents death but with Batman Begins they made you see and capture the depth of how there death effected him and his upbriging and creation. They took that to a definitve level which is much more believeable.

You saw the pain he was in when his parents died, his dads last words that ring true to his whole life
You saw how it how he felt guilty about his fear leading to there death
You saw the contemplation he went through to try to kill Joe thinking that would avenged there death
You saw him see the bigger picture of how there death made him a see a bigger picture of a problem existing when he was punked by Falcone and his haunting turning to vengance and drive for purpose
You saw his travels, his trainings, his decision to create his own personal quest seperate from the League of shadows
You saw how he utilised and got organised to fight crime, using his gadgets, finding the right people (Gordon with research), turning his fear into a muse

In essence you saw how 2 parents deaths can create a Batman in such a defintive level of explination and journey that showcases the emotion itself

=

What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcave

. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

Dont get me wrong I dug Burton's movie, I enjoyed it but it is a flawed film and it really shows when you compare to Batman Begins. That's my point

 

[Cyrusbales]

Well you cant have a Batman film without his parents death but with Batman Begins they made you see and capture the depth of how there death effected him and his upbriging and creation. They took that to a definitve level which is much more believeable.

You saw the pain he was in when his parents died, his dads last words that ring true to his whole life
You saw how it how he felt guilty about his fear leading to there death
You saw the contemplation he went through to try to kill Joe thinking that would avenged there death
You saw him see the bigger picture of how there death made him a see a bigger picture of a problem existing when he was punked by Falcone and his haunting turning to vengance and drive for purpose
You saw his travels, his trainings, his decision to create his own personal quest seperate from the League of shadows
You saw how he utilised and got organised to fight crime, using his gadgets, finding the right people (Gordon with research), turning his fear into a muse

In essence you saw how 2 parents deaths can create a Batman in such a defintive level of explination and journey that showcases the emotion itself

=

What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcave

. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

Dont get me wrong I dug Burton's movie, I enjoyed it but it is a flawed film and it really shows when you compare to Batman Begins. That's my point

I think almost 100% of the people on this board will hail Keaton as a great actor, and yes he did show emotion greatly, I'm sorry if it wasn't hammy enough and blatent for you, It's supposed to be fantasy-realism, not overacted third rate theatre!

Yes, of course, Keaton can't act and show emotion..............

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Did you really have to be told why Bruce was the way he was? You couldn't tell by how he shrugs off Vicki, in order to spend the day mourning the death of his parents? Or by how many damn flashbacks of the pearls falling, and the gunshot? It was clear as day to me that Bruce was disturbed. I didn't need to hear "My parents have been shot, so I think I will sit in this chair and think about it for a while".

If you wanna make a convincing character story on Batman (which I believe is what the movie was called) then hell mother****ing yeah. That's what makes the movies of superheroes that have come out the last 7 years some of the best genre has provided they show depth and strong examples of how the character is like that. What does pearl dropping do? Show a generic shot of a woman getting gun down? Where's the part that shows the trauma and blame the child had. Oh I know Knox and Vale analysed it themselves by reading some dusty ass headlines

Where was the journey? the arc where sorrow turns to vengance? the training? How he got the gadgets. Like I said Burton wanted you to expect to know about Batman so he could focus on the villans. But the greatest superhero joints show the journey (Donner's Superman, Raimi's Spider-Man).

Heck that's what makes doing movies about these characters with history and bring to the big screen worth it

It is a style shot, but it did have meaning. While the above suggestions you made would've worked as well, imo it wouldn't have the same impact as the shot Burton chose. The man is busy enough as is dressed up like Batman, you can't blame him for having some free time to himself doing nothing, lol. You telling me you just never wanted to sit/lay down and just..."think"? Everyone has those moments.

But it's like I said if he's thinking show it. All he did was show it once in B89 and it was a corny slow moving generic flashback. He's Batman phuck just sitting and laying down if it aint worth for nothing

If by style you mean "sounds good", then ok, lol. Idk how exactly the whole "style over substance" thing can be applied to instrumentals. Point is, the theme sounded like Batman. The fact that most batfans today, says something about Elfman's music.

Grab ya DVD of Batman Begins and play the end credits at the start when the main score plays. It sounds so sick. It's not got a signature style like Elfman's but it's so contemporary and focused and the way the orchestra builds up with the precussion it feels like a man going to war with vengance on his mind. Sounds so dope, close your eyes and hear it.
Elfman's main score is cool, but it feels like he's lurking in the shadows and creates a sound that caters to the style and enviroment of Gotham (Gothic, dark) but Begins beats like it's for just Batman himself. I know people think it's sacrelige to say Hans Zimmer made a better theme than Elfman but it's sounds more authentic and serious and I dig that shyt.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I think almost 100% of the people on this board will hail Keaton as a great actor, and yes he did show emotion greatly, I'm sorry if it wasn't hammy enough and blatent for you, It's supposed to be fantasy-realism, not overacted third rate theatre!

Yes, of course, Keaton can't act and show emotion..............

Did I say Keaton cant act?

Keaton is a good actor but he look so muted in that scene, I just wish Burton focused more on it and created a scene that allowed him to show emotion even if it's a silent vengance (focus on the eyes) As a director you have the opportuinity to enchance the actor.
How the **** can you call Batman Begins overacted third rate theater when you gotta live with Penguin's speeches from Returns lol

 

[Cyrusbales]

Did I say Keaton cant act?

Keaton is a good actor but he look so muted in that scene, I just wish Burton focused more on it and created a scene that allowed him to show emotion even if it's a silent vengance (focus on the eyes) As a director you have the opportuinity to enchance the actor.
How the **** can you call Batman Begins overacted third rate theater when you gotta live with Penguin's speeches from Returns lol

I never said BB was overacted, I suggested that overacting was the opposite of what Batman and Batman returns were, The penguin was a fantasy-like character, but grounded with realism, I understand why people don't like him, but I think the penguin was a great character, who was perfectly acted. Burton didn't need to focus on Keaton's eyes, as Keaton performed with his whole body. This made the few close-ups of his eyes even more impressive and moving.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I never said BB was overacted, I suggested that overacting was the opposite of what Batman and Batman returns were, The penguin was a fantasy-like character, but grounded with realism, I understand why people don't like him, but I think the penguin was a great character, who was perfectly acted. Burton didn't need to focus on Keaton's eyes, as Keaton performed with his whole body. This made the few close-ups of his eyes even more impressive and moving.

How exactly was the Penguin grounded in realism. He's always been the prime example of Burton's fantasy world overtaking.
With Keaton I always felt like he was carrying the suit that it hindered a better performance. It wasnt his fault but when he watch it you can tell how heavy it is on him and how uncomfortable ,so much so that he looks so rigid. But you gotta put that down lack of advancements with the suit but Keaton felt so one-dimensional in it to me.

 

[Cyrusbales]

How exactly was the Penguin grounded in realism. He's always been the prime example of Burton's fantasy world overtaking.
With Keaton I always felt like he was carrying the suit that it hindered a better performance. It wasnt his fault but when he watch it you can tell how heavy it is on him and how uncomfortable ,so much so that he looks so rigid. But you gotta put that down lack of advancements with the suit but Keaton felt so one-dimensional in it to me.

Well the penguin wasn't fantastical, he was grimmy and grubby, he was limited by personal problems, yes he was somewhat surreal, he was a freak rather than a being of fantasy. He obbeyed all the laws of reality, whilst being an outcast, and a mutant like freak. I personally loved Keaton and burton, and that's not going to change, I seem to have this discussion a lot, but this thread is about appretiation for Burton and keaton so I don't wanna get into why I like it more etc, afree to disagree? Or would you like some more conversational circles?

ANYWAY, I'm off to go and watch Hellboy now, awesome film!

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Well the penguin wasn't fantastical, he was grimmy and grubby, he was limited by personal problems, yes he was somewhat surreal, he was a freak rather than a being of fantasy. He obbeyed all the laws of reality, whilst being an outcast, and a mutant like freak. I personally loved Keaton and burton, and that's not going to change, I seem to have this discussion a lot, but this thread is about appretiation for Burton and keaton so I don't wanna get into why I like it more etc, afree to disagree? Or would you like some more conversational circles?

ANYWAY, I'm off to go and watch Hellboy now, awesome film!

smh@ this confusion

 

[The Sage]

Well you cant have a Batman film without his parents death but with Batman Begins they made you see and capture the depth of how there death effected him and his upbriging and creation. They took that to a definitve level which is much more believeable.

You saw the pain he was in when his parents died, his dads last words that ring true to his whole life
You saw how it how he felt guilty about his fear leading to there death
You saw the contemplation he went through to try to kill Joe thinking that would avenged there death
You saw him see the bigger picture of how there death made him a see a bigger picture of a problem existing when he was punked by Falcone and his haunting turning to vengance and drive for purpose
You saw his travels, his trainings, his decision to create his own personal quest seperate from the League of shadows
You saw how he utilised and got organised to fight crime, using his gadgets, finding the right people (Gordon with research), turning his fear into a muse

In essence you saw how 2 parents deaths can create a Batman in such a defintive level of explination and journey that showcases the emotion itself

=

What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcave

. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

Dont get me wrong I dug Burton's movie, I enjoyed it but it is a flawed film and it really shows when you compare to Batman Begins. That's my point

It's no more flawed than BB is, in my opinion.

The reason the movie didn't include an indepth origin tale is because the writer figured the audience would want to jump right into the action and skip the exposition. You see the flashback of his parents' murder. Knox asked the question "What do you think something like this does to a person?" Then they cut to Bruce in the Batcave, pretty much implying that watching his parents' deaths lead him into becoming Batman, reinforced by the flashback.

Did we see him traveling around the world? No. Was it implied that he did do some traveling? Yes. How? The room that showcases the souvenirs he purchased, particularly the one from Japan. Did we see him train? No. Do we know that Bruce did have training? Yes? How? The fight in the alley when Batman took on five on the Joker's thugs, then expertly dispatched the one who was using the katana swords. The movie gave you hints at Batman's origin without directly telling you.

Not only that, but you also saw how darkness creates darkness through Jack Napier killing the Waynes and in the process killing Bruce Wayne but creating Batman. Then Batman indirectly or purposely dropped Jack Napier into chemicals, killing him but creating the Joker.

B89 made you question whether Batman's noble or if he's just as crazy as the villains he faces, while BB walks through Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. So in short, BB is about the journey of Batman, B89 is about the psyche of Batman. Two different views, both Batman.

 

[darknight7]

OK, let me simplify what I mean, Yes Bruce can be a playboy all he wants, but when he's on his own, or just with alfred, he isn't all laughy smiley, IN PUBLIC he is a playboy, but in solitude he isn't, yet in Nolan's film, he always seems happy and cracking little jokes to alfred and stuff, not exactly dark or traumatised!

Like the other guys said, Alfred is all he's got. He is his family, he has been there for Bruce through everything. So I'm sure Bruce wouldn't be all: F you clown, you suck and your old.

But they do have arguements after the car chase. Bruce was tormented. He became Batman, but his playboy character is to throw people off. I beleive that we will see an angrier Bruce/Batman in the future.

He was young, starting out, having fun just a bit, while being a jerk and brooding. Now Rachel's left him, The Joker is going to come into play, People are going to die...Bruce/Batman is going to get TICKED! And be a bit more swallowed in his own demons.

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

(double post)
--dk7

 

[darknight7]

(double post)

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

(double double double doublbe post)

--dk7

 

[Super_Ludacris]

It's no more flawed than BB is, in my opinion.

The reason the movie didn't include an indepth origin tale is because the writer figured the audience would want to jump right into the action and skip the exposition. You see the flashback of his parents' murder. Knox asked the question "What do you think something like this does to a person?" Then they cut to Bruce in the Batcave, pretty much implying that watching his parents' deaths lead him into becoming Batman, reinforced by the flashback.

All this you told me I had just mentioned, and from a Batman storypoint it was a bad move. I had just said that if you want to create a good and defintive story you have to capture depth of the hero. Knox saying one line and cutting to a generic flashback. Where are the monolouges? the music? Back then in '89 was Lets get a movie out and make sure the plots arent ridiculous like the Adam West serial. Throw in Jon Peters ability to mass market the movie and cross-over the movie into promotion deals and people were gonna eat up Bat-Mania no matter how glaring the weaknesses where. You need more depth to create

Did we see him traveling around the world? No. Was it implied that he did do some traveling? Yes. How? The room that showcases the souvenirs he purchased, particularly the one from Japan. Did we see him train? No. Do we know that Bruce did have training? Yes? How? The fight in the alley when Batman took on five on the Joker's thugs, then expertly dispatched the one who was using the katana swords. The movie gave you hints at Batman's origin without directly telling you.

One line of him saying "I got that from Japan" is enigmatic as hell. Keep in mind back then not a lot of mainstream viewers knew about the 70's storylines in the comics where Batman travelled the world. For all there assumptions they probably thought that was a billionaire buying a souvenier. They dont know if there's a subtext to it that he may have travelled to train. It was never shown in a concrete manner and it wouldnt have hindered the movie's pace if they did. In the 80's it was generic as hell to show people doing martial arts not everyone can do it. You bet people were going "Yo how did he do that" I dont even think the director or writers did they just put that in there. Only a hard core comic fan would know that. And like I said, the best comic book movies are when you show or explain to origins of things to a mainstream audience who get a better appreciation of the character.

Not only that, but you also saw how darkness creates darkness through Jack Napier killing the Waynes and in the process killing Bruce Wayne but creating Batman. Then Batman indirectly or purposely dropped Jack Napier into chemicals, killing him but creating the Joker.

That theory of showing dark is so one-dimensional. Where was the aspect where at least said or showed how there death allowed him to become fearful but ultimatley transfer that fear into vegance so he became dark? If it's explained it makes a better movie and no it doesnt drag on All they did was capture the Joker POV of origin.

B89 made you question whether Batman's noble or if he's just as crazy as the villains he faces, while BB walks through Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. So in short, BB is about the journey of Batman, B89 is about the psyche of Batman. Two different views, both Batman.

Hell nah, if anything Batman Begins shows the Psyche AND the journey. I mean shieet the journey CREATES the psyche. Look how he embraced his fear, look how driven he became at investigating and using the stuff in R&D department with Fox. So much more believeable. All Burton was focus on glamourising the villians in his own kooky little world (Joker's fat ass prouncing around to Prince).
All I'm doing is answering the question of the threadstarter. Do I greatly appreicate Batman 89? After watching Batman Begins hell nah. Yeah it was Batman on the big screen for the first time and there was Bat-Mania that Summer of 89 ( and whether people like it or not, there gonna have to thank Peters marketing mind for that) and they dont wanna let go of that. But look around, people have been saying for the past year on the internet, on critical reviews and in public Begins is the best Batman movie. It surpassed it and I'm showing how people feel it has by comparing. Burton-nites need to let go of the past...

 

[El Payaso]

What did Burton show? A slow-mo flashback (more style over substance) and cutting back to Keaton but showing no emotion on his face, just cutting to Alfred letting Vicki Vale into batcave. He expected everyone to already know about Batman, in essence he only focused on the villians and how he would have them in his world.

You missed one factor of the equation:

which allows audiences to put things toghether even when the director doesn't explain it in a didactic way step by step. But those are just approaches, options. The 'explain it to me like I was 6' way is more traditional, ok. But it doesn't make a movie any better the same as not showing everything doesn't make a movie any worse. Many directors follow that way when you show just the necessary and wait for people to make their own conclusions.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

You missed one factor of the equation:

which allows audiences to put things toghether even when the director doesn't explain it in a didactic way step by step. But those are just approaches, options. The 'explain it to me like I was 6' way is more traditional, ok. But it doesn't make a movie any better the same as not showing everything doesn't make a movie any worse. Many directors follow that way when you show just the necessary and wait for people to make their own conclusions.

Your not getting what I'm saying. Audiences can assume and are going to assume how things can about in there minds but what did I just say? If you want make a great Superhero movie. You lay the foundation. Raimi did it in Spider-man, Donner in Superman and Nolan in Batman. Its like picking up that first issue but essientially your opening the pages to a massive audience. That ensures your movie from good to great.


The other thing you havent thought about is audiences are different and each person is gonna put things differently. Tons of people still questioned how things are, even if the audience has suspended disbelief you cant fault for questionng things not explain. You see it happening all the time when people discuss movies or TV shows I dont see why B89 gets a pass just because it was the movie that we all grew up watching or saw Batman on screen for the first time.
I cant fault it's legacy as a blockbuster I have no choice but to give Elfman, Burton, Peters and Hamm credit on that BUT as a Batman story if you compare the two, Begins had everything that core fans ask for (origin, training marital arts, detective skills, realism) it captured the spirt of classic graphic novels and stories. When you put the two together and compare it's no contest who comes out on top.

 

[The Sage]

All this you told me I had just mentioned, and from a Batman storypoint it was a bad move. I had just said that if you want to create a good and defintive story you have to capture depth of the hero. Knox saying one line and cutting to a generic flashback. Where are the monolouges? the music? Back then in '89 was Lets get a movie out and make sure the plots arent ridiculous like the Adam West serial. Throw in Jon Peters ability to mass market the movie and cross-over the movie into promotion deals and people were gonna eat up Bat-Mania no matter how glaring the weaknesses where. You need more depth to create

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.

One line of him saying "I got that from Japan" is enigmatic as hell. Keep in mind back then not a lot of mainstream viewers knew about the 70's storylines in the comics where Batman travelled the world. For all there assumptions they probably thought that was a billionaire buying a souvenier. They dont know if there's a subtext to it that he may have travelled to train. It was never shown in a concrete manner and it wouldnt have hindered the movie's pace if they did. In the 80's it was generic as hell to show people doing martial arts not everyone can do it. You bet people were going "Yo how did he do that" I dont even think the director or writers did they just put that in there. Only a hard core comic fan would know that. And like I said, the best comic book movies are when you show or explain to origins of things to a mainstream audience who get a better appreciation of the character.

The best comic book movies are those that tell great stories, not blatantly explain everything out to you. So what if you didn't see him train. You know he had to have had some training in order to fight like he did in the movie. He wasn't born that way. And the writer of the script was Sam Hamm, a guy who wrote a few Batman stories himself, particularly a story called Blind Justice which expounded on Bruce's travels and his training with Ducard.

That theory of showing dark is so one-dimensional. Where was the aspect where at least said or showed how there death allowed him to become fearful but ultimatley transfer that fear into vegance so he became dark? If it's explained it makes a better movie and no it doesnt drag on All they did was capture the Joker POV of origin.

The movie isn't about how Bruce Wayne became Batman, he already was Batman.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.

Hell nah, if anything Batman Begins shows the Psyche AND the journey. I mean shieet the journey CREATES the psyche. Look how he embraced his fear, look how driven he became at investigating and using the stuff in R&D department with Fox. So much more believeable. All Burton was focus on glamourising the villians in his own kooky little world (Joker's fat ass prouncing around to Prince).

Batman 1989 glamorized the villains and showed the psyche of Batman. Batman Begins showed the journey of creating the psyche, B89 explored the psyche. The only difference is one is through Bruce's POV, the other is through the audience (Vicki Vale). In the process of looking at Batman through the audience, B89 retained the mystery and mystique of Batman. You see how driven he is. He ditched his own party to go to Axis Chemicals. He puts his feelings for Vicki on the backburner to go after Joker on two separate occasions.

All I'm doing is answering the question of the threadstarter. Do I greatly appreicate Batman 89? After watching Batman Begins hell nah. Yeah it was Batman on the big screen for the first time and there was Bat-Mania that Summer of 89 ( and whether people like it or not, there gonna have to thank Peters marketing mind for that) and they dont wanna let go of that. But look around, people have been saying for the past year on the internet, on critical reviews and in public Begins is the best Batman movie. It surpassed it and I'm showing how people feel it has by comparing. Burton-nites need to let go of the past...

And BB fanatics need to respect the past. If you think it surpassed B89, good for you. I think BB is the better written movie, but B89 had more depth, and told the story in a different form rather than directly explaining everything to you like BB did.

In short, I love both of them.

 

[Stupify_me]

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.



The best comic book movies are those that tell great stories, not blatantly explain everything out to you. So what if you didn't see him train. You know he had to have had some training in order to fight like he did in the movie. He wasn't born that way. And the writer of the script was Sam Hamm, a guy who wrote a few Batman stories himself, particularly a story called Blind Justice which expounded on Bruce's travels and his training with Ducard.



The movie isn't about how Bruce Wayne became Batman, he already was Batman.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.



Batman 1989 glamorized the villains and showed the psyche of Batman. Batman Begins showed the journey of creating the psyche, B89 explored the psyche. The only difference is one is through Bruce's POV, the other is through the audience (Vicki Vale). In the process of looking at Batman through the audience, B89 retained the mystery and mystique of Batman. You see how driven he is. He ditched his own party to go to Axis Chemicals. He puts his feelings for Vicki on the backburner to go after Joker on two separate occasions.



And BB fanatics need to respect the past. If you think it surpassed B89, good for you. I think BB is the better written movie, but B89 had more depth, and told the story in a different form rather than directly explaining everything to you like BB did.

In short, I love both of them.

Ill never understand some one saying there is more depth in 89. To me that just does not make sense 89 was an action flick first and formost any depth in that movie was set on the very back of the stove.

You talk about how Batman was fighting in the ally but do you even remember that fight scene? No one needs training for that he threw a couple of basic punches and a kick that barley went above his waist. It was very simple for a ninja. Not to mention that whole thing with the guy with the swords was so lame.

I thought 89 was amazing when I was 10 but when I grew up I realized that it just wasn't as good as I thought.

 

[El Payaso]

Your not getting what I'm saying. Audiences can assume and are going to assume how things can about in there minds but what did I just say? If you want make a great Superhero movie. You lay the foundation. Raimi did it in Spider-man, Donner in Superman and Nolan in Batman. Its like picking up that first issue but essientially your opening the pages to a massive audience. That ensures your movie from good to great.

Well, other than being your personal - respectable - theory on the matter, I don't see how what you say is an absolute or necessarilyu true.

Spiderman was a pile of sh** if you ask me. Superman was great.

What makes a movie great is the movie itself, not some a priori premise (if it has an origin is good, if it hasn't is bad).

The other thing you havent thought about is audiences are different and each person is gonna put things differently. Tons of people still questioned how things are, even if the audience has suspended disbelief you cant fault for questionng things not explain. You see it happening all the time when people discuss movies or TV shows I dont see why B89 gets a pass just because it was the movie that we all grew up watching or saw Batman on screen for the first time.

Bravo for that (in bold letters). Diversity in audiences and their ways to 'complete the movie' in their heads are good things.

I don't see the necessity of putting people's mind in a row and force them to see things in some specific way. Not that you can't do it with good results, but it's not the only option.

I cant fault it's legacy as a blockbuster I have no choice but to give Elfman, Burton, Peters and Hamm credit on that BUT as a Batman story if you compare the two, Begins had everything that core fans ask for (origin, training marital arts, detective skills, realism) it captured the spirt of classic graphic novels and stories. When you put the two together and compare it's no contest who comes out on top.

That might be true. But it doesn't make the movie good per se at all.

B89 also captured Miller's and Kane's comics.

Which one is on top is totally debatable, so much that has been and is being debated in this and many other threads and forums.

 

[The Sage]

Ill never understand some one saying there is more depth in 89. To me that just does not make sense 89 was an action flick first and formost any depth in that movie was set on the very back of the stove.

I think BB was more of an action flick than B89.

You talk about how Batman was fighting in the ally but do you even remember that fight scene? No one needs training for that he threw a couple of basic punches and a kick that barley went above his waist. It was very simple for a ninja. Not to mention that whole thing with the guy with the swords was so lame.

So a regular person could take out someone with swords? Come on now, that took skill, just as it took strength to knock those guys out those guys out. Look at what he did in the beginning, kick that criminal through the roof door. You think a regular guy could do that?

I thought 89 was amazing when I was 10 but when I grew up I realized that it just wasn't as good as I thought.

If you don't, you don't.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

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.

It didnt have depth at all to the standards percieved now.All it did was use Burton's visual for sets and use of music to create and atmosphere. Back in 1989 that would be enough to woo an audience but it hasnt been percieved with the same test of time since Begins came out and even you have to admit that from reading th articles, critics and rankings of great superhero movies. That's my point
As far as Keaton goes I felt beyond his eyes he looked rigid and stiff and came off one dimensional. Like I said before that may not be his fault because difficulty in the mechanics of his suit but even as Bruce Wayne I felt he was trying to be himself rather than Bruce Wayne ( that whole scene in Vicki Vale's place with the Joker...Wack Juice)
And hell yeah you can say Bale messed up with his voice as Batman but at least he did that to get inside the depth of the character and connect to it very much Bruce Wayne himself would (See the beast, be the beast)

The best comic book movies are those that tell great stories, not blatantly explain everything out to you. So what if you didn't see him train. You know he had to have had some training in order to fight like he did in the movie. He wasn't born that way. And the writer of the script was Sam Hamm, a guy who wrote a few Batman stories himself, particularly a story called Blind Justice which expounded on Bruce's travels and his training with Ducard.

So all the more reason to place criticism on Batman 89, Hamm was a guy who writes Batman books, he could have put something more dynamic. Then again he was working with Tim Burton and history shows he always brings his guys in cater to Burton's style (See Batman Returns and the aborted Superman Lives) so dude was clearly in a postion where he could have but he didnt (studio thing). I aint blaming him but I'm saying when you look at the final product vs. what was made in BB, again no contest

The movie isn't about how Bruce Wayne became Batman, he already was Batman.

I know and this is why I dont think it's great in comparison. It's a great Tim Burton but not a great Batman movie if that makes sense. Great movies explore the origin in depth and Burton didnt do that no can deny that. One flashback isnt in-depth.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.

Batman 1989 glamorized the villains and showed the psyche of Batman. Batman Begins showed the journey of creating the psyche, B89 explored the psyche. The only difference is one is through Bruce's POV, the other is through the audience (Vicki Vale). In the process of looking at Batman through the audience, B89 retained the mystery and mystique of Batman. You see how driven he is. He ditched his own party to go to Axis Chemicals. He puts his feelings for Vicki on the backburner to go after Joker on two separate occasions.

I think all Batman 89 did was glamaourised the villians. Exploring the psyche wasnt something they put to much process in to be honest. I think he wanted to to show his world and the psyche but Batman himself seems so emoted compared to everything else around that it seems understated. With BB its emphasised.

And BB fanatics need to respect the past. If you think it surpassed B89, good for you. I think BB is the better written movie, but B89 had more depth, and told the story in a different form rather than directly explaining everything to you like BB did.

In short, I love both of them.

BB fans aint gotta respect shyt lol. It's just a movie, Tim Burton aint Bob Kane. In the end his magical run was done after 2 movies. And history is speaking for itself. Look at all these Superhero movie lists that are coming out. Look at how BB has surpassed B89 on all of them (ign, Premere, Total Film, Wizard, Imdb, EW, MTV.com..big mainstream and some are credible journals), look at how dudes like Alex Ross,Frank Miller, Kevin Smith, Bruce Campbell, Roger Ebert even Stan Lee say Batman Begins is the best one out and they got him right. Sure Burton's movie was enjoyable as a Burton movie but as this Nolan franchise soliders on and learns from the mistakes of the past (of both Schumacher and Burton) they are putting Batman 89 in the past and it lose its shine and relevancy a little compared to this current golden age of Superhero movies. The best is out now, this is the true school era. This is era for Superhero movies is what 94 was for Hip Hop, what the 80's were for Comics, mid 80's/early 90's for the NBA, 98 for wrestling and so on... you can pay props to the past but the best is out now and it's shytting on the old school and that is ok.

 

[Bat Attack]

Oh great, another "Keaton vs. Begins" debate. Whats this, the 3,000,000 time we've done this.

 

[The Sage]

It didnt have depth at all to the standards percieved now.All it did was use Burton's visual for sets and use of music to create and atmosphere. Back in 1989 that would be enough to woo an audience but it hasnt been percieved with the same test of time since Begins came out and even you have to admit that from reading th articles, critics and rankings of great superhero movies. That's my point
As far as Keaton goes I felt beyond his eyes he looked rigid and stiff and came off one dimensional. Like I said before that may not be his fault because difficulty in the mechanics of his suit but even as Bruce Wayne I felt he was trying to be himself rather than Bruce Wayne ( that whole scene in Vicki Vale's place with the Joker...Wack Juice)
And hell yeah you can say Bale messed up with his voice as Batman but at least he did that to get inside the depth of the character and connect to it very much Bruce Wayne himself would (See the beast, be the beast)

See the beast, be the beast? WTF?

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.

So all the more reason to place criticism on Batman 89, Hamm was a guy who writes Batman books, he could have put something more dynamic. Then again he was working with Tim Burton and history shows he always brings his guys in cater to Burton's style (See Batman Returns and the aborted Superman Lives) so dude was clearly in a postion where he could have but he didnt (studio thing). I aint blaming him but I'm saying when you look at the final product vs. what was made in BB, again no contest

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.

I know and this is why I dont think it's great in comparison. It's a great Tim Burton but not a great Batman movie if that makes sense. Great movies explore the origin in depth and Burton didnt do that no can deny that. One flashback isnt in-depth.

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.

Also, the Waynes' deaths didn't cause Bruce to be afraid, it caused him to want revenge. Neither in B89, Batman Begins, or the comicbooks did their deaths put fear in him. I don't know where you're coming from with that.

Did you miss this on purpose?

I think all Batman 89 did was glamaourised the villians. Exploring the psyche wasnt something they put to much process in to be honest. I think he wanted to to show his world and the psyche but Batman himself seems so emoted compared to everything else around that it seems understated. With BB its emphasised.

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

BB fans aint gotta respect shyt lol.

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

It's just a movie, Tim Burton aint Bob Kane.

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

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

In the end his magical run was done after 2 movies. And history is speaking for itself. Look at all these Superhero movie lists that are coming out. Look at how BB has surpassed B89 on all of them (ign, Premere, Total Film, Wizard, Imdb, EW, MTV.com..big mainstream and some are credible journals), look at how dudes like Alex Ross,Frank Miller, Kevin Smith, Bruce Campbell, Roger Ebert even Stan Lee say Batman Begins is the best one out and they got him right. Sure Burton's movie was enjoyable as a Burton movie but as this Nolan franchise soliders on and learns from the mistakes of the past (of both Schumacher and Burton) they are putting Batman 89 in the past and it lose its shine and relevancy a little compared to this current golden age of Superhero movies. The best is out now, this is the true school era. This is era for Superhero movies is what 94 was for Hip Hop, what the 80's were for Comics, mid 80's/early 90's for the NBA, 98 for wrestling and so on... you can pay props to the past but the best is out now and it's shytting on the old school and that is ok.

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.

EDIT: Btw, Alex Ross himself said the Joker's origin in B89 is better than the one in the comics. Thought you would want to know, since you brought his name up.

 

[Cinemaman]

For me, Bale is still the best Batman.

But I really liked Keaton as both Bruce and Batman.

 

[The Sage]

For me, Bale is still the best Batman.

But I really liked Keaton as both Bruce and Batman.

That's cool.