Returns or 89?

[RustyCage]

here's a cool pic i'd never seen before of the premiere of Batman Returns

Was the pic removed? I can't see anything.

 

[Ponyboy]

I can see it in your quote...

 

[RustyCage]

I can see it in your quote...

Hmm, maybe provide the url?

 

[Ponyboy]

Joker could see it... how can I see the pics and you guys can't? Makes a' no sensah...

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/75...1DF566FF580051A7E5942E3281F8DB50C54FEEB94EB3F

 

[The Joker]

I can see it fine.

 

[Grayson]

I prefer Batman '89.
Jack Nicholson was a genius as Joker.

 

[BH/HHH]

I voted Returns, I think alot of '89 looks dated you can tell when its a model etc.

 

[Elevator Man]

I voted Returns, I think alot of '89 looks dated you can tell when its a model etc.

So BR is better than B89 b/c you can tell B89 used models and it's older than BR.





Okay.








If that was the case the same could be said about Terminator , Robocop, Star Wars, etc. and their sequels.

 

[Ponyboy]

Hey BH made a point... sometimes it's all about the visuals for some people. When that suspension of disbelief is shattered... The viewer loses their place in that world. They start focusing on that fact and end up missing (bits of) the film.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Hmm, maybe provide the url?

At first I couldn't see it until I viewed it in a different browser. You might want to try that.

 

[Elevator Man]

Hey BH made a point... sometimes it's all about the visuals for some people. When that suspension of disbelief is shattered... The viewer loses their place in that world. They start focusing on that fact and end up missing (bits of) the film.

I understand if he was talking about Superman IV:TQFP (since the effects were cheap and cheesy then and it gets worse with age), but B89. Yeah for it's time it looked amazing. I remember critics compared the sets, models, the whole production design to Blade Runner. Which is saying something.

Once again everything ages. This was before CGI was everywhere. If he thinks a movie is weak b/c of the technology they used at the time is dated now. Therefore it's sequel, which will have the newest technology and a bigger budget, is better b/c of it. Please.

So King Kong (1933) is weaker than Peter Jackson's KK b/c it's stop motion effects are dated compared to the CGI heavy 2005 film. When it was actually groundbreaking for 1933. The same could be said about the makeup for POTA (1968). Does he think Burton's (POTA) movie is better b/c the make up in the original looks dated to Burton's in comparison. When in fact the original won an oscar for best make up.

Now I understand if he saw the movie at the time it was out and complained then. But today yeah the movie came out almost 22 years ago. Big deal. Yeah they used models and miniatures, but not CGI since this movie pre-dates it to begin with.

Special effects and visuals is not a way to judge a movie from being better than another. Or if a earlier movie's special effects looks dated to it's sequel (that'll have improved and updated special effects)
making it the weaker movie. King Kong (1933), Planet of the Apes (1968) aren't hailed classics b/c of their special effects and visuals it's b/c of their stories.

So sorry that was a pretty lame excuse to like one movie over another. When most movies with sequels the visuals tend to get better each movie. It all comes down to which story was better.

 

[Ponyboy]

Once again everything ages. This was before CGI was everywhere. If he thinks a movie is weak b/c of the technology they used at the time is dated now. Therefore it's sequel, which will have the newest technology and a bigger budget, is better b/c of it. Please.

Oh I agree, you're preaching to converted. I was just saying he had a point... however small.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I personally never cared about special effects the slightest. When CGi came along I barely noticed it because I was so immersed in the story (T2, Jurassic Park). To this day I wouldnt care at all if the mvoies would be done in stop motion, its the story and the characters I care about only. Some may say that you can tell if somehtings a model or a stop motion puppet, but the exact same goes for CGI. Dont tell me you cant tell whats CGI, it sticks out like Roger Rabbit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit to me and looks like an inserted cartoon. I can always tell when something animated, and I even prefer stop motion over CGI because stop motion was a real physical models and the texture and looks was more real, even if the movement wasnt. About the only exceptions in which CGI cant be told apart from physical models is Jurassic Park and Avatar. In Avatar I couldnt tell if the grass or which one of the plants were physical props and which were animated, same goes for choppers. In Jurassic Park, I couldnt tell where the animatronics blended in with CGI and where a full CGI was used. Theres a reason why Nolan was and is against using CGI and tries to do as much as possible the old fashioned way with models

 

[The Joker]

I don't care about CGI either, as long as it doesn't obviously look like CGI. Even on blu-ray I think B'89 Gotham holds up well in general.

 

[ALP]

Overall B'89 holds up quite well. The only thing that looks flat out bad is the shot of the batwing crashing. Not only does it look bad(obviously a model) but the sound effects also sound very wonky when the batwing crashes near the cathedral.

In fact, those effects did not look very good when the film was made either. In his 1989 review of the film, Ebert specifically points out how just how dodgy that batwing crash scene looks. It's always looked bad. But in the end it's pretty minor, everything else looks solid.

 

[Ponyboy]

I agree... you can really tell the Batwing is a model. I didn't notice it when I was younger but now it looks fairly poor for such a big budget film. Not the worst I've seen though.

here's another '92 Batman Returns premiere pic I found...

 

[Marx]

This is a tough one...

 

[AnneFan]

B89 is the more iconic, but BR is just better in my eyes.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I love them both alot but id have to say 89.

 

[OutRiddled]

'89. That's the Batman movie I have watched the most and have loved ever since seeing it as a kid in 1989.

I personally never cared about special effects the slightest. When CGi came along I barely noticed it because I was so immersed in the story (T2, Jurassic Park). To this day I wouldnt care at all if the mvoies would be done in stop motion, its the story and the characters I care about only. Some may say that you can tell if somehtings a model or a stop motion puppet, but the exact same goes for CGI. Dont tell me you cant tell whats CGI, it sticks out like Roger Rabbit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit to me and looks like an inserted cartoon. I can always tell when something animated, and I even prefer stop motion over CGI because stop motion was a real physical models and the texture and looks was more real, even if the movement wasnt. About the only exceptions in which CGI cant be told apart from physical models is Jurassic Park and Avatar. In Avatar I couldnt tell if the grass or which one of the plants were physical props and which were animated, same goes for choppers. In Jurassic Park, I couldnt tell where the animatronics blended in with CGI and where a full CGI was used. Theres a reason why Nolan was and is against using CGI and tries to do as much as possible the old fashioned way with models

Almost everything in Avatar looked animated to me.. even the actors. But besides the point. A special effect is just there to tell a story. If it draws too much attention to itself, it becomes just a special effect and nothing more. I always felt this way about the Star Wars prequels and a bunch of other CGI-heavy movies. I've seen so much that nothing really impresses me anymore. This became a big problem in the late 90s when CGI was in every big effects movie and it has killed the major Hollywood blockbuster experience for me. The only good thing I can say is that at least it advances technology.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I was wondering your guys' opinions on the fight scenes in 89 and BR, didnt know if it needed its own thread or not.

Which film do you think has better (or more enjoyable) fight scenes? Personally for me I like 89's better.

 

[The Joker]

The Batman Returns ones for me. Between the Red Triangle battles, and the throw downs between Batman and Catwoman, it was much better.

 

[Travesty]

I still think the fight in the cathedral with Joker's thug was one of the best Batman fights we've seen in any movie.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Ya personally I just much more enjoy the way the fights are shot in 89, something feels a little too staged and not as gritty and natural in BR. The alleyway scene sums it up for me.

 

[Ponyboy]

I still think the fight in the cathedral with Joker's thugs was one of the best Batman fights we've seen in any movie.

haha yes ... From the moment Batman lifts opens the door to the bell-tower all the gloves come off eh?