Superman: The Movie vs Batman (1989)

[Human Torch]

People always fail to remember:

A) As originally intended in the Donner Cut,Supe was gonna turn the world back anyway.So killing him wasn't a big deal

B) Donner actually also shot scenes of the arctic police arresting Zod & Co. So if Donner hadn't gotten the bum's rush from the Salkinds, he probably would've been in a better place to clarify that scene as to how Zod & Co survived.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

People always fail to remember:

A) As originally intended in the Donner Cut,Supe was gonna turn the world back anyway.So killing him wasn't a big deal

B) Donner actually also shot scenes of the arctic police arresting Zod & Co. So if Donner hadn't gotten the bum's rush from the Salkinds, he probably would've been in a better place to clarify that scene as to how Zod & Co survived.

Both correct.

There is a deleted scene (which I believe is in the International Cut, although I could be wrong about that one) which has the Kryptonians being arrested at the end along with Lex Luthor. Luthor later escapes from prison again with the help of Miss Tessmacher, this time via car.

In the Donner Cut, they are explicitly shown being returned to the Phantom Zone at the end.

 

[The Batman]

No offense, but everytime someone says "Hackman Lex was like a villain from the Batman TV Show", I wonder if they actually paid attention to Hackman's Lex or a villain from the Batman TV Show.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Hackman's Lex is basically a Bond villain. He's got a very similar personality to someone like Auric Goldfinger. He's a sleazy politician/business type who smiles to your face while stabbing you in the back. He's also always the smartest man in the room and wants everyone to know it.

I love it in the sequel when he's constantly trying to outmaneuver Zod.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Hackman was more over the top than any Bond villain.

His personality is over the top like a 60's Batman villain. But he's not sitting in a themed hideout...the theme would be wigs I reckon

 

[The Batman]

A Bond villain is a much better description of Hackman Lex.

I can't remember a 60's Batman villain who had a cop thrown in front of a moving train, or callously had a nuke sent to the town where his girlfriend's mother lives.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Bond villains were more subtle with their personalities.
Dr. No was calm and collected.
So was Red Grant.
Goldfinger.
Largo.
Blofeld.

They are all pretty cold and real.

Hackman would scream and moan like a woman

He was evil like a Bond villain, but his campiness reminds me more of a Batman villain.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Not all Bond villains (some are just icy emotionless types), but some of them. Lex would fit in with the likes of Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Zorin, and Whitaker. Even Kananga has his moments.

 

[Rodrigo90]

"MISS TESSMACHER!!!"
"Ninkum poop!"

I was even watching AVTAK tonight and Zorin wasn't like that
Even the most over the top and campy Bond villain in years, Silva, wasn't like Hackman's Lex.

If anything, he's a blend of Bond and 60's Batman villain.
On occasions Hackman downplays the ham and campiness, where he sounds like a Bond villain, then switches to Batman villain-esque.

 

[BH/HHH]

People always fail to remember:

A) As originally intended in the Donner Cut,Supe was gonna turn the world back anyway.So killing him wasn't a big deal

B) Donner actually also shot scenes of the arctic police arresting Zod & Co. So if Donner hadn't gotten the bum's rush from the Salkinds, he probably would've been in a better place to clarify that scene as to how Zod & Co survived.

The deleted scene was not uses though therefore he killed Zod.

Alao on the Donner Cut, yes he turned back time again but he still killed him. Whether time travel changed that is irrelevant. If I could time travel I wouldn't be like oh I'm gonna kilk someone cause I know I can change history. I would still have killed someone and know what its like to kill someone.

 

[Superchan]

Superman is my favorite character and STM is my favorite superhero film (and in my top 5 films of all time) so it's not even a competition.
Batman on the other hand is my least favorite character of all but saying that, Batman was an excellent movie that only grew in stature (for me ateast) over time.
Aesthetically speaking, Burton's batman still stands up until today while Michael Keaton for me is the definitive life action Bruce Wayne/Batman, far more so than Bale and I can't forget Elfman's score, which is second only to William's Superman theme.

 

[Keehar]

Superman the movie easily. I think Burton's Batman is overrated rubbish that doesn't get any of the Batman characters right. It's a boring movie, too.

Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Brando, and Hackman I could watch all day, every day.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Superman the movie easily. I think Burton's Batman is overrated rubbish that doesn't get any of the Batman characters right. It's a boring movie, too.

 

[Indy Flash]

Reeve was the definitive superman but I grew up watching batman as my favorite so I choose Batman 89.

 

[Doc Ock]

What a poll, I grew with Keaton's Batman films being constantly rerun on VHS and I didn't watch Superman the Movie until 2009. I was never exposed to it growing up and Smallville actually is what go me to watch it. They are both great films they deserve to stand against the test of time, but I have to go with Batman even though I prefer the character Superman. The Superman I grew up was the post-crisis version and variations and some parts of STM I had trouble with for a long time, Batman 89 (and Returns) was instant love.

If STM had a better Lex Luthor perhaps I would of voted for it, Hackman's Lex and the films time travel ending is the only thing keeping from beating Batman 89...maybe.

 

[Batmannerism]

Both films are absolute classics in the suphero genre. I loved them both, and found it really tough to decide on a favourite.

I had to go with Superman the movie in the end, just by a nose. The deciding factor was probably Reeve's performance. I thought Keaton a good Batman, but Reeve a great Superman - there are some campy, hokey bits in both films, and STM's final deus ex machina is a bit much (even as an 8 year old, I thought flying around the world backwards to turn back time was ridiculous), but otherwise it was just magic.

Batman, was fantastic and dark and thrilling, but to be honest Batman felt like a guest star in his own film - which spent a bit too much time on the Joker (unlike TDK, where Batman gets more screen-time).

So, STM but only just. A very tough question indeed !

 

[Cobblepot]

No offense, but everytime someone says "Hackman Lex was like a villain from the Batman TV Show", I wonder if they actually paid attention to Hackman's Lex or a villain from the Batman TV Show.

I ment his henchmen, they were goofy and over the top. At times so was Hackman but with a more 'serious' note.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Hackman's Lex is basically a Bond villain. He's got a very similar personality to someone like Auric Goldfinger. He's a sleazy politician/business type who smiles to your face while stabbing you in the back. He's also always the smartest man in the room and wants everyone to know it.

I love it in the sequel when he's constantly trying to outmaneuver Zod.

I think Lex really works as a Bond-style villain too. It's not all that far-fetched to say that Lex himself may have been the inspiration for Bond-style villains to begin with. To me, the problem wasn't Hackman himself or even his portrayal, it was having Otis always around to turn each Lex scene into a comedy skit and sometimes even ruining Lex's plans.

Keep Hackman, keep the personality, lose the wigs, lose Otis, and IMO the movie would have been perfect. People are always saying Hackman was poorly cast because of something that was already in the script before he was even picked which is silly to me.

 

[Loki882]

Both films are absolute classics in the suphero genre. I loved them both, and found it really tough to decide on a favourite.

I had to go with Superman the movie in the end, just by a nose. The deciding factor was probably Reeve's performance. I thought Keaton a good Batman, but Reeve a great Superman - there are some campy, hokey bits in both films, and STM's final deus ex machina is a bit much (even as an 8 year old, I thought flying around the world backwards to turn back time was ridiculous), but otherwise it was just magic.

Batman, was fantastic and dark and thrilling, but to be honest Batman felt like a guest star in his own film - which spent a bit too much time on the Joker (unlike TDK, where Batman gets more screen-time).

So, STM but only just. A very tough question indeed !

The sad part is, that gets even worse in the sequel. Batman REALLY felt like a guest star in that movie. It's one of the reasons why I actually prefer Forever over either of the Burton films. At least Forever TRIED to actually be about Batman and explore his character.

 

[baerrtt]

I think Lex really works as a Bond-style villain too. It's not all that far-fetched to say that Lex himself may have been the inspiration for Bond-style villains to begin with. To me, the problem wasn't Hackman himself or even his portrayal, it was having Otis always around to turn each Lex scene into a comedy skit and sometimes even ruining Lex's plans.

Keep Hackman, keep the personality, lose the wigs, lose Otis, and IMO the movie would have been perfect. People are always saying Hackman was poorly cast because of something that was already in the script before he was even picked which is silly to me.

Hackman's Luthor is a slightly more, if anything, comedic take on a Bond villain. It's certainly not as camp as the 60s Batman tv show bad guys were.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Isn't Telly Savalas' Blofeld in On her Majesty's Secret Service the inspiration for DCAU Lex Luthor?

 

[BH/HHH]

The sad part is, that gets even worse in the sequel. Batman REALLY felt like a guest star in that movie. It's one of the reasons why I actually prefer Forever over either of the Burton films. At least Forever TRIED to actually be about Batman and explore his character.

It's a shame some of the more interesting Bruce a Wayne stuff ended up on the cutting room floor from Forever.

I think Forever was a massive missed opportunity, the opening is one of the best openings to a comic book movie ever. But quickly after the film really falls apart, it's a real shame because they almost had something spot on there.

 

[Batmannerism]

The sad part is, that gets even worse in the sequel. Batman REALLY felt like a guest star in that movie. It's one of the reasons why I actually prefer Forever over either of the Burton films. At least Forever TRIED to actually be about Batman and explore his character.

That's completely true dude , BUT you have to admit dude that Michelle Pfeiffer was a-mazing as Catwoman (Hathaway was good, but MP was the best Catwoman ever ! Hell, she was more interesting than Batman in that movie - the Penguin, not so much, that whole choo-choo train with stolen kids reminded me too much of the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.).

Anyway, my point is, it's true that Batman Returns was really more like
" Catwoman begins, guest starring Batman and the Penguin"
which was a fun movie.

The problem with Batman Forever is that you had a little bit of Bruce Wayne/ Batman, a really, really solid and entertaining performance by Jim Carrey as the Riddler, but a pretty dull Chris O'Donnell as Robin, and a disgracefully terrible Tommy Lee Jones (woefully miscast and terribly performed) as
one of Batman's absolute best enemies.

For me, the Riddler saved the movie, although it had some good bits - it was entertaining anyway, that's the key for a Bat-movie.

Anyway, that's one of the reasons I loved Nolan's movies so much, is because at least they place the focus on Bruce. In TDK we get a fair bit of Batman, and probably the big weakness of TDKR is that there's bugger all Batman, in a nearly 3 hour film he's only in 33 minutes of it, and part of that
he's out in broad daylight, which is just wrong.

Okay, I enjoyed TDKR in the cinema, and I can still enjoy it, so long as I turn my brain off and ignore the gaping holes in it. It's not a bad movie at all, it's a good movie, but it comes after a GREAT movie, so it's a bit of a let down.


Anyway, I suppose what I liked about Man of STeel is that it places the emphasis on Kal El, and his path to becoming Superman. Superman the movie, I feel spends a bit too much time on Luthor -but I suspect that's because of Hackman's star power at the time. Anyway, whether he was playing Clark Kent or Superman, Reeve was great (Keaton was good, both as BAtman and Bruce, but Reeve was great as both Clark and Kal).
For me, that's what gives STM the edge. I'm repeating myself here,
sorry.

Okay, peace out Super-fans !

 

[Keehar]

It's sad when Joel Schumacher got more right with Batman's character than Tim Burton.

 

[Elevator Man]

^
[YT]lhckuhUxcgA[/YT]