Superman: The Movie vs Batman (1989)

Superman: The Movie vs Batman (1989)

  • Superman: The Movie

  • Batman (1989)

Results are only viewable after voting.
^

truth-hurts.jpg
 
This isn't a hard choice for me. Outside of CR's performance, Superman is dated, disposable cheese. Batman '89 was the first I ever saw a live-action hero adaptation and didn't feel like the film was more parody than adaptation. It wasn't perfect, but it was unapologetic.
 
I vote Superman. It is dated and has some bad looking special fx now but it's still a good movie that holds up and does Superman well. Batman 1989 is dated, it is not a good movie, and doesn't do Batman well at all. Director Richard Donner understood his leading character. Tim Burton did not understand his.
 
Batmannerism said:
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 ! :super:
Click to expand...

I have issues with Burton's Penguin and Catwoman (Joker as well to be honest). To be clear, it's not the actors. Nicholson, Pfeiffer, and DeVito were all really good. My problems with those characters were in the writing. Pfeiffer is awesome, but she never really comes across as "Catwoman" to me. She's playing "Tim Burton freak #723." Hathaway came across as much more "Catwoman-y" to me. And don't get me started on the Penguin, god was that bad.

I don't think that Tommy Lee Jones was necessarily miscast as Two Face. I've seen him play those types of character before, and do it well. The problem was that he and the filmmakers took the complete wrong approach with the performance/writing. It seemed like Jones was trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey, and no one does Jim Carrey better than Jim Carrey. Also, not only was that not at all Two Face, but having two cackling over-the-top bad guys doesn't work. It would have been much better if Carrey was doing his thing and then Two Face was the darker "straight man" to balance out his insanity. Heck that dynamic worked great for Jones when he played off of Will Smith in the MIB films, and Jones is even good a dead-pan humor.
 
Last edited:
Spider-Aziz said:
Schumacher is a bigger Batman fan than Burton is, and he didn't let Batman kill.
Click to expand...

Hi there, Spider-Aziz. :)

How ironic. Schumacher didn't let Batman kill, but he killed Batman himself. :wow::oldrazz:

But Batman kinda killed Two-Face, or did he? Throwing those coins to make poor ol' Harvey go crazy and fall to his death... :nono:
 
There's only two live action movies where he doesn't kill/cause people to die. Batman 66 and Batman and Robin.
 
I think the difference is that Burton had him flat-out murdering people by the dozens (he kills more people than the Joker does in that movie). And not only is he no sorry about it, but it gets worse in the sequel where he seems to actively enjoy it in some ways (that sadistic smile he has when he blows up the strongman). He acts more like The Punisher in those movies than he does Batman. And it gets even worse when he starts lecturing Catwoman about not killing at the end of the movie. "Excuse me Batman, you've been killing people left and right for TWO movies, so you're hardly in a position to pass moral judgments on her."

People have died because of Batman in the comics, but he doesn't INTENTIONALLY flat-out kill them. With the Two-Face thing, it's somewhat ambiguous as to what his intentions were, and with Nolan, the only questionable one is Ra's (but again he didn't flat out kill Ra's).
 
Last edited:
There was nothing wrong with his characterization...ok...it was basically Adolf Hitler turning around to you and saying killing Jews is wrong, BUT STILL :o
 
Good morning, Loki882. :)

Loki882 said:
I think the difference is that Burton had him flat-out murdering people by the dozens (he kills more people than the Joker does in that movie). And not only is he no sorry about it, but it gets worse in the sequel where he seems to actively enjoy it in some ways (that sadistic smile he has when he blows up the strongman).
Click to expand...

In Batman (1989), Batman only kills the thugs at Axis. I don't remember him killing anyone else. He even tried to save Jack Napier!

The Joker's victims are indeterminate. He poisoned all beauty and hygiene product out there and then he gassed the crowd at the parade, so it's safe to say he killed more people :shr:.

In Batman Returns he only killed the strongman. And still it was kinda ambiguous, since that explosion seemed kinda fake. But let's say he did kill him. That's about it.

Loki882 said:
He acts more like The Punisher in those movies than he does Batman. And it gets even worse when he starts lecturing Catwoman about not killing at the end of the movie. "Excuse me Batman, you've been killing people left and right for TWO movies, so you're hardly in a position to pass moral judgments on her."
Click to expand...

Loki882, you say that Batman killing is bad, but it "gets worse" when he realizes that killing doesn't solve anything and stopped someone else from killing? You're one guy hard to please, wouldn't you say? :p

Loki882 said:
People have died because of Batman in the comics, but he doesn't INTENTIONALLY flat-out kill them. With the Two-Face thing, it's somewhat ambiguous as to what his intentions were, and with Nolan, the only questionable one is Ra's (but again he didn't flat out kill Ra's).
Click to expand...

I'd also question the time when Batman shot directly at the driver of the truck in TDKR, killing him right before he made that truck to fall down, which also killed Thalia. Two birds with one stone. :wow: Where I live, that's called killing. :nono:

But with Ra's the bad thing was not only letting him die. Ra's had taught Bruce to ignore compassion when it was about criminals, and Bruce told Ra's that it was compassion that separated the good guys from the criminals. Then Ra's needed to be saved and Batman goes "I don't have to save you" which is the very definition of lack of compassion. It's sad when the hero learns his own enemy's lesson so well. :(
 
Last edited:
schereZada said:
you say that Batman killing is bad, but it "gets worse" when he realizes that killing doesn't solve anything and stop someone else from killing? You're one guy hard to please, wouldn't you say? :p
Click to expand...

Interesting, that's how I interpret that part in Batman Returns too. Catwoman "woke him up". After all, the Batman we see in Batman Forever is the same as Keaton's. Just check out the scene where Dick Grayson talks about killing Two-Face, and Batman answers:

"You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why."

That's what happened to Batman in the first two movies, isn't it?
 
Goshdarn Batman said:
Interesting, that's how I interpret that part in Batman Returns too. Catwoman "woke him up". After all, the Batman we see in Batman Forever is the same as Keaton's. Just check out the scene where Dick Grayson talks about killing Two-Face, and Batman answers:

"You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why."

That's what happened to Batman in the first two movies, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Hi there, Goshdarn Batman. :)

Long story short: I don't see how else that could be interpreted. ;)

Short story long: Yes, in BR, Batman saw another "masked vigilante" (aka Catwoman) and realized how self-destructive that was. Plus, leaving their pain behind was the only way he thought they had to be together. Sadly, Catwoman's demons were too many and too powerful to be contained. :csad:

EDIT: Yes, Batman in BF has learned his lesson already.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I have to give it to BATMAN. Just such a good movie all around, and totally different that STM even thought that was the precedent.

STM is still an amazing movie, but a bit dated.

Having said that, I was very disappointed by MAN OF STEEL.
 
Loki882 said:
I think the difference is that Burton had him flat-out murdering people by the dozens (he kills more people than the Joker does in that movie). And not only is he no sorry about it, but it gets worse in the sequel where he seems to actively enjoy it in some ways (that sadistic smile he has when he blows up the strongman). He acts more like The Punisher in those movies than he does Batman. And it gets even worse when he starts lecturing Catwoman about not killing at the end of the movie. "Excuse me Batman, you've been killing people left and right for TWO movies, so you're hardly in a position to pass moral judgments on her."

People have died because of Batman in the comics, but he doesn't INTENTIONALLY flat-out kill them. With the Two-Face thing, it's somewhat ambiguous as to what his intentions were, and with Nolan, the only questionable one is Ra's (but again he didn't flat out kill Ra's).
Click to expand...

This person gets it. Batunisher in Burton's movies wasted all the Axis thugs, more at the parade, the black goon who kicked his ass in the church tower, the strongman, the fire blowing clown, and if Catwoman didn't have her "9 lives" she'd be dead from him, too. He tried to kill the Penguin as well when he crushed his duck vehicle at the zoo

You're right he did start to enjoy it in the sequel. Sicko.
 
Last edited:
Keehar said:
This person gets it. Batunisher in Burton's movies wasted all the Axis thugs, more at the parade, the black gon who kicked his ass in the church tower, the strongman, the fire blowing clown, and if Catwoman didn't have her "9 lives" she'd be dead from him, too. He tried to kill the Penguin as well when he crushed his duck vehicle at the zoo

You're right he did start to enjoy it in the sequel. Sicko.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Hi, Keehar. :)

Who did Batman kill at the parade? :huh: I can't remember. I remember he failed shooting the Joker. The fire blowing demon wasn't killed. Catwoman neither, she feel on a cat litter truck. And Penguin wasn't killed either by Batman.

I thought it was well known that "Batman" was based on the first period of the character (1939). Even the city and the suits in the movie mirrored that period. Before the CCA and all the "superheroes mustn't kill because of the children" thing. And in the sequel he said that killing is not the answer. Nolan's Batman was all about not killing and yet he let Ra's die and then he killed Thalia and the driver. And that wasn't even addressed in the movies. :nono:

Cheers.
 
He shot down loads of Joker's men at the parade. The fire blowing guy was killed. He was set on fire and seen running away screaming. Pretty obvious what his fate was. It also showed how unnecessarily brutal Keaton's Batman was. He didn't need to burn that thug alive to beat him. He's just a brute in a Bat suit. I didn't say Penguin and Catwoman were killed by Batman. I said they nearly were. He punched her off a building, and he squashed Penguin's duck car and it's only by movie magic that Penguin managed to get his fat ass out in the space of 2 seconds and survive.

I don't care what Batman was like in 1939. I am pretty sure that in 1939 there wasn't any Batcave, or Gotham City, or Batmobiles, or Alfred or other Batman essentials we wouldn't want to do without in a Batman movie.

I don't consider Batman killing a villain to save lives in a desperate situation cold blooded murder. That's not what being an executioner would be. Burton's Batman did not have to bomb Axis to shut it down. He had already stopped Joker's poison balloons when he shot his men and tried to shoot him. He did not have to kill Penguin's men to stop them.

Batunisher was a disgrace. Burton's whole take on Batman was bad. It's lucky Batman Returns got a backlash for all it's violence because I'd take Schumacher any day over Burton. Schumacher may have camped it up, but he understood Batman's character more than Burton ever did. Burton's are bottom of my Batman movie list. The only good thing about them was that the first movie's dark portrayal on Batman allowed the animated series to be made. So every cloud has a silver lining.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Batman killed the Joker's goons, the fat guy (Batman hates fat people, just read the golden age comics. Snapping fat people's necks, strangling them etc. It's easy for you to stay in shape, rich boy:o), but we didn't see the fire breather die.

But like I said earlier, almost all of the live action Batmen have killed people. Keaton, Bale and Kilmer. Not Clooney and Adam West though...and I doubt the two guys from the serials did it. I can't remember.

And by the way, didn't the Animated Batman punch Joker from a train in the Mad Love episode? Cruel.
 
About that ol' crazy, killing Batman:
OK. To fully examine Bruce's state in Batman Returns, we must look at who he is in Batman. In the beginning of the film, Bruce hosts a large casino night for charity in his mansion. There could be hundreds of people there, including big figures in Gotham City: Harvey Dent, Commissioner Gordon, the mayor. Bruce is very gracious; six more cases of champagne and you know Bruce Wayne doesn't buy the cheap stuff, along with allowing some reporter he just met a grant to have anything in the house. He even has a seat as a guest of honor at a Harvey Dent press conference. Bruce is outgoing, inviting, and generous. Fast forward through his revelation that the murderer of his parents is the man terrorizing Gotham. This sends Batman on his first (to be fair, known) killing spree. He's using machine guns, rockets, throws a man down a bell tower, and sends the Joker down to his death.

In Batman Returns, there's no gala, no rubbing elbows with Gotham's rich. No one in his home but he and Alfred. His introduction in Batman Returns portrays Bruce as a man who does nothing but be Batman. He sits and waits and when that signal shines bright through his window, he leaps out of his chair because finally he can do something he finds worthwhile. In his first action scene, he commits (attempted?) murder by arson and doesn't make any real reaction to it. That's really unsettling for a character who is traditionally portrayed as a heroic individual.

[YT]qLIAxeY943M[/YT]

When he meets Shreck at the end, he says, "Shut up, you're going to jail." When has this Batman ever cared about sending criminals to jail? He has beaten and killed so many men freely to this point; simple goons of the Joker and the Penguin. Shreck is a man who opposed Bruce Wayne directly and allied himself with a monster bent on killing children. He's got an opportunity to kill Shreck, but he doesn't. Batman's blood lust has ceased.

Through his interactions with Selina and coming to know who she is at night, he changes. He invites her to his cavernous home, symbolic of him letting down his many walls that he has built up within himself and has reinforced by the time of the events of Batman Returns. He wants her there when it is clear he hasn't wanted anything out of life other than to be Batman for some time now. During their final scene together, Bruce begs Selina to come home with him so that they can fill in the massive holes in each others' hearts. "We're the same." Bruce finally looks forward to a future that doesn't revolve around Batman. She rejects their possible courtship and their final moment together is coupled with an explosion, a scene directly lifted from Bride of Frankenstein.

The final scene of the film, Bruce is sitting in the back of the car with Alfred driving at night. He left Batman back in his cave. He is visually upset over the disappearance and possible death of Selina, but we know that he is better off now than he was at the beginning of the film. Selina reminded Bruce of the humanity in him and showed how that fragile humanity in the two of them can be lost so easily. If he cannot have her, then she will serve as a reminder of what happens when you drown in the waters of vengeance.
Click to expand...
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=25794663&postcount=338

My thoughts are this was a great character arc done over two movies. Batman deliberately killing thugs is a fresh, interesting take on the character done in cinema. These movies shouldn't have to be crucified to the pages of comic books.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BH/HHH
  • Poll Poll
What’s the better future for Batman? The Dark Knight Returns vs Batman Beyond
2
Replies
29
Views
8K
FunkMiller
FunkMiller
BH/HHH
  • Poll Poll
Superman III (1983) vs Supergirl (1984)
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
Mandon Knight
Mandon Knight
$
  • Poll Poll
Next movie after Batman vs Superman
Replies
15
Views
4K
Primal Slayer
Primal Slayer
boywonder13
The Official Batman vs. Superman Discussion/Speculation Thread!!
Replies
24
Views
4K
Darth Nata
D
The Batman
  • Poll Poll
Superman: The Movie vs. Batman 89'
3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
4K
Ceb-Man
Ceb-Man

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,594 (members: 24, guests: 2,570)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,079,747
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"