Superman: The Movie vs. Batman 89'

[hopefuldreamer]

Im a bigger Supes fan, but I like B89 better.

Same.

 

[Immortalfire]

Batman

 

[Harley2004]

Batman, is the king and Keaton was very good. For the movie though, Donner's Superman, without a doubt.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Batman has to be my favorite comic book movie ever and STM is somewhere close behind it. SupermaN did a better job of capturing the comic book come to life quality.

 

[Dispatch Ninja]

Batman 89 easily. Superman The Movie is just barely average imo, and most of that is because of how good Reeve is in the role. Horrible antagonists, lois is incredibly annoying, atrocious ending. I really don't see what's so special about it.

 

[ares834]

S:TM for me. I've never been a fan of B'89.

 

[AnneFan]

Batman 89.

 

[baerrtt]

Superman: The Movie.

Rewatching it 3 years ago when I hadn't sat through it for ages before then it's such a genuinely moving and charming movie.

Outside of Nicholson, Keaton, the sets and Elfman's score there's not much to Batman '89 imo (I prefer BATMAN RETURNS) however much I appreciate and recognise the better aspects of it's legacy for the title character (BTAS, the Nolan films). One of those blockbusters where the lead up to it's release was far more consistently entertaining and exciting than anything that was actually onscreen.

 

[Lord]

Both are blockbusters of different eras, the real problem with Superman is that it has not aged all that well.

 

[Naked Shia]

To me, B89 is a timeless classic. Supes on the other hand, hasn't aged well. And while I like how uplifting it is, some moments are really cringe worthy.

 

[kguillou]

I think Superman has aged well, its just that ending climax is so bad and so "silver-agey". If it weren't for that it would be a damn near perfect film.

 

[Lord]

The endind was probably its biggest sin, but the effects haven't aged well due to all the new techniques that came after the film came out, i remember finding the flying very lame when i was younger and accostumed to most of early 2000s blockbusters, and even today it's a movie that is made fun of by most people of my age when it's on TV.

It's charming and deserves much respect, but it's not something that has aged particularly well due to the nature of the time.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The ending is purely symbolic.

If you can view it that way instead of realistically/cynically you might appreciate it more.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Superman turning back time is ****ing ******ed but its still near perfect

 

[JMLZ]

Superman.

Better acting, much more charming, and the environment felt more like a real world despite the sci-fi elements.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Superman.

Better acting, much more charming, and the environment felt more like a real world despite the sci-fi elements.

i don't disagree with your other points, but i wouldn't say its better acting. Definitely not. They're on the same level.

 

[kguillou]

The ending is purely symbolic.

If you can view it that way instead of realistically/cynically you might appreciate it more.

But it's not even the mechanics of the time reverse that bothers me, its that it effectively negates the last 15-20 minutes of the movie and renders everything that happened before it obsolete. It's even worse in Superman II: Donner Cut where he reverses time and basically erases the whole Zod conflict from ever happening.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It didn't negate previous events from Superman's eyes.

He knows Lois died. She died in his arms. We as the audience know what Superman was willing to do to save one person and it's quite incredible and moving.

After Superman saves Lois she complains about little silly things and he just grins ear to ear relieved to hear her voice once again.

The fact remains that Lex Luthor killed Lois and Superman turned back time to see her again. Those events both contribute to the end of the story arc.

 

[CountOrlok]

Superman '78 is more iconic, but Batman '89 has aged better. I think they are both the flipside of the same coin, really.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Superman turning back time is ****ing ******ed but its still near perfect

that right there was the stupidest part in the whole movie

only reason i find that movie watchable is Christopher Reeve's performance and how hilarious Gene Hackman was. he made that movie for me.

other than that, i don't care much for the movie

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Superman '78 is more iconic, but Batman '89 has aged better. I think they are both the flipside of the same coin, really.

Great way to look at it.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

The planet thing is silly, but honestly, it doesn't feel out of place with the rest of the movie, which is why I accept it. Plus, it gave us this:

 

[Comics N' Toons]

The planet thing is silly, but honestly, it doesn't feel out of place with the rest of the movie, which is why I accept it. Plus, it gave us this:

Perfect post!

 

[super85]

I am a bigger Batman-fan, but i prefer Superman: The Movie. Both films have aged quite a lot.

 

[Loki882]

Superman The Movie. The plot is better (minus the ending), the acting is better overall, and it actually feels like a Superman film. My big complaint about the Burton movies is just that. They feel more like generic Tim Burton movies than Batman movies. Plus, Batman 89 kind of falls apart from a plot perspective in the third act, whereas STM only had the "turn back time" problem. Plus, it just felt grander and more ambitious. Christopher Reeve>>>>>Michael Keaton.