The Dark Knight The ultimate question : Will it be better than Batman '89?

[WelshMan]

A lot of people compared Batman '89 and Batman Begins but if your going to compare two movies then it should be between B89 and TDK - mainly because of The Joker.
Personally, im a big fan of both B89 and BB. If you put a gun to my head then i would say i prefer BB - but both have strong positive points and B89 is DEFINATELY more re-watchable than BB.
I understand that a lot of people didnt like Jack Nicholsons performance in B89 (Or they did like it, but didnt think it was very Joker-like). In my opinion it could all come down to how well Ledger does to decide which movie will be better.
I think that both Tim Burton and Chris Nolan are great directors, also, i am one of the people who thought that Michael Keaton was a great Batman/Bruce Wayne. Even though Bale was great in BB, he'll need to step up his game and put in another great Batman/Bruce performance to be the best Batman in my opinion.

So, whats everyone elses thoughts?

 

[Nepenthes]

Is vodka better than beer?

 

[Miranda Fox]

*sigh* Nice way to make sure the venomous Burton Patrol show up but anyways...

I think the point is moot because Nolan isn't trying to be better than Burton. He's doing his own thing and it's something *different* to what Burton did.

As to the Joker - as Heath said, they're not trying to outdo Nicholson because, well, that would be pretty stupid. Why try and outdo something that was pretty damn good before? It'll be different that's all.

No offense, Welshman, but I'm not sure this is a good idea for a thread. Unfortunately, this *will* rile people up and just speaking for myself, I'm sick of tired of seeing the people who like either film series flamed for no reason. I know you weren't trying to ****-stir but it's inevitable other people will use this thread for just that purpose. :/

*goes to lurk mode*

I'm afraid I'm not interested in seeing myself and everyone else who likes Nolan being branded with the usual childish names...

 

[ultimatefan]

It´s one of these things I´m sick of arguing over... Thing is, a lot of people grew up with Burton, Keaton and Nicholson, and they´ll never totally get over that, in spite of how good TDK may be... I like 89, in spite of my many problems with it, but I feel like Nolan´s take on the bat-world is closer to what I want, to how I see that world and those characters, simple as that. For some people the live-action Joker will always be Nicholson - and I´ll admit it´s a tough act to follow -, and that´s just the way it is.

 

[Miranda Fox]

It´s one of these things I´m sick of arguing over... Thing is, a lot of people grew up with Burton, Keaton and Nicholson, and they´ll never totally get over that, in spite of how good TDK may be... I like 89, in spite of my many problems with it, but I feel like Nolan´s take on the bat-world is closer to what I want, to how I see that world and those characters, simple as that. For some people the live-action Joker will always be Nicholson - and I´ll admit it´s a tough act to follow -, and that´s just the way it is.

Well, yeah, I really like the Burton films - particularly Batman Returns - I'm just damned sick of all the pettiness this argument seems to cause.

IMO, if there's one person from the old series who is a truly hard act to follow, it's Michelle's Catwoman. t:

 

[Mee]

Well, BB was better, so figure this will be too.

 

[Muziko]

Two different runs, two different takes on the character. Personally, I like Nolan's version. But I'm not going to take away from Burton - he established what we all know today as the live action Batman. I liked Batman and Batman Returns... I have both films, and I still watch them every now and then. It just doesn't make sense to put the two side by side. For the sakes of the poll...I'm playing along and voted that this would film would be better than '89.


Because it will be. LoL.

 

[StorminNorman]

Jack Nicholson may be God.

Does that mean Heath Ledger can't be a better Joker, no - I just felt the need to reiterate that point.

 

[baronghede]

What a completely ridiculous question.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Jack Nicholson may be God.

Does that mean Heath Ledger can't be a better Joker, no - I just felt the need to reiterate that point.

Did you just reduce Heath to the position of arch-angel? DIE!

Just kidding, of course.

Y'know, just looking at this thread I yet again wonder why the Burton fans hate us all so much...seems like there's plenty of love for that series here.

 

[SilentType]

This thread will not go well.

 

[StorminNorman]

Did you just reduce Heath to the position of arch-angel? DIE!

Just kidding, of course.

Y'know, just looking at this thread I yet again wonder why the Burton fans hate us all so much...seems like there's plenty of love for that series here.

No, Heath Ledger is this guy :

Basically its win - win...

unless you are Buddhist

 

[Anjow1060]

Anjow's Official Summation:

There will never be an incarnation of Batman on film (no pun intended) that will suffice all the fans of the world. Why? Because BoB Kane is dead, and even then he would have stole the story of the movie from Bill Finger. But if BoB Kane directed a Batman film......we'd all have to shut the hell up. Frankly, we won't ever, unless they ressurect a time machine and that would be sooooo bad ass. The truth is, differnant strokes for differant folks. The 89 folks got their movies, a artsy-comic booky way of Batman. The comic loyalists got their movies with Bruce Timm and the BTAS, MOTP etc etc. And last but not least, you have the gritty reality take on Batman from Mr. Nolan. What I can't understand is why one "has" to be better than another. I already love Batman 89 with all my heart and soul. But I love Begins just the same. MirandaFox said it best in her siggy, which I think we should all bow down to the genius that is: "Nolanite? Burtonite? I'm a Batmananite"

Take it to the bank mofos

 

[jsf]

I think it'll be better in some aspects and about as good in others... but it certainly woun't be any worse. I for one love B89, untill BB came out it was my favorite batman movie... also i don't care, THE JOKERS BACK BRCH!

 

[Miranda Fox]

Anjow's Official Summation:

There will never be an incarnation of Batman on film (no pun intended) that will suffice all the fans of the world. Why? Because BoB Kane is dead, and even then he would have stole the story of the movie from Bill Finger. But if BoB Kane directed a Batman film......we'd all have to shut the hell up. Frankly, we won't ever, unless they ressurect a time machine and that would be sooooo bad ass. The truth is, differnant strokes for differant folks. The 89 folks got their movies, a artsy-comic booky way of Batman. The comic loyalists got their movies with Bruce Timm and the BTAS, MOTP etc etc. And last but not least, you have the gritty reality take on Batman from Mr. Nolan. What I can't understand is why one "has" to be better than another. I already love Batman 89 with all my heart and soul. But I love Begins just the same. MirandaFox said it best in her siggy, which I think we should all bow down to the genius that is: "Nolanite? Burtonite? I'm a Batmananite"

Take it to the bank mofos

That's Keyser's sig, Anjow. He started that revolution basically in response to all the arguing.

But otherwise - well said. I agree.

No, Heath Ledger is this guy :

Basically its win - win...

unless you are Buddhist

Aha, you are forgive, sir! t:

 

[Muziko]

I guess I arrived after the Burton vs. Nolan wars.

 

[tang126]

At the risk of blah, blah, blah and making people go yadda, yadda, yadda...I have to say "I certainly hope so! I rented the '89 movie about six months ago and was a little stunned at how much I didn't enjoy it, and how cheesy and weird it came off in so many places.

Don't get me wrong: at the time I thought it was amazing (I didn't like Nicholson's part even then, but I thought the rest was pretty good: Keaton, Alfred, some of the sets, the car, the cave, the city design and look, etc.).

But now? I really can't stand Nicholson's performance, and the whole campy vibe (the purple and green cars, the henchmen who were as brainless and cardboard as any you'd see in the Adam West series, that stupid green helicopter with the Joker's face on the side, Kim Basinger's high-pitched shriek throughout - count next time, Robert Wuhl coming across like a bad stand-up comic at 2:30am, Prince's music, etc.).

But mostly Nicholson. He wasn't playing the Joker...he was playing pretty much every character he plays in every damn movie he's done for the past 20 or so years, only with a weird-looking face and green hair. I couldn't get past that...

It just struck me that it almost seemed to be two movies: on one hand, it would be grim and serious, with some nice scenes of Keaton remembering back to "that night", some great footage of Batman in the shadows, his raspy voice, the Batwing silhouetted on the moon, lots of night shots with blue-tinged shadows and all that funky Gotham architecture, etc.

Then it would suddenly veer into loud, brightly-colored silliness at a moment's notice. That whole museum scene, with the Prince song playing, the boombox, defacing the art, Nicholson dancing around, etc.

I could barely stomach it.



Then I realize "well, it was nearly 18 years ago...I was only 20, and...".

But then I also think "but why does 'Jaws' and 'Close Encounters' still hold up for me?"

Because they're better movies, that's why. Watching it objectively - and with a little time allowed to pass - so much of '89 seems slapped together, gimmicky, childish, made-up-on-the-spot, etc.

IMO.

Yeah, if this Nolan/Bale/Ledger thing can't "improve" on the '89 one, I say pull the plug on the entire franchise.

 

[Miranda Fox]

I guess I arrived after the Burton vs. Nolan wars.

I probably shouldn't be the one commenting on this, because I have some really big issues with some of the posters involved in it but it really only got bad recently. There's a whole bunch of them in the BB forum in particular who just flame everything about that film (right down to someone-who-shall-remain-unnamed very classy comment about that Narrows kid being ugly. Way to scrape the barrel, guys.)

And I mean, I'm not dismissing their views just because they are not mine, I just despise their attitude so much - and whenever they get called on it, they come out with the mother of all lame defenses - "you started it!"

 

[StorminNorman]

That's Keyser's sig, Anjow. He started that revolution basically in response to all the arguing.

But otherwise - well said. I agree.

What no one knows is that I taught the good Keyser all he knows

 

[Batman]

The better ultimate question: Who the hell can honestly ask that a good year before the film's out?

 

[Miranda Fox]

What no one knows is that I taught the good Keyser all he knows

The better ultimate question: Who the hell can honestly ask that a good year before the film's out?

We have a lot of pyschics on this board...

 

[StorminNorman]

At the risk of blah, blah, blah and making people go yadda, yadda, yadda...I have to say "I certainly hope so! I rented the '89 movie about six months ago and was a little stunned at how much I didn't enjoy it, and how cheesy and weird it came off in so many places.

Don't get me wrong: at the time I thought it was amazing (I didn't like Nicholson's part even then, but I thought the rest was pretty good: Keaton, Alfred, some of the sets, the car, the cave, the city design and look, etc.).

But now? I really can't stand Nicholson's performance, and the whole campy vibe (the purple and green cars, the henchmen who were as brainless and cardboard as any you'd see in the Adam West series, that stupid green helicopter with the Joker's face on the side, Kim Basinger's high-pitched shriek throughout - count next time, Robert Wuhl coming across like a bad stand-up comic at 2:30am, Prince's music, etc.).

But mostly Nicholson. He wasn't playing the Joker...he was playing pretty much every character he plays in every damn movie he's done for the past 20 or so years, only with a weird-looking face and green hair. I couldn't get past that...

It just struck me that it almost seemed to be two movies: on one hand, it would be grim and serious, with some nice scenes of Keaton remembering back to "that night", some great footage of Batman in the shadows, his raspy voice, the Batwing silhouetted on the moon, lots of night shots with blue-tinged shadows and all that funky Gotham architecture, etc.

Then it would suddenly veer into loud, brightly-colored silliness at a moment's notice. That whole museum scene, with the Prince song playing, the boombox, defacing the art, Nicholson dancing around, etc.

I could barely stomach it.



Then I realize "well, it was nearly 18 years ago...I was only 20, and...".

But then I also think "but why does 'Jaws' and 'Close Encounters' still hold up for me?"

Because they're better movies, that's why. Watching it objectively - and with a little time allowed to pass - so much of '89 seems slapped together, gimmicky, childish, made-up-on-the-spot, etc.

IMO.

Yeah, if this Nolan/Bale/Ledger thing can't "improve" on the '89 one, I say pull the plug on the entire franchise.

How does anything you mention not liking about Nicholson's performance go out of character for the Joker? He IS Campy, and yet a cold blooded killer - thats the Joke.

 

[Darknightnomis]

I don't know if this is the "ultimate question" because I see the first series of movies as something altogether different from these movies (a trilogy I hope, with Nolan at the helm)

I think the question sholud be: is it a respectable follow-up to the great "Batman Begins"?

For those of us who was old enough to go to the experince (and understand the importance of it! ) the phenomon of Batman '89, we know that those days will never repeat itself because that movie did a lot more for Batman as character than just be a summer blockbuster movie.

You have to take that first Tim Burton movie in context of how the mainstream (outside of the comic fans) saw Batman at that time, which was still with the stench of "campiness" from the '60s TV show, not to mention the Joker as some white mustache clown that was only out to "foil Bamtan" and never kill anyone ala Ceasar Romero.

For those of us who wanted a truer, darker depiction of Batman on film as we had in the comics at the time (particular with Frank Miller's DarkKnght Returns and Year one) we really held are breath with all that we heard was coming out for this movie.

Did you know there was a rumor one time of Bill Murray portraying Batman in that movie? Yeah Bill Murray. Let that run through your head for a while.

This is why many of us long-time Bat-fans was so pissed-off when we first heard that Micahel ("Mr. Mom") Keaton as portraying the Dark knight, thinking this would be an updated version of the camp show on acreen.

And some people even championed that the movie be a comedy. go figure!

Back then you didn't have the internet and stuff or chat rooms or My space pages from producers and actors, so we actually had to write a letter of cmplaint to the movie company. Which a lot of us did after hearing Michael Keaton being chosen as Batman.

Which is why Warner rushed out a teaser, showing that the movie was nothing but camp! And thank goodness it wasn't! It showed Batman as dark and distrueb and scarring the street punks and made the Joker the crazed criminal phycopath that we knew and loved (to hate).

Whch, by the way, Jack Nicholson played to the hilt.

it's always easy in hindsight to complain about something years later, but for the time, that was a cutting edge performance in view of the only thing we had prior to nicholson's portral was Ceasar Romero. But to me it has stood the test of time!

So that movie stands out for a lot of us long time Batman fans who want a darker knight on film becasue it not only conquer the box-office but it wipe that stench of the campiness that was still lingering in the air from the 60s TV show.

Unfortunaely, a big whiff of that stench resurfaced with "Batman and Robin", but that's another story in itself.

Bottom line: You can't compare this to the '89 Batman because the factors that faced that movie are not relevant when it comes to this one.

Batman (in general) is now seen as a dark character and the mainstrean do not want a campy Batman in their movie ever again by the reaction we got from 'Batman and Robin' which in some way is the only god thing to come out of that movie.

 

[StorminNorman]

The better ultimate question: Who the hell can honestly ask that a good year before the film's out?

Thats a mighty fine avatar you have there

 

[tang126]

How does anything you mention not liking about Nicholson's performance go out of character for the Joker? He IS Campy, and yet a cold blooded killer - thats the Joke.

It just wasn't something I liked. That's all.

I've already stated elsewhere that I'm not a Jack Nicholson fan, so I admit some personal bias might be at play here.



But even so, there was plenty of non-Joker/Jack stuff that I didn't like.

Doesn't keep anyone else from enjoying it, so it's no big deal. I was just answering the question of the thread, and what I thought of the '89 flick that has been so praised all these years (and how I felt while watching it a few months ago).

Oddly enough, I caught Batman Returns on TV during the holidays and liked it just fine. It seemed tighter, and was more watchable than the first one, even after all this time. I didn't have the same reaction watching it as I did the other one.

Interesting. It was less campy in some ways (Christopher Walken notwithstanding), so maybe that factored in...