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

[Anjow1060]

*Apolojizes to Keyser*

He does mention Miranda in his sig doesn't he? Thats maybe why I got messed up in my head. It's all my post counts fault. If i'd have broken 1,000 already I wouldn't be making n00b mistakes like that. Gawd.

PS: In my experience, you don't doubt the Norman.

StorminNorman > Chuck Norris + Jack Bauer

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Whether TDK is ultimately better than Batman is up to personal opinion. Batman was my #1 favorite movie growing up and it's still simply a great movie, powered further by nostalgia and its status as a truly groundbreaking film. Keaton's Batman and Jack's Joker are iconic figures that are near impossible to rival.

TDK may end up as a better film; I think Begins already was (though my love for both is pretty neck and neck).

But there's one issue where I think Batman will always trump Nolan's series. It's place in film history and in the psyche of America. Things will begin to change as a new generation grows up on Nolan's films rather than Burton's, but for now...Burton is the still the more prominent, at least that's the impression I get.

And its NO short to Nolan and Co. They're doing an amazing job. But I don't think Christian Bale will ever BE Batman to the public like Keaton was (and still is). (Which is really a good thing for Bale; his career won't suffer). Same with Ledger vs Jack. And it really has nothing to do with performance or execution. It's just that Batman is so grounded in..well, American history. It's a hard thing to overcome; but like they've said, Nolan and Co aren't trying to "beat it". They're just adding a new chapter to Batman history.

 

[Miranda Fox]

*Apolojizes to Keyser*

He does mention Miranda in his sig doesn't he? Thats maybe why I got messed up in my head. It's all my post counts fault. If i'd have broken 1,000 already I wouldn't be making n00b mistakes like that. Gawd.

LOL, no, I believe it says Miranda is right which is easy to mix up as being in relation to that quote. No n00b mistake there.

 

[Miranda Fox]

And its NO short to Nolan and Co. They're doing an amazing job. But I don't think Christian Bale will ever BE Batman to the public like Keaton was (and still is). (Which is really a good thing for Bale; his career won't suffer). Same with Ledger vs Jack. And it really has nothing to do with performance or execution. It's just that Batman is so grounded in..well, American history. It's a hard thing to overcome; but like they've said, Nolan and Co aren't trying to "beat it". They're just adding a new chapter to Batman history.

You know, that's quite a good point in relation to the actors. Quite honestly never saw it that way.

 

[StorminNorman]

*Apolojizes to Keyser*

He does mention Miranda in his sig doesn't he? Thats maybe why I got messed up in my head. It's all my post counts fault. If i'd have broken 1,000 already I wouldn't be making n00b mistakes like that. Gawd.

PS: In my experience, you don't doubt the Norman.

StorminNorman > Chuck Norris + Jack Bauer

 

[CConn]

Until Nolan adapts a visual, artistic, and thematic style that I find as fitting to Batman as B89, no, none of his movies will be as good as B89.

 

[Darknightnomis]

But there's one issue where I think Batman will always trump Nolan's series. It's place in film history and in the psyche of America. Things will begin to change as a new generation grows up on Nolan's films rather than Burton's, but for now...Burton is the still the more prominent, at least that's the impression I get.

And its NO short to Nolan and Co. They're doing an amazing job. But I don't think Christian Bale will ever BE Batman to the public like Keaton was (and still is). (Which is really a good thing for Bale; his career won't suffer). Same with Ledger vs Jack. And it really has nothing to do with performance or execution. It's just that Batman is so grounded in..well, American history. It's a hard thing to overcome; but like they've said, Nolan and Co aren't trying to "beat it". They're just adding a new chapter to Batman history.

Man, that is so "on the money" it's scary! Very good observation!

 

[breyfogle_rules]

I'm hearing a lot of the "people who grew up with B89 love it" point.
I have to say that I was 13 when it came out. I waited in line for hours. I stole every copy of Starlog that mentioned it months in advance. And I was mortified when I saw it.

Keep in mind that Matt Wagners Grendel was just picking up and Batman: The Cult was the latest comic on the rack. Real cool stuff.

Here are the main issues with 89 in my mind.

The "you wanna get nuts, let's get nuts!!" scene.
Bats not being able to turn his head AT ALL.
The whopping one and a half fight scenes.
The bat plane flying into the air and stopping in front of the moon for no plot reason.
Michael Keatons Home Improvement hair and mock turtleneck.
A fat, old joker who looked like Tweedle Dee
and last but not least...
BAT DANCE

According to Roger Ebert, "Superman: The Movie" invented the genre as we know it today.
Not Tim Burton.
Take it from a kid who would shave off his eyebrows and wear his mothers wedding dress covered in fake blood to junior high.
The guys corny, and he ruined the mythology for me.

 

[breyfogle_rules]

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

This I must agree with

 

[Infinity9999x]

But there's one issue where I think Batman will always trump Nolan's series. It's place in film history and in the psyche of America. Things will begin to change as a new generation grows up on Nolan's films rather than Burton's, but for now...Burton is the still the more prominent, at least that's the impression I get.

And its NO short to Nolan and Co. They're doing an amazing job. But I don't think Christian Bale will ever BE Batman to the public like Keaton was (and still is). (Which is really a good thing for Bale; his career won't suffer). Same with Ledger vs Jack. And it really has nothing to do with performance or execution. It's just that Batman is so grounded in..well, American history. It's a hard thing to overcome; but like they've said, Nolan and Co aren't trying to "beat it". They're just adding a new chapter to Batman history.

Acutally, I wouldn't say it's Burton's Batman that's still ground in America's physche, I'd have to give that to the TAS. If you ask most people today, the batman movies they mainly remeber were the Shumacher ones (Forever being the most prominent) and lots of kids are surprised when I tell them Micheal Keaton played Batman. But the most recognizable figure as Batman I'd have to give to the TAS. Heck, I see more TAS batman toys in stores then BB ones.

As to TDK over B89, well of course I hope it's better. Just like I hope TDK will be better then BB. And just like I hope the 3rd Batman movie will be better then TDK. I want every Batman movie to be better then the last, who wouldn't?

 

[Anjow1060]

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:

IDK - I prefer my catwoman to be sane, just creative in her exploits of seducing Batman. And if anyone nailed a role = Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy. She's the best thing about that movie. And I honestly can't really see PI played any other way.

 

[CConn]

I think I may be the only person to dislike BR's Catwoman.

I mean, Catwoman to me, is about feminine sexuality, intelligence, strength and class.

BR's Catwoman - and Michelle's performance - were hardly that. BR's Catwoman was insane. A broken shell of a person, childishly reacting reacting to a horrible crime committed to her. She wasn't strong, she wasn't intelligent. She was a weak fool trying get back something she never had in the first place.

And, while that worked in the grand scheme of BR, and in the grand scheme of BR's analyzation of Batman as a character, it hardly did justice to Catwoman. And unlike Michael Keaton's Batman, unlike Jack Nicholson's Joker, and even almost all of the performances in BB, Michelle was simply not memorable to me. And simply didn't - couldn't - define herself as the character she was playing.

Maybe it was Burton's fault, maybe it was hers, but either way, I didn't like it.

 

[IamtheBatman]

TDK will kick Batman 89' arise.

 

[breyfogle_rules]

I mean, Catwoman to me, is about feminine sexuality, intelligence, strength and class.

I can see that. Especially with Eartha Kitt in the role. Rrrrrrwoar!

But there's also the fact that she is clearly a villain. So she has to be a punk-*ss. At essence, she's a petty burgler who's not in control of her own emotions. The more sympathetic to her we are, the more we have to disagree with Batman. Not to say I thought Burton's Catwomen "defined and archetype" really...I just though she was really sexy..all drinkin up da milk an stuff. Wiv her wittle kitten whiskers go the meow meow.
:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

 

[JStorm]

One already holds a special place in my heart. The other, I think, will create a similar place, no different, no better.

Revisoning of a movie or character is just that, revisioning.

I'm sure, to some, one movie will be better than the other. But one truth will stay if, or when, WB and Nolan decide to do a Batman movie with Bane, Poison Ivy, or Mr. Freeze, said movie WILL be better than Batman and Robin.

 

[Anjow1060]

My vision of Catwoman was always someone who was bored with the same old guys and was intrigued by Batman. Saw it as a challenge. And the only way she could catch his attention and stand out was to 1) be a theif and 2) dress like a cat. But it was always about Batman at first. And the more she dressed up as her persona she realized how much she can get away with, kinda like how Batman gets away with his. And starts to challenge the law in ways she thought was right, justifiying it by what Batman does.

So in turn, Batman was responsible for her. Idk, thats just me.

 

[CConn]

I can see that. Especially with Eartha Kitt in the role. Rrrrrrwoar!

But there's also the fact that she is clearly a villain. So she has to be a punk-*ss. At essence, she's a petty burgler who's not in control of her own emotions. The more sympathetic to her we are, the more we have to disagree with Batman. Not to say I thought Burton's Catwomen "defined and archetype" really...I just though she was really sexy..all drinkin up da milk an stuff. Wiv her wittle kitten whiskers go the meow meow.
:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

Julie Newmar, *******! :cmad

That aside, Catwoman (in the comics, at least) ISN'T a definite villains. That's part of her intrigue, and what makes her different from almost any other Batman villain.

Even in BR, she wasn't a villain. Not really. I, at least, can't blame someone for doing what she did after what happened to her. But all that aside, it still wasn't the Catwoman of the comics. It still wasn't the version of Catwoman I prefer and like.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I don't want to be an ogre and stop discussion but these type of threads always cause a problem and are pointless it's all a matter of opinion and in this case total guess work

I'll leave it for now since there's doesn't seem to be any arguments and flaming between the "sides"

 

[Noir]

This movie will be better than Batman 89! Way better!

 

[Leon the Professional]

Some people feel that Begins is overrated. But really, it is B89 that is overrated. It was a tremendous film in the context of its time and place in cinematic history. But if you view it as an isolated film, it is certainly good but not nearly as great as its powerful score and diehard fans make it out to be.

 

[Batman]

Neither are overrated, to me. They're both great films with great moments and aspects, and both brought treasured pieces to the legacy of the character of Batman.

What I don't get is the point of trying to decide if TDK is better than either of them this friggin early, when we still know relatively very little about the film. And even when we do learn more about it, it'll be a hell of a lot to say it'll be better than a film that already exists when the film itself hasn't been released yet.

 

[David Rice]

*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...

I know just how you fell Miranda Fox!

*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*

 

[bunk]

What scene does your brain immediately go to when you think of Joker from 89Batman? For most, I would think it would be the reveal after coming off the elevator. He's so freaking evil looking. It's the best scene. I think Nolan's Joker needs to have an awesome reveal for the Joker as well for it make everyone forget what came before. It doesn't have to be at all similar, it just has to have a huge impact!

 

[DieSmiling]

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

Yup.

 

[Robin91939]

This is the dumbest question I've seen. Is it somewhat important that The Dark Knight is better than Batman? Yes, that would be nice. But how the hell can any of us know that Nolan's interpretation of the Batman/Joker story will be better than Burton's? We have seen Burton's, we know how he did it, etc.

Yet, how are we supposed to answer this question without even having saw Nolan's interpretation of Joker's look. We have very VERY little of the Joker's motives, look, etc. How the hell are we going to begin to compare these two films when there hasn't even been an official picture, website, anything.


Let's hold off on these threads and wait until after we've seen at least something to begin comparing this to other Batflicks.

-R