What did you like better Batman (1989) or Daredevil?

[bobbygk]

Batman was 100% better than that bland Daredevil.

 

[QuiGonJosh]

Daredevil is better. Its more faithful to the comic. But I love Batman (89) as well. Great movie.

 

[Spidey-Fan700]

Batman (1989).

 

[jaydawg]

Daredevil

 

[zanos]

I hated Batman when I first saw it and I wasn't a very descriminating 16 year old movie goer either. I was just as excited as everyone else to go watch it but what a huge disappointment. If there is anyone in this world that could have filmed duller action sequences it's Tim Burton. Not to mention the film was more about the villian, the Joker than it was about Batman which is enough to ruin any film. Daredevil was by far the better film in terms of story and action. The source material was taken seriously and filmed that way.

 

[jaydawg]

Thank god someone said it.

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

I can't believe that Daredevil is winning this poll. That's just sickening.

I guess anything new is best. :roll:

DD is one of the worst comic book movies since B&R. Ben Asslick as Murdock was ****in' terrible, but not nearly as bad as the two bafoons Duncan and Ferrel in the villain roles.

BATMAN nukes this mother.

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

Originally posted by ScottSummers
Daredevil. He moved better. Affleck fit his role better than Keaton. and the fight scenes were better.

Affleck fit better than Keaton? Um, yeah, right.

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

Originally posted by ZzZElectro
Yea.. you ahve to admit that Batman was good for what it had to work with. The fight scenes were better in DD because technology today is so much better and makes it easier to make things more real. Plus, Joker wasn't a real hand to hand combat kind of guy... but Bullseye was.

They were both great IMO.

The fight scenes in Daredevil are horrid with all that pathetic wire work making the characters illogically float around like they're in zero-gravity or something. Daredevil looks like **** now, I can only imagine how bad this thing will look in 14 years. Batman has aged very well.

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

I liked DD better then Bats because the the acting was better as well as the fight scenes.

Yeah, Bennifer and Michael Clark Duncan are much better actors than Keaton and Nicholson. Sure.

 

[medguy]

i give it to Daredevil for a few reasons. First and foremost, the movie focused on Daredevil, not on the villain with the hero making a guest appearance. Second, I agree with the poster who said that the scars and pain he feels were more believable. Third, the fights were better choreographed.
The Prince songs, the bad cartoon animation at the end, the bad costume, Vicki Vale doing nothing but scream over and over and over...these things make Batman not hold up as well, IMO.

 

[Bobbywoodhogan]

I think this is a daft thread to put on the Batman Threads although I preferrred Batman (1989) I really like Daredevil.

 

[The Guard]

BATMAN. I won't let changes from the comic ruin one of the best movies of the decade. The movie was great. Great acting, good special effects, wonderful music. Like someone else said, let's see DAREDEVIL hold up as well. BATMAN still looks great today.

 

[The Guard]

I know this is a "preference" thread, but can we please debate some of these points? I mean, some of the points people are making are just not accurate at all...

 

[fireman9586]

Batman was awesome. Daredevil sucked

 

[Assassin32]

Daredevil was good, but Tim Burton's Batman is a classic.

 

[Cax40]

I liked Batman because it was so fresh and exciting to see the character of Batman brought back to his dark roots; a very pleasant change from the campy 60's tv show. The movie was beautifully shot, the special effects were great (for their time), and the story was good. When Keaton first appeared as Bruce Wayne, the audience cheered him, and cheered him every time he showed up as Batman. Jack Nicholson kept everyone roaring with laughter as the Joker. Batman 1989 was brilliant in that it was a film that appealed to me as an adult and at the same time was so fun to watch that it made me feel like a kid again.

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

Originally posted by medguy
i give it to Daredevil for a few reasons. First and foremost, the movie focused on Daredevil, not on the villain with the hero making a guest appearance.

I don't and never have agreed with the argument that the first BATMAN is not about Wayne. If you look at the narrative the film is plainly most concerned with the Batman character on multiple fronts, from his vigilante escapades to his psychology he's the only character with any real depth and the one character I feel the film is catering to as far as examination. You can talk all day about Jack's antics in this movie, but at the end of the day does his character have any real depth to speak of? No. Does Vale? No, not really.

From that standpoint it seems the movie does far more of a service to its title character than anybody else present -- the only reason anybody else exists in the first film is to show how they relate to Batman or Wayne and, therefore, give an excuse to try and examine that character. Vale, in the narrative, is chiefly present to lead us back to the Batman side of Wayne's genesis -- where the split came from. The Joker's existence is primarily there from a thematic standpoint to draw parallels to Wayne and make the point that he's at the very least a bit psychotic and to draw the title character in a questionable light (from the Axis chemicals scene onward).

I believe the second film does a far better job of this primarily because it actually manages to make those around Wayne/Batman interesting characters in their own right, but it's obvious that the first BATMAN's main thematic sticking point is the title character himself.

Second, I agree with the poster who said that the scars and pain he feels were more believable.

Ben Affleck doesn't have the acting ability to make me believe it, frankly. And one scene of him spitting out a tooth and pill popping really does nothing for depth in my opinion -- it's really not as simple as just grafting on a single scene and leaving it at that as DAREDEVIL tries to do, it's what you do narratively and through the actor more than anything and I believe DD fails on those points.

Third, the fights were better choreographed.

Fights looked like horrible cartoon crap to me. Over-done to the point of taking out any realism , particurlarly in the over the top wore work used. The fights in BATMAN at least have a decent sense of reality.

The Prince songs,

As opposed to the far more jarring MTV-influenced rock soundtrack that dominates DAREDEVIL much of the time? I'll take Prince, thank you.

And hey, BATMAN also has Elfman. Score!

the bad cartoon animation at the end,

As far as what? I liked almost all the design elements in the first BATMAN. It 's what's kept the film from dating to large extent.

The last shot of Batman atop the belltower is awesome.

the bad costume,

That's a laugh. Bad costume...as opposed to DD's bad biker bar reject? The costume from BATMAN looks great, the one in DAREDEVIL makes Affleck look like an idiot.

Vicki Vale doing nothing but scream over and over and over...these things make Batman not hold up as well, IMO.

Vicki Vale is the worst part of the first movie, I'll agree.

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

Which costume looks better?

 

[CFE]

DACrowe, did it ever occur to you to put this in the Comic films forum?

Anywho, this is why Batman wins

1. Standing power: It's been over a decade since this film was released. Approximately 14 years. And despite that, the majority of the feedback for it, even today, is positive. I can't say the same for DD (which wouldv'e been better if Chris Columbus directed it.)

2. Visuals: Back in 89, there was no CGI like there is now. Mark Steven Johnston used the CGI as a crutch in Daredevil. Burton, on the other hand, didn't have that advanced technology, and he still made a better film than DD.

3. Mood: Yeah, Daredevil was a pretty dark, moody film. But Batman was 100 times darker. By far. No contest in this department.

4. Total Gross: Batman: 250 million (Highest grossing film of 1989)
Daredevil: Not even close (Notice that I don't even bother to try and find out the actual gross. And I KNOW Daredevil isn't the top grossing film for 2003!)


5. Awards: Batman - 1990 Academy Award: Best Art Direction
Daredevil - No academy Awards

6. Directors: Tim Burton - Director of Batman, Batman Returns, Nightmare before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Big Fish, and Pee Wee's Big Adventure.
Mark Steven Johnston - Director of Daredevil, and Simon Birch...And that's it!

Bottom Line: BATMAN DAMMIT!!

CFE

 

[SunshineButMoreRain]

Originally posted by COMICFILMEXPERT

5. Awards: Batman - 1990 Academy Award: Best Art Direction
Daredevil - No academy Awards

Now now. DAREDEVIL is nominated for some awards. Razzie awards, that is.

 

[Gimili]

I'd have to give it to Batman. It holds up better under multiple viewings, as I discovered after watching Daredevil on TV this afternoon. This is mainly because of Ben Affleck's rather
poor acting ability and the fact that director MSJ obviously made the movie too much for the fans and not enough for the general audience. For instance, there's a scene where young Matt's father scolds him for getting in a fight, telling him to go into a more academic line of work and that "you don't hit nothin' but books." So why is it that Matt doesn't get in trouble for playing with a punching bag and beating up three bullies.

Here's the good and bad in both films:

Batman's good points:

Micheal Keaton, though physically wrong for the role, does make up for that through acting ability and the fact that the suit renders
size less important.

Jack Nicholson as the Joker. How can you go wrong with that?

The score. Even Prince's songs are good in my opinion, especially since they're used in scenes with the Joker. Elfman's score is, as always, superb.

Tim Burton's direction. His vision into the duality of Batman is somewhat different from the comic book, but nonetheless good in its own right.

Kim Basinger. She brings a nice romantic balance to the story.

Decent fight scenes. Not excellent, but fairly good.

Batman's bad points:

There are holes in the plot big enoug to drop the Batmobile into without hitting any sides. How does, for instance, the Joker break in on all the local TV shows? How does one of the Joker's goons get into the cathedral to fight Batman after the Joker seals the door and the cops surround it? How does the Batjet's guns, with a lock-on targeting system fail to even score one hit on the Joker?

Batman kills. I don't have too much of an issue here, but enough people do that it's something that should probably have been avoided.

Daredevil's good points:

Colin Farell is perfect as Bullseye. He brings a great psychotic attitude, sadism, and twisted sense of humor to the role. Definitely the best actor in the movie.

Micheal Clarke Duncan is also great as the Kingpin. Race isn't important to the role, so I have no problem that he's black.

With one major exception, the fight scenes tend to outshine those
of Batman. Choreography, speed, and agility, are all solid.

The script does a good job in its portrayal of Daredevil.

Daredevil's bad points:

Ben Affleck is an actor with very limited range. He's decent as Daredevil, but as Matt Murdock, he blows because his performance as a blind man is not that convincing.

Daredevil's final battle with Bullseye is mediocre because of this CGI doing these unbelievable maneuvers on the organ. I understand that this fight was identical to one they had in the comics. If so, MSJ quite frankly took being true to the source material a bit too far.

Daredevil's unbelievable stunts. This only happens a couple times,
but I mention it anyway. I'm willing to throw in some leeway in light of the stunts you generally do see in action movies, but to say that justifies Daredevil making falling over ten stories to and safely is to give the movie a bit too much leeway.

The plotholes. For instance, there's Daredevil being weakened to the point where he can't even stand by Electra, yet being right as rain in no time. Daredevil being able to dodge bullets thanks to his
super-hearing, yet somehow having difficulty dodging punches and kicks from Electra and the Kingpin. Daredevil leaving something for journalyst Phil Urich to ignite, producing his symbol, though not showing himself to be particularly flamboyant throughout the rest of the film. And yes, I'm well aware that some
of these errors are due to Fox's editing of the movie. I'd also partially credit them to MSJ taking remaining true to the comic too far. But knowing these two facts hardly helps these mistakes much.

So in conclusion, I'd give Daredevil a 5 out of 10 and Batman a 7 out of 10.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

There's really no contest. Daredevil is only superior in the choreography (overwhelmingly so), but it's shot and edited so poorly that's it's almost completely wasted.

 

[The Batman]

Batman

 

[Two-Face]

BATMAN wins!!