Originally posted by Batman15
daredevil was so much better in the sense that it was totally original. He wanted to fight crime because his father was murdered. he wanted revenge. the horns on his mask. that thing he used that shot a rope out and lifted him to a destination. these are things batman writers only wished they have thought of for the batman character.
face it
Daredevil sucked
LOL! That was great, man...and comming soon: rocky's comparison of Batman and Daredevil (snicker....snicker...LOL)....
Ok. Here it is.
General grades, first.
Batman: B
Daredevil: C-
Don't let the grades fool you, though. Daredevil was far inferior to Batman. Far.
First of all, the unoriginal factor. Other than Matt Murdock being blind, just about every other aspect of daredevil is a rip (to some degree ) off Batman. BUt, wait, the movie version takes it one step farther.
Scene( Bullseye's assasination of Electra's father) : in this scene, Bullseye races toward Daredevil on his motorcyle , and once he's within a few seconds of running over him, Daredevil jumps on the front of the bike and and kicks Bullseye off the bike. this scence was COPIED storyboard for storyboard from another Batman movie, Batman:Mask of the Phantasm, for those that don't know, durring a flashback scene in that movie, dealing w/ the relationshiop of Bruce and Andrea Buemont.
Scene (Daredevil and electra fighting atop the roof) This scence , almost entirely ripped from the far better one in "Batman Returns" between Batman and Catwoman.
Scene (grave scene between matt murdock and electra) matt tells electra that reveng is no good..."If anyone knows that, it's me" or something like that. Same scene from the end of "Batman:Mask of the Phantasm", where Bruce and Andrea have their final moments.
Scene (second to last fight scene, between daredevil and bullseye in, guess where, a CHURCH.) Just like Spiderman's ending, this scene is a semi-rip off "Batman" (1989), in which the Batman and Joker have an end game in a decaying cathedral.
Daredevil was simply a weak movie, featuring a character who is not that interesting, and a slight rip off on Batman.
None of the characters had any actual depth, and all of the performances were rather stale. Ben Affleck's especially. I found his "huff puff, blow your house down" acting machismo to be rather borring and uninspiring, and Clarke duncan seems way to self-dignified....Garnier tries to make something of the role, but the script is just too weak, and it's pacing too fast, for anything noteworthy to occur. Farrel is the most successful here. Some of his dialouge actually causes some excitement here and there. But only some, the rest was simply "over the top", to the point of being annoying...this happens mid-way through the movie and remains.
the action was too cgi heavy. the end scene in the cathedral, especially w/ daredevil and bullseye jumping around 20 feet and kicking and punching. There was no suprise. we are just following the action, and i, for one, did not care for the outcome. While some of the action was more visceral and edgy (mainly, the successful assasination attempt of Electra's father, by Bullseye--prpbably the best scene in the entire movie--) most of it has no resonance and falls flat.
The musical score was ok, but nothing memorable. The inclusion of multiple modern rock songs was expected, instantly dates the movie, and is nothing special.
Overall, a very forgettable movie, in an era of comic book-based movies dominating the market. Poor acting, bad music, and LOTS of action to keep the 13 and 14 year old teens' attention. Moving on.....
Batman is simply a classic, and had quite a few good things going for it. It's remembered today as one of the most fan-favorite movies ever released. People still fondly remember seeing it the first time in theaters today, and many place it in their "top...." lists. Comic book fans were not completely enamored by it, as they felt a more definite and linear film couild have been made, and that is true. While the film is not perfect, it had a lot more to offer than Daredevil.
1.) SCRIPT: Batman has the better story, ideas/themes, and conflicts. Batman also had more depth. While the film doesn't contain loads of screen time, featuriing Batman kicking ass, the story makes it's points along the way (effectively) and then moves on. It doesnt' obsess over the details, it subtly explores it's main character, explores the supporting players, and then lets the whole thing unfold. there's suprises and tension along the way, as well as concise and thrilling action, and successful dark comedy.
2.) ACTING: Michael Keaton was a poor choice for Batman , physically, going by the comic books. Certain ideas were ignored when casting Keaton, but he more than makes up for it with his cerebral and psychological performance (so strong, one can accept the Burton/Keaton version as a part of the Batman myth, one of the good versions). Keaton's performance allows you to root for him, while still questioning the motivations and choices of the hero. this makes him both heroic and interesting (whereareas Daredevil only comes across as only athletic and borring)
Jack's Joker has been called over the top by some , but this is quite an ignorant assumption. Sure, Jack goes off into high energy at times, but always when appropriate (whereareas farrel comes across as an over-coked(the drug), uneducated buffoon in many sccenes) Jack's Joker is FAR better. He's funny, dangerous, sly, and quite the adversary. From beginning to end, one is always in suspense over who will win, though one already knows who ultimately will.
The other supporting characters give strong performances as well...Palance is entertaining as the vindictive mob boss, Williams is passionate and smooth as Harvey dent, Gough is warm , intelligent , and funny as Alfred, Wuhl is delightfully obnoxious and dedicated as the reporter Knock, and even Basinger's pefrormance was greater than what some give her credit for. Demure? Sure....Soft? Yeah, but she does have a hint of adventure and realism, and that makes it work.
THE MUSIC: Danny Elfman's score was potent and grandiose, one of the best in a film ever. People fondly remember it today. Will see if even ONE non-fan of Daredevil remembers the Daredevil theme...i doubt it...Elfman's Batman is remembered (fondly) by many..
IMPACT: INCREDIBLE. Burton's story of duality and revenge, wrapped in reality and fantasy combined, featuring a traumatized, but willing hero confronting a dangerous and despearate enemy made movie-goers exclaim with glee..."THIS is the movie of the decade!"
Batman, after 15 years, is a fan-favorite classic, having made 250 million dollars the year it was released (at that time, the second most successful movie of all time, only making less than E.T., and in adjusted gross, 250 mil is equatable to 500 million today). Batman is beloved by many, and a cultural phenomenon (just the movie alone from 1989, not even getting into everything else)
Daredevil was a humbly successful 2002 movie, following in the massive and quality footsteps of "Spiderman". It has it's supporters, but got mostly bad reviews from critics and, as a movie, contained no interesting drama, mostly over bloated action, and no genuine laughs, or suprises.
The only suprises about "Daredevil" is that over 30 people in this thread voted for it over "Batman". (not counting some must have been repeats)
Realistically speaking, there is no comparison. Batman trumps it. Easily.
