What did you like better Batman (1989) or Daredevil?
- Thread starter DACrowe
- Start date
Rocky Batboa
Sidekick
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 2,015
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
well, it really wasnt a speech.
They were my unofficial reviews of both films. By comparison, one can see how i logically think Batman was the far superior movie.
Still shocked that people continue to vote for "Daredevil". (must be the same half dozen people voting over and over again
)Batman by far and away. Made people take the genre in a really serious fashion. It was a flawed movie but ahead of it's time none the less. But I am positive that it will be toped by the new bat franshise Batman Begins!
Ruined Angel
Sidekick
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2003
- Messages
- 2,078
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I've loved B89 since, well, 1989.
I haven't seen Daredevil and have no interest in doing so.
I haven't seen Daredevil and have no interest in doing so.
Greenish Goblin
Civilian
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Reaidng this topic i couldn't help but think " what the hell ? " .
Batman is way superior to daredevil ! I liked the fact they didn't keep showing the hero fighting like in spiderman or daredevil as it added to his mysteriousness .
Batman is way superior to daredevil ! I liked the fact they didn't keep showing the hero fighting like in spiderman or daredevil as it added to his mysteriousness .
ManWithoutShoes
Civilian
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
i liked daredevil and all, but there is no comparison. for me batman '89 ranks up there with superman I & II, spider-man and X2. it was such a crowd pleaser.
when i saw it in the theater, way back when ( opening night! ) the crowd was jacked and feeling every moment of it. every joker scene caused the audience to laugh, and every time batman kicked someone's a$$, the audienced roared with cheers of approval. i never had a movie experience like that again!
daredevil, on the otherhand, was the polar opposite of that experience. i never heard so many wise a$$ comments in my life, and most of them coming from me! like an aquired taste, it took me a 2nd viewing to gain an appreciation for daredevil, and even then there are moments that still make me cringe.
when i saw it in the theater, way back when ( opening night! ) the crowd was jacked and feeling every moment of it. every joker scene caused the audience to laugh, and every time batman kicked someone's a$$, the audienced roared with cheers of approval. i never had a movie experience like that again!
daredevil, on the otherhand, was the polar opposite of that experience. i never heard so many wise a$$ comments in my life, and most of them coming from me! like an aquired taste, it took me a 2nd viewing to gain an appreciation for daredevil, and even then there are moments that still make me cringe.
KenK
Avenger
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 10,655
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Why is this even a question?!?! Don't get me wrong, I liked Daredevil. On some levels, I like it more than Spider-Man. But I love Batman more than Spider-Man that's for damn sure! Batman is classic.
Other posters claim some of us felt obligated to like Batman because of the 60s show making Batman so campy, or that we only like it because it's Batman. Well back in the 60's THAT'S how Batman was in the comics! How many comic covers are there with Batman and Robin running side by side with ^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^-eating grins on their faces! Burton's Batman was not only a representation of the dark and gritty feel of the character in the 80s to today, but also a representation of how Bob Kane originally realized the character. Body types aside, Keaton and Nicholson brought their characters to life. I mean, people act like Keaton was totally out of shape or something. It didn't matter, because he nailed the character. For all the complaints that the movie didn't focus enough on him, I couldn't disagree more. Between his conversations with Vicki Vale and especially Alfred, Bruce Wayne and Batman were extremely well developed. I think he did a good job of separating the characters and understanding their psychology. There's a definite change in his demeanor and speech, when he's Bruce Wayne and when he's Batman. Bruce Wayne in public was far different than Bruce Wayne in the Batcave(there are numerous scenes of him just working in the cave, moreso than scenes of him in Wayne Manor). Not to mention the great scene between him and Vicki in the Batcave, where he laughs at the idea of being compared to the Joker, when we the fans know that the comparison isn't all that far off. Batman is psychotic, and he does see himself differently than he does "normal people". Clearly, his mental state is heavily touched upon in the film. His motivations? He lost his parents to crime. That's all you need to know! His goals didn't change with the revelation that it was the Joker who killed his parents. Basically, I was never left wondering, 'where's Bruce and Batman?' over the course of the film, because I genuinely feel the character was well-developed. This isn't like the case of Spider-Man, where the Green Goblin is established before Spider-Man even decides to become a crimefighter. Whereas criminals actually see an opportunity to find out who Batman is(the alley scene where they almost take off his mask), Spider-Man not only features two scenes where people could have taken off Spider-Man's mask, INCLUDING the MAIN VILLAIN, but also a scene where he, for no good reason, fights multiple thugs without his mask on(to say nothing of the fact that it's established earlier in that scene that he has his mask on!)! And while I've come to accept that CGI was probably the best way to do Spider-Man's webslinging, I still can't help but be put off by it. As oppsed to Batman, where we saw an actual person doing all the action. When Batman glides down to Jack before he can shoot Commissioner Gordon, that was absolutely striking and powerful, and would have been cheapened if doen any other way than with a real person. Plus, I much prefer Batman's dark alley fight scene over Spider-Man's, especially the end where Batman kicked the crap outta that guy with the swords, a semi-nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Plus there was a little sense of humor to it, when Bob comes up with the knife, and Batman's beockoning to him, and he ran away!
Bottom line, I loved Batman because it was a good-a$$ movie!
Other posters claim some of us felt obligated to like Batman because of the 60s show making Batman so campy, or that we only like it because it's Batman. Well back in the 60's THAT'S how Batman was in the comics! How many comic covers are there with Batman and Robin running side by side with ^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^-eating grins on their faces! Burton's Batman was not only a representation of the dark and gritty feel of the character in the 80s to today, but also a representation of how Bob Kane originally realized the character. Body types aside, Keaton and Nicholson brought their characters to life. I mean, people act like Keaton was totally out of shape or something. It didn't matter, because he nailed the character. For all the complaints that the movie didn't focus enough on him, I couldn't disagree more. Between his conversations with Vicki Vale and especially Alfred, Bruce Wayne and Batman were extremely well developed. I think he did a good job of separating the characters and understanding their psychology. There's a definite change in his demeanor and speech, when he's Bruce Wayne and when he's Batman. Bruce Wayne in public was far different than Bruce Wayne in the Batcave(there are numerous scenes of him just working in the cave, moreso than scenes of him in Wayne Manor). Not to mention the great scene between him and Vicki in the Batcave, where he laughs at the idea of being compared to the Joker, when we the fans know that the comparison isn't all that far off. Batman is psychotic, and he does see himself differently than he does "normal people". Clearly, his mental state is heavily touched upon in the film. His motivations? He lost his parents to crime. That's all you need to know! His goals didn't change with the revelation that it was the Joker who killed his parents. Basically, I was never left wondering, 'where's Bruce and Batman?' over the course of the film, because I genuinely feel the character was well-developed. This isn't like the case of Spider-Man, where the Green Goblin is established before Spider-Man even decides to become a crimefighter. Whereas criminals actually see an opportunity to find out who Batman is(the alley scene where they almost take off his mask), Spider-Man not only features two scenes where people could have taken off Spider-Man's mask, INCLUDING the MAIN VILLAIN, but also a scene where he, for no good reason, fights multiple thugs without his mask on(to say nothing of the fact that it's established earlier in that scene that he has his mask on!)! And while I've come to accept that CGI was probably the best way to do Spider-Man's webslinging, I still can't help but be put off by it. As oppsed to Batman, where we saw an actual person doing all the action. When Batman glides down to Jack before he can shoot Commissioner Gordon, that was absolutely striking and powerful, and would have been cheapened if doen any other way than with a real person. Plus, I much prefer Batman's dark alley fight scene over Spider-Man's, especially the end where Batman kicked the crap outta that guy with the swords, a semi-nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Plus there was a little sense of humor to it, when Bob comes up with the knife, and Batman's beockoning to him, and he ran away!
Bottom line, I loved Batman because it was a good-a$$ movie!
WATCHMAN86
Civilian
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
B89 No Question I Mean Come On!!!.
El Payaso
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 15,262
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 31
Batman all the way.
Daredevil was worst in every aspects, villiains, acting, love interest etc.
Sure the CGI (Cartoony Goofy Images) were cool.
Daredevil was worst in every aspects, villiains, acting, love interest etc.
ScottSummers said:Daredevil. He moved better. Affleck fit his role better than Keaton. and the fight scenes were better.
Sure the CGI (Cartoony Goofy Images) were cool.
Sandman138
Avenger
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 11,644
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Batman is a movie. DD is a collection of scenes thrown together haphazardly. Batman wins hands down.
Morgoth
Sidekick
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 4,838
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
I love Daredevil, especially the Director's Cut, but it is no where near as good as Batman.
It could have been better if they didn't mess with it so much, like the bad casting of KP and Bullseye. The BE costume was so lame.
At least Batman wasn't afraid to look like a comic book and have costumes etc.
It could have been better if they didn't mess with it so much, like the bad casting of KP and Bullseye. The BE costume was so lame.
At least Batman wasn't afraid to look like a comic book and have costumes etc.
captain_jimbo
I love Star Trek XI
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I liked Daredevil, but there's no question BATMAN is the best!
I SEE SPIDEY
Eternal
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 54,611
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 31
Well lets see: Both of the leading men were miscast and the action scenes were pathetic in both movies. Still Batman had Jack being Jack...can't beat that and Burton is a cheap sloppy excuse of a director like MSJ. I'll have to go with the movie that didn't suck.
BATMAN!
BATMAN!
Similar threads
Staff online
-
Hunter RiderRonin -
squeeknessI'm a poor lost puppy
Latest posts
-
🌎 Discussion: Illegal Immigration, Immigration Reform, and Other Citizenship Issues II (7 Viewers)- Latest: Morg
-
🌎 Discussion: Media, Journalism, Cable News, Media Bias, and Other Media Issues (4 Viewers)- Latest: DJ Kornphlake
-
-
-