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

[christpunchers]

Not really a fair fight, how many people here actually watched DD the director's cut? It is by a better film than 89 IMO, I was really surprised at how good the director's cut was.

 

[The Shape]

Not really a fair fight, how many people here actually watched DD the director's cut? It is by a better film than 89 IMO, I was really surprised at how good the director's cut was.

What have you been smoking?

Yeah, the director's cut was an improvement over the theatrical, but the film was still fatally flawed, especially when compared to Batman 1989.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Both are similar yet very different. But have similar overtowns, and "twists" for the villains.

So which did you like better

Tim Burton's Batman (1989)

Or MSJ's Daredevil (2003)

Its funny looking back on threads like these.....






































































Daredevil FTW.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Actually lol@ a lot of the posts in here from 03. Man those were the days y'all...lol

I beg someone to up that thread that was made around the same time that read "Daredevil: How a Batman movie should be done"

 

[christpunchers]

What have you been smoking?

Yeah, the director's cut was an improvement over the theatrical, but the film was still fatally flawed, especially when compared to Batman 1989.

89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

You must be a Marvel smoree (likes any garbage marvel puts out). Hey not being a jerk but you have a sm3 avatar, what does that tell you?

 

[Super_Ludacris]

*sits back and watches a Marvel and Burtonite go at it*

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Im not a Burtonite, Im not an anything "ite" I think that whole term is pretty pointless actually, I like pretty much all BATMAN and I love Marvel too, I just think its silly that most Marvel fans like everything Marvel even if its not good. Example, a Marvel fan saying Elektra was good, thats how you know they'll love anything Marvel thats thrown at them.

 

[The Shape]

89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

Daredevil was mediocre at best. Yeah, the Joker had much more screentime than the Daredevil villains, but Bullseye and Kingpin were two of the most uninteresting characters on film...ever, not to mention Affleck was pretty bad as well.

Daredevil was a film that tried to be dark and gritty like the '89 Batman, but failed and just turned out lame. I also think it's funny that the effects in DD were actually worse than those of Batman, which was made around 15 years earlier.

 

[The Shape]

And I'm in no means a Burtonite.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

And I'm in no means a Burtonite.

Im glad that someone agrees with me!

 

[Dr. Fate]

Daredevil was mediocre at best. Yeah, the Joker had much more screentime than the Daredevil villains, but Bullseye and Kingpin were two of the most uninteresting characters on film...ever, not to mention Affleck was pretty bad as well.

Daredevil was a film that tried to be dark and gritty like the '89 Batman, but failed and just turned out lame. I also think it's funny that the effects in DD were actually worse than those of Batman, which was made around 15 years earlier.

I agree.

And no, I'm not a Burtonite either, or a Nolanite. I like Batman in general. Daredevil's a good character too, but his film did not do him justice.

 

[The Shape]

I agree.

And no, I'm not a Burtonite either, or a Nolanite. I like Batman in general. Daredevil's a good character too, but his film did not do him justice.

Yeah, DD had a lot of potential, but didn't capitalize on it.

 

[Mr. Socko]

89 was just really bland IMO... I mean sure for its time it set the standards for all future superhero action movies but the DD the director's cut for me was really good, it did a good job at touching on the devil's origins (really good child actor whoever he is) and not go overboard with too much screentime for its villains. Flawed yes, but to me it felt complete, 89 is just too cheesy (only thing I liked about it was the Keaton scenes).

I did like the director's cut of Daredevil, but I don't think it's better than Batman'89 in any way. B'89 is an entertaining film that, for me, captures the very spirit and essence of Batman near flawlessly. Daredevil had it's moments but was was rather forgettable in the end. Daredevil is also far more 'cheesy' than Batman'89.

Im not a Burtonite, Im not an anything "ite" I think that whole term is pretty pointless actually, I like pretty much all BATMAN and I love Marvel too, I just think its silly that most Marvel fans like everything Marvel even if its not good. Example, a Marvel fan saying Elektra was good, thats how you know they'll love anything Marvel thats thrown at them.

I am a Burtonite, and I will gladly defend every Tim Burton movie I love.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Not really a fair fight, how many people here actually watched DD the director's cut? It is by a better film than 89 IMO, I was really surprised at how good the director's cut was.

I did and it still doesn't compare with Batman 89. The directors cut was definitely an improvement, but that's not saying much.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I did like the director's cut of Daredevil, but I don't think it's better than Batman'89 in any way. B'89 is an entertaining film that, for me, captures the very spirit and essence of Batman near flawlessly. Daredevil had it's moments but was was rather forgettable in the end. Daredevil is also far more 'cheesy' than Batman'89.



I am a Burtonite, and I will gladly defend every Tim Burton movie I love.

Im glad you feel that way, but me as a person would rather not have any "label" to what I like.

 

[christpunchers]

You must be a Marvel smoree (likes any garbage marvel puts out). Hey not being a jerk but you have a sm3 avatar, what does that tell you?

Are you still in Highschool? I like a movie, I don't care if its comedy drama super hero marvel DC whatever, just because I had a sm3 gif that I put up A LONG time ago doesnt mean I'm a marvel fan. You basement dwelling fan boys need to lighten up. I'm not a fan boy of ANYTHING. In fact I think most superhero movies are done very poorly. I dont hate DC or hate Marvel, as long as the stuff is good I'm there to enjoy it. IN FACT, sm3 was by far the worst superhero movie in recent times for me. So please, grow up. Stop labeling people like people like each of them belongs in some set-to-stone category. It's that sort of geeky attitude which gives "comic book" fan boys a bad name.

 

[christpunchers]

Daredevil was mediocre at best. Yeah, the Joker had much more screentime than the Daredevil villains, but Bullseye and Kingpin were two of the most uninteresting characters on film...ever, not to mention Affleck was pretty bad as well.

Daredevil was a film that tried to be dark and gritty like the '89 Batman, but failed and just turned out lame. I also think it's funny that the effects in DD were actually worse than those of Batman, which was made around 15 years earlier.

Maybe affleck is usually so horrible that in this film he actually did pretty good, I mean for an actor of his caliber I think he did a good job, it looked like he tried quite hard to play with the material he was given.

I don't really care about special effects, they rarely make up a movie for me. DD felt like a nice light hearted movie, maybe it's cuz of that, because I don't take it too seriously, i ended up enjoying the director's cut. It had a sense of reality to it while still being comic-booky.

 

[DACrowe]

I ****ing forgot about this thread.

I made it because many (like with every new "it" movie) were calling DD the best of the genre upon release. I made this thread because I thought maybe B'89 could win here (as the DD forum was trashing it). I remember thinking it was a fair thread because I saw DD in theaters hammered and it was a great experience. Now looking back, this is not even a contest. One is a work of art. The other is at best average in its superior form (director's cut). Oh well.

BTW y'all may not remember but DD was winning this thread for all of 2003. Just a point about fanboys being biased and unreasonable when something new and shiny comes out.

 

[Milu]

I like B89 better, but the director's cut of DD is still a very strong film, though.

 

[That'ssuper!]

I liked Batman better, however they still didn't live up to their potential.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Are you still in Highschool? I like a movie, I don't care if its comedy drama super hero marvel DC whatever, just because I had a sm3 gif that I put up A LONG time ago doesnt mean I'm a marvel fan. You basement dwelling fan boys need to lighten up. I'm not a fan boy of ANYTHING. In fact I think most superhero movies are done very poorly. I dont hate DC or hate Marvel, as long as the stuff is good I'm there to enjoy it. IN FACT, sm3 was by far the worst superhero movie in recent times for me. So please, grow up. Stop labeling people like people like each of them belongs in some set-to-stone category. It's that sort of geeky attitude which gives "comic book" fan boys a bad name.

Im not a geek, or a fan-boy, watch how you talk to me!! lol I understand what you mean, and Im not "labeling" people at all, but most people that liked sm3 like other crap marvel movies, im sorry that film was awful. I like most all comic-book films, and I always give them a chance, dont take the debate to a personal level or you might regret it, im debating movies, not the kind of person I am,

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

to everyone else on this thread, its been a good debate, I just hate when people attempt to get personal and off the source material, thats when most make the worst mistakes on these boards.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Random Comment - Batman 1989 actually feels like a real film. Daredevil felt like a giant music video with subpar CGI effects.

 

[Two-Face]

Batman (1989)