Batman 1989 v Batman Begins 2005

Vampireskiss

Which is better and why?

MrStuffins

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Which is better and why?

Batman Begins

It just is

Galvasean

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Which is better and why?

Gonna give your own opinion on the matter or just do a 'hit and run' style post to see if you can get an argument going like you do in A&A?
I'll leave the thread open if you write down some of your own thoughts on the matter.

You have one hour (said in Doctor Evil voice)

Vampireskiss

No, not trying to start an argument .I like both movies and both are good, I like the Gothic tone to the 1989 movie but also like the realistic look for the 2005 movie, I suppose I prefer begins but I know people that prefer the 1989 batman movie

Jumpy

Chalk and Cheese.

Batman Comics vs Dark Knight Graphic Novels

Kess73

Have to go with Batman begins.

Was not a fan of the 1989 Batman when it came out, and I hated Jack as the joker. He was so wrong for the role imho, and played it way too safe.

I also could not buy into Keaton as Bruce Wayne, although he was not bad as Batman.

Burton's take on characters like Harvey Dent, Gordon etc all sat wrong with me too, with his take on Gotham city being the worst of it.

Another knock against Burton's Batman is that it eventually led to ****e like Batman & Robin and Batman Forever


Batman Begins I liked but did not love. It was however a good way to start Nolan's take on Bats, and it stayed closer to the source material or at least the source material that I loved.

Galvasean

Vampireskiss wrote: »

No, not trying to start an argument .I like both movies and both are good, I like the Gothic tone to the 1989 movie but also like the realistic look for the 2005 movie, I suppose I prefer begins but I know people that prefer the 1989 batman movie

Thread stays open so.

My 2c.
I used to think Batman (1989) was epic. However, I don't feel it has aged particularly well. There are also a few elements which, in retrospect, come across as being quite naff such as the batplane, the yellow parts of the suit and indeed the batmobile. It's still a good movie over all, but not as good as Batman Begins IMO.
Batman Begins works great as an origin story, detailing how/where Batman got all of his stuff/learned all of his trcks in a way that feels believable. The sheer realism is BB's great strenght. You could almos believe that a man could become a vigilante like that. The '89 Batman does not really pull off the same effect.

Vampireskiss

Kess73 wrote: »

Another knock against Burton's Batman is that it eventually led to ****e like Batman & Robin and Batman forever

You cant blame Tim Burton for those movies

jimmyendless

I watched Batman Begins recently on a plane to Canada and some of the dialogue was poor. I can't remember any now but with Neeson and all the rhetoric about justice blah blah blah, went on and on and the training montage was generic.

Where as Burton Batman was pure 80's goth, and not as mechanical. Just another one of his lovechilds. And it was before he could only cast Depp as the leading role. Depp as batman, might work, i don't know.

Scope

Batman Begins for me. The liked the Gothic feel to the '89 but BB was alot closer to the graphic novels. Saying that I still enjoy the '89 version.

Kess73

Vampireskiss wrote: »

You cant blame Tim Burton for those movies

Well it was his take on Batman that led to those films, so I am using it as stick to beat the 1989 Batman with.

Fysh

Scope wrote: »

Batman Begins for me. The liked the Gothic feel to the '89 but BB was alot closer to the graphic novels. Saying that I still enjoy the '89 version.

For a series encompassing 6 films by 3 directors there's a pretty good range of styles to the Batman films, but that range is dwarfed by the range of styles that have been present in the Batman comics. Year One or DKR have more in common with the Nolan movies, whereas stories like Killing Joke were more like the Burton movies. As for the comparatively crappy Schumacher films, they owe a lot to the campy TV series and the Silver Age comics.

Kess73 wrote: »

Well it was his take on Batman that led to those films, so I am using it as stick to beat the 1989 Batman with.

Well, no, his take on Batman gave us Batman & Batman Returns. You have a problem with Joel Schumacher's films as do a lot of us, but there's no point blaming the wrong person for those eminently crappy films...

missingtime

Galvasean wrote: »

I used to think Batman (1989) was epic. However, I don't feel it has aged particularly well.

Exactly how I feel as well.

Plus my teeth still haven't forgiven me for that hard as rock "chewing gum" in those collectors cards.

fonecrusher1

Is this really a fair comparison?
Its like comparing the new VW golf gti to the eighties golf gti. Pointless?

Batman was made in 1989, thats 20 years ago. 20 years is a long time to pick holes in any movie. Its too easy to scoff at the odd rough special effect or clumsy bit of dialog.
Look at Aliens? Its amazing, there are some badly aged special effects but i just respectfully ignore them.
As much as i love Batman Begins its not without fault. Theres a fair bit of waffle. Some of the drawn out training scenes are a little meaningless & Bale's OTT superhero voice is cringe-worthy in places & it gets worse in TDK.
What Burton's batman lacks in refinement it makes up for with comic book atmosphere by the bucket load.
Do we really want to know all the technicalities behind our favorite superhero's gadgets & gizmos?

If i had to choose one then its the original for me, but only just. Yeah its a bit daft in places buts thats the difference between liking a film & appreciating it.

Wonder how good Batman Begins will look in 15 or 16 years.;)

krudler

Vampireskiss wrote: »

No, not trying to start an argument .I like both movies and both are good, I like the Gothic tone to the 1989 movie but also like the realistic look for the 2005 movie, I suppose I prefer begins but I know people that prefer the 1989 batman movie

This the same movie with ninjas, a mountain top fortress owned by a supervillain who wants to control the world, a man dressed with a sack on his head spraying gas at people that makes a flying demon bat with light shooting out of its mouth appear?:D

Begins isnt in any way realistic, grittier perhaps but its still got both feet firmly planted in comic book land

I love them both tbh, different takes on the same franchise

Vampireskiss

Kess73 wrote: »

Well it was his take on Batman that led to those films, so I am using it as stick to beat the 1989 Batman with.

No it was not his take on batman and batman returns that led to those crappy batman forever and batman and robin movies

The only thing that tim burtons movies has to do with that crap is that they came before them.

Firstly the style of the films is completely different, gone is the gothic tone and in its place is a wacky goofy take on the batman genre, not to mention these later movies have a completely different director in Joel Schumacher

Ridley

Kess73 wrote: »

Well it was his take on Batman that led to those films, so I am using it as stick to beat the 1989 Batman with.

By that logic Batman and Robin was the greatest film because it provoked the reboot. :P

Kess73

Fysh wrote: »

Well, no, his take on Batman gave us Batman & Batman Returns. You have a problem with Joel Schumacher's films as do a lot of us, but there's no point blaming the wrong person for those eminently crappy films...

I was trying to make a joke. Next time I will be sure to put extra smilies and have "I am not serious" beside it.


Still does not mean I like the 1989 Batman though.

Kess73

Vampireskiss wrote: »

No it was not his take on batman and batman returns that led to those crappy batman forever and batman and robin movies

The only thing that tim burtons movies has to do with that crap is that they came before them.

Firstly the style of the films is completely different, gone is the gothic tone and in its place is a wacky goofy take on the batman genre, not to mention these later movies have a completely different director in Joel Schumacher

Gee thanks, I would never have known they were done by a different director and had a totally different tone.

DinnyBatman

Like other posters said, its chalk and cheese. Michael Keaton imo was a better batman, Bales growly batman voice gets on my wick.:mad:

Dont be at yourself

Burton is a hack of the highest (lowest?) order, and Batman Returns is arguably the worst Batman movie committed to celluloid.

Vampireskiss

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Burton is a hack of the highest (lowest?) order, and Batman Returns is arguably the worst Batman movie committed to celluloid.

no its not

Dont be at yourself

Vampireskiss wrote: »

no its not

yes it is

Kinetic^

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

yes it is

Yes it is.

Vampireskiss

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

yes it is

Have you actually seen Batman and Robin, its not only the worst batman, its one of the worst movies ever made

Dont be at yourself

Have you actually seen Batman and Robin, its not only the worst batman, its one of the worst movies ever made

Hey, at least Batman & Robin knew what it was - it was a dumb, camp action movie used to sell toys. It was a million miles away from the more serious tone of the 1989 film, but it was enjoyable for what it was. Of course, it was still an awful film.

Batman Returns is also an awful film. It's full of plot holes, plays fast and loose with the mythology of key characters, and is a prime example of Tim Burton disappearing up his own gothic arse at the expense of any real style or panache. It's no surprise that the studios took full control over subsequent installments, because Burton - given total freedom - ran the franchise into the ground.

Vampireskiss

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

yes it is

http://ie.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_returns/


http://ie.rottentomatoes.com/m/1077027-batman_and_robin/

fonecrusher1

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Burton is a hack of the highest (lowest?) order, and Batman Returns is arguably the worst Batman movie committed to celluloid.

Fair enough.
Thats your opinion & your entitled to it but i think you would be very much out numbered by people who would consider batman & Robin to be the worst ever batman movie.
Batman Forever was pretty bad, B & R was just sickeningly bad. A disgrace IMO.

Vampireskiss

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

He has proven he can do a job for us. He's leagues ahead of Voronin up front, and I'd start him over Kuyt in that position too.

Hopefully he continues his progress, and hopefully he gets more chances in the first team.

Hey you should have said you were a Liverpool Fan.I get it now,you like being entertained by a useless God awful football team.But at least they know what they are right?

Galvasean

I think Batman Returns is fairly poor. Michelle Pfeiffer has a brillaint performance, but that's about it. The visual stylings are far too 'Burtonised' and the story is just plain cack. Not as bad as Forever and Batman And Robin by any stretch of the imagination, but still nowhere near as good as the 89 Batman, or indeed BB or TDK.

Galvasean

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Hey you should have said you were a Liverpool Fan.I get it now,you like being entertained by a useless God awful football team.But at least they know what they are right?

Keep your football gripes out of this forum please.
First, last and only warning.

Sleazus

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Burton is a hack of the highest (lowest?) order, and Batman Returns is arguably the worst Batman movie committed to celluloid.

I love this old chestnut, which basically says that Batman Returns isn't a Batman movie, it's just a Tim Burton gothic fantasy that happens to involve the character rather than being based around him.

I'd disagree. As Fysh correctly pointed out above, whatever about the variety in styles of Batman films, there's more diversity in the comics.

The gothic and fascist city of Burton with it's grotesque freaks reflects an aspect of the character that is true to some of his portrayals in comics - the belief that he is an urban myth (or the belief by some Gotham criminals that he's not even human), the recurring suggestion in the comics that Gotham itself is cursed, grotesque foes such as the deformed Killer Croc and the giant flying Man-Bat. Bob Kane had the character fighting vampires (the Mad Monk) early in the character's history.

Nolan's portrayal is equally valid, grunded in noir storytelling conventions (the work of Frank Miller in particular and arguably Jeph Loeb as well). And - as much as we may be at pains to protest - Schumacher's portrayal is also a facet of the character (the wackiness of the Silver Age - "Batman: the Superman of Planet Zurr-En-Arr", for example, one of his frequent trips to other planets - reflected earnestly in celluloid). These approaches might not work (in fact, Schumacher's portrayal was disasterous), but they are all Batman.

That's part of the geeky thing I like about pop culture and famous characters. Batman and other pop culture characters are like modern myths, reinvented with each retelling so that the modern iteration may be quite different from the gun-totting bad-ass with purple gloves from Batman #1.

MisterAnarchy

I prefer Batman (89) .
Both are good movies but there is something about Batman that captured my imagination as a child.
The dark gothic city,the bleak cityscape,Nicholson as the joker,Elfmans score,Keaton as Bruce Wayne,it is a great film .
I saw it recently and it still holds up well after 20 years.
It also has some classic lines

I have given a name to my pain, and it is Batman.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Never rub another man's rhubarb.
Another rooster in the hen house

Vampireskiss

Vampireskiss wrote: »

You cant blame Tim Burton for those movies

You can blame him in part for Batman Forever he was after all a producer on it. While I find Forever to be a poor film at least it tried something different rather than simply try to recreate Burton's style which while impressive initially quickly gets old.

bus77

I didn't like Batman Begins at all. Bored the ****e out of me.

The '89 Batman was BIG at the time, everyone wanted the t-shirt. It was everywhere.

Between the two it has to be '89 one for me. But both of the sequels benefited when the directors and the teams they worked with got another go.

It's the sequels to those two that give's the best contrast imo.

Batman Returns is a favourite of mine, Da Vito especially played a blinder. ''Oswald Cobblepot for Mayor!'' ' I loved all that.

Yes, it's Tim Burton embedded. Sit well back from the stage and just watch the show. Once I realised that I enjoyed it a lot more.

The sequel to the new one, The Dark Knight, couldn't play it any more different. It's more like Come on up and meet the cast and we'll get inside your head!

D-Generate

I think that they are incomparable. Its not like one was a remake of the other. They are a whole generation time-wise apart and I just don't think that cinema goers were ready to take a super-hero film as seriously back then as they do now. Back then the other super-hero movies were incredibly poor (Punisher I'm looking at you) and to come out with a proper movie would have been laughable. For the few years preceding Batman Begins there was massive success with Spider-Man and X-Men and although it didn't work, Ang Lee tried to do a serious film/art version of the Incredible Hulk.

On a side note though, I prefer Keaton as Batman. I just think Bale tries too hard with the growly voice and also with Keaton you believed that he thought he was Batman and Bruce Wayne was secondary but Bale seems to play them both as if they are equals. Keaton also played Batman as if he was mentally unbalanced whereas Bale seems to make Batman sane and rational and lets not forget that in actuality Batman is a deranged multi-billionaire that beats up the insane and mentally incompetent.

One big problem I do have though with the original Batman is that it kinda threw away some of the source material. Notably that this Batman really doesn't care if his actions directly lead to death such as pushing guys off the bell tower or what not.

Fysh

D-Generate wrote: »

On a side note though, I prefer Keaton as Batman. I just think Bale tries too hard with the growly voice and also with Keaton you believed that he thought he was Batman and Bruce Wayne was secondary but Bale seems to play them both as if they are equals. Keaton also played Batman as if he was mentally unbalanced whereas Bale seems to make Batman sane and rational and lets not forget that in actuality Batman is a deranged multi-billionaire that beats up the insane and mentally incompetent.

One big problem I do have though with the original Batman is that it kinda threw away some of the source material. Notably that this Batman really doesn't care if his actions directly lead to death such as pushing guys off the bell tower or what not.

In fairness now, there's no one set of internally consistent "source material" or "Batman in actuality" - there are a whole load of comics that have evolved with the times in which they were published, retaining certain themes but encompassing quite a range of styles and changes. Let's not forget the Silver Age camptastic Batman (like the Rainbow Batman story) or the ultraviolent-nonsense Batman from the Knightfall storyline. Or that Batman as originally created in the comics carried guns, and that it was only much later that the oft-vaunted "hatred of handguns" nonsense was crowbarred into the backstory.

Basically what I'm saying is, there's so much potential source material out there for any given film version that it makes more sense to just evaluate the film on its own merits in terms of the story and character arc it contains.

I liked Batman & Batman Returns for the ethereal gothic atmosphere that Burton infused into Gotham and the characters; conversely, I also liked Batman Begins & Dark Knight for their attempt at a more grounded and realistic take on vigilantism. Heck, I even remember enjoying Batman Forever when it first came out as an almost circus-like take on the idea of a costumed hero (though it hasn't aged well at all and has far less re-watch value than the others I've mentioned).

Mikey23

This is going to sound like I'm sitting on the fence here, but I'm a big fan of both, though for utterly different reasons. Batman 89 for its set design by Anton Furst, the great Danny Elfman score (though his one for Returns is even better), and Michael Keaton's take on Bruce Wayne as an utter weirdo. You could - though it's a stretch - see his Bryce Wayne as where Bale's ends up once the years take their toll.

Aside from that though, Burton's film is less interested in Batman than with the villains, so as a film about Batman, Begins is far more interesting. It hits the right mixture of realism & fantasy, though I'm far less likely to revisit it than the Dark Knight as its central villain is a bit limp, to be honest.

Come to think of it, I'm much fonder of Returns & Dark Knight in both approaches to Batman.

krudler

Burton was more interested in the villains than Batman but in fairness theres only so much you can do with the Batman character himself, everyone already knows his reasons for doing what he does, its the same with Superman, once you get the origin story out of the way and you're not going into massive comic book story arcs you ned a decent villain to flesh out the story, I love Returns, DeVito and Pfeiffer are magnificent in it, and Walken is hamming it up brilliantly. Yeah the plot is bonkers once it gets to the penguin army bit but its still a great comic book movie, and dark as hell in places as well, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the merchandise meeting for Burger King, who had the rights to the toys, when they found out their big summer movie kiddie meal tie-in contained a sexualised catwoman, tons of innuendo and opened with Pee Wee Herman throwing his deformed newborn son into a river at Christmas

mwnger

Yeah the plot is bonkers once it gets to the penguin army bit but its still a great comic book movie, and dark as hell in places as well

This always gets me - but what exactly was 'dark' about Batman Returns? Apart from the sets and the lighting of course. Because if you want to describe a film as proper 'dark' then you have to go by story/theme/character and in all those catorgories Batman Returns was not 'dark' at all. More like pantomime if you ask me.

And that penguin army was f*cking ridiculous. I remember cringing at that part when I saw it in the cinema. And I was only 12 at the time.

Handsome Bob

I'm always on the SuperHeroHype forums and the general concensus over there is that Batman Begins is the more loved film for a number of reasons. One being that they don't like how Burton treated Bruce Wayne. At the very least Bruce Wayne has always put on the carefree billionaire playboy facade. However Burton's Wayne is very much a kind of oddball loner. Take the example of Knox (a journalist in Gotham City for god knows how long) and Vale having no idea who Bruce Wayne is when they meet him.

Secondly, they prefer Nolan's films because in spite of his world of heightened reality, he has shown a lot more respect to the source material than Burton did. As already mentioned Burton had a lot more interest in the villains than Batman himself to the point that in Batman Returns he took the liberty of overhauling two characters by giving them origins not affiliated with the source material.

Thirdly, some fans just simply love Nolan for bringing the franchise back from the brink, for that reason they are always going to say BB is the better film.

Personally, I grew up with Burton's films and TAS, I never get tired of watching B89. But now that I've gotten into the infinite amount of source material that is available I love BB for presenting me with characters and stories that are "true" to that source material. I honestly can't pick one over the other because I love them both equally for different reasons.

MooseJam

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Thirdly, some fans just simply love Nolan for bringing the franchise back from the brink

the brink , B&R was well past the brink - it was down a big black hole

Bodhidharma

Batman is better because of the following reasons:

1. Michael Keaton is a better Batman (its all in the eyes)
2. Batman has Jack as the Joker while Begins has Liam Neeson
3. The score of Batman is far better
4. Tim Burton's vision is more stylised and is more suited to the dark character
5. Begins has Katie Holmes in it
6. The story in Batman is not as convoluted and is straight to the point (Begins is too long, as is The Dark Knight but thats another story)

tony1kenobi

I preferred Batman Begins because I did.

krudler

mwnger wrote: »

This always gets me - but what exactly was 'dark' about Batman Returns? Apart from the sets and the lighting of course. Because if you want to describe a film as proper 'dark' then you have to go by story/theme/character and in all those catorgories Batman Returns was not 'dark' at all. More like pantomime if you ask me.

And that penguin army was f*cking ridiculous. I remember cringing at that part when I saw it in the cinema. And I was only 12 at the time.

I dunno bout you but I find the idea of a summer blockbuster where new parents throw their newborn deformed son into a river, only for him to want to murder all the first born sons of Gotham later on pretty ****ing dark

MelissaLahive

Batman begins for me. I found all the others to cartooney and child like, aimed at a kids audience which is fair enough but Batman Begins was darker, angrier and gave Batman more of a personality.

Just my 2 cents

mwnger

I dunno bout you but I find the idea of a summer blockbuster where new parents throw their newborn deformed son into a river, only for him to want to murder all the first born sons of Gotham later on pretty ****ing dark

Yeah, and the idea of the abandoned son being found and raised by a group of super-intelligent penguins living under an American city and he goes on to become the head of a criminal circus gang and then run for Mayor but then decides to destroy the city with a terrifying horde of penguins with missiles strapped to their back... I dunno about you but I find that pretty f*cking sh*t.