Batman 1989 or Dark Knight?

VG31

I never got around the watching the Dark Knight until a few days ago. I'm surprised how its no. 4 on the IMDb top 250 and how much people rave about it.
This is probably an unpopular opinion but I thought the 1989 Batman film was better.

I think Elfman’s Batman theme is better than Zimmer's because it's memorable. Although Zimmer's is good you forget it quickly. When you hear Elfman's theme you think "Batman"; just like almost everyone associates the James Bond, Star Wars, Superman etc. themes with those characters/films. When I hear Elfman's theme I think of Batman immediately but with Zimmer's, particularly after not seeing a Dark Knight film for a while, I have to think about what that theme actually is.

I thought Nicholson's Joker was better than Ledger's Although Ledger's acting is fantastic, his character is a murderous psychopath while Nicholson's, although still a psychopath, retains humour in the role of the Joker. Nicholson is mad but like you'd associate with the Joker but the Ledger is mad without the joking streak.

I think Burton's Batman seems more Batman-ish than Nolan's Batman.
The other '90s Batman films are bad though.

I'm interested in others comparison of Batman (1989) and the Dark Knight. Please only answer if you have seen both films otherwise you can't really compare them.

e_e

Both really good films that fall apart in their final third imo.

Batman 1989 wins out on atmosphere and intrigue but Dark Knight succeeds with its pacing and ideas.

Duggy747

The Dark Knight is the only film I like out of that trilogy, the other 2 were forgettable for me, especially TDKR.

I couldn't choose a "better" Joker, they're both iconic portrayals in their own way. Ledger blew it out of the water with the way people reacted to his casting.

Burton's Batman definitely has the atmosphere and feels more like a Batman flick but TDK has choc-ful of more memorable stunts and scope.

Personally, I'd be more towards Burton's Batman than Nolan's.

Arkaron

Well, it's always gonna depend on everyone's preferences with how the character and his universe should be approached. Neither are completely faithful to the comics (any one period of it).

To me, both films have structural problems, but ultimately, I think Burton's has slightly more cinematographic merits (I do prefer Batman Returns though, which kind of disregards the comics entirely, but is a hell of a visual and atmospheric experience). Nolan's style isn't particularly appealing to me, and his ham-fisted writing style makes the over-exposition of ideas tedious to follow. His Batman scripts are stuffed with ideas, but the execution doesn't quite work for me.

It all comes down to how the director chooses to convey the film's concepts. In TDK, the Joker literally spells out that he's Batman's opposite (as if anyone hadn't noticed...), and the film keeps hammering us with long monologues so that there isn't much left for the audience to understand by themselves.

Whereas in Batman Returns (less so in the first one), Burton was able to show (and not tell) that Wayne was an empty vessel awaiting any opportunity to don the cape and cowl. I always loved how powerful one scene in the beginning of the film was, with Wayne waiting alone in the dark, and literally rising up from the shadows when the bat-signal appears in the night sky. There's no words spoken, but we get how far gone the character actually is, and his whole psychology stems from that idea.

As for the Joker comparison, I guess I like both actors, but Ledger's wasn't very funny.

My favorite Batman film is, by far, Mask of the Phantasm. Awesomeness on every level.

Links234

I love both, they've each got their strengths.

One thing I adore about Burton's movie is that Gotham actually feels like the Gotham from the comics. Nolan's movies weren't so good at bringing Gotham to life.

VG31 wrote: »

I thought Nicholson's Joker was better than Ledger's Although Ledger's acting is fantastic, his character is a murderous psychopath while Nicholson's, although still a psychopath, retains humour in the role of the Joker. Nicholson is mad but like you'd associate with the Joker but the Ledger is mad without the joking streak.

I'll probably get eaten alive for saying it, but I didn't like Nicholson's Joker at all, it was just the usual Nicholson schtick

fluke

Personally I'd go with Batman Begins as a better comparison to 1989 Batman (as you see Wayne embracing who he is becoming).

In any instance though 1989 is surpassed by BB and TDK because, 1989 Batman (as much as I loved it before) barely looks like it escaped being shot in Pinewood Studios and it just doesn't feel like the characters truly live in the world created around them.

Links234

Links234 wrote: »

I love both, they've each got their strengths.

One thing I adore about Burton's movie is that Gotham actually feels like the Gotham from the comics. Nolan's movies weren't so good at bringing Gotham to life.



I'll probably get eaten alive for saying it, but I didn't like Nicholson's Joker at all, it was just the usual Nicholson schtick

I thought Batman Begins had a decent version of Gotham. The Narrows, The Docks, Wayne Towers, The City Monorail, it all made sense to me in my mind and I could picture them all within the one city. That was the one and only time Nolan's Gotham sat right with me.

In the sequels, it just looked like any US city. I think they used predominantly Chicago for TDK and Pittsburg and NYC for TDKR. Nolan's reasoning for moving from city to city was to keep a fresh look, that there was only so much they could shoot in one city.

However they were only trying to depict one city, Gotham, why change up the cities every movie? I thought 'things looking the same' was kind of the point. For me, there was no continuity with Gotham from movie to movie and it is a mild distraction for me re-watching the trilogy.

Burton's Gotham was pure fantasy and more akin to the comics than Nolan's was. For a 25 year old movie and sort of the first of its kind in terms of comic book movies, I think Burton did quite well. I'm a Zimmer fan, but Elfman's score is truly iconic in Burton's movies.

While Batman '89 will always have a special place in my heart, it was the movie of my childhood along with Ghostbusters, I still have to go with Nolan's trilogy as my preference, flawed and all as it is.

Sad Professor

I think Nolan’s Gotham looking like any US city was the point. As he put it, Burton’s Batman was an extraordinary character in an extraordinary world, while his Batman was an extraordinary character in an ordinary world. That was the basis of his own concept of Batman. I’d suggest most of the groundedness or so-called realism people see in the Nolan films comes not from his portrayal of Batman but the way he establishes Gotham in a wider world that is recognisably our own.

e_e

One of the things that took me right out of Burton's movies (especially Returns) is how Gotham feels like little more than a city square.

Clareman

Batman 1989 was a great stand alone movie, but it really threw away the whole comic book history, stuff likie

• The Joker killing the Waynes
• Batman "killing" Jack Napier
• The Joker having a history
• Batman randomly killing people
• The Joker being killed in the end

Add in the fact you don't really know where Batman is coming from except to get revenge for his parents death.

The Dark Knight brings a lot of comic book history along with a brilliant (IMO) performance of the Joker, Batman is about the villain as much as it is about Batman.

phil1nj

Clareman wrote: »

Batman 1989 was a great stand alone movie, but it really threw away the whole comic book history, stuff likie

• The Joker killing the Waynes
• Batman "killing" Jack Napier
• The Joker having a history
• Batman randomly killing people
• The Joker being killed in the end

Add in the fact you don't really know where Batman is coming from except to get revenge for his parents death.
.

This was something that was supposed to be hinted at for future Batman films, that whomever the Batman was going after in the criminal underworld would be the one who killed his parents in his mind, he basically made them the reason for his vigilantism.

I loved Burton's movie when it came out but I don't think its aged well. I prefer Nolan's trilogy of movies. Ledgers take on the Joker was fantastic, Nicholson's deserves a mention too (even if only because up to that point the only film version we'd seen was Ceser Romero's one from the TV series and movie which be honest wasn't up to much anyway.)

Sad Professor

e_e wrote: »

One of the things that took me right out of Burton's movies (especially Returns) is how Gotham feels like little more than a city square.

Yeah, it feels more like a village than a city.

I felt the same way about the Narrows in Batman Begins. As atmospheric as that kind of claustrophobic sound stage environment can be, it just didn’t blend well with the rest of the film. Nolan wasn’t entirely happy with how it turned out either, hence the greater use of real locations in TDK.

Turtyturd

e_e wrote: »

One of the things that took me right out of Burton's movies (especially Returns) is how Gotham feels like little more than a city square.

This was always something that made it hard for me to enjoy Batman Returns. It just looks like a series of small sets. I don't remember it being an issue in Burton's original Batman although it's been a while since I've seen it.

Begins has the best interpretation of Gotham for me. It looks unique and the city is a character in itself. It could also be the same city that the recent Batman games are set in. Rises is my favourite Batman movie but Bane taking over the Gotham from Begins rather than Manhattan would have been much better.

Clareman

phil1nj wrote: »

This was something that was supposed to be hinted at for future Batman films, that whomever the Batman was going after in the criminal underworld would be the one who killed his parents in his mind, he basically made them the reason for his vigilantism.

I loved Burton's movie when it came out but I don't think its aged well. I prefer Nolan's trilogy of movies. Ledgers take on the Joker was fantastic, Nicholson's deserves a mention too (even if only because up to that point the only film version we'd seen was Ceser Romero's one from the TV series and movie which be honest wasn't up to much anyway.)

Yeah, there was always going to be the villain that killed his parents as a big "baddie", personally I like the whole Falcone or Wayne Enterprise Board story line, having a random coincidence setup Batman is a bit weak, not to mind the whole "did you ever dance with the devil by the pale moon light" thing, meh

Saipanne

The 1989 one has aged terribly. It looks awful.

Clareman

It could be argued that Batman has the best Batman and Dark Knight has the best Bruce Wayne.

Sad Professor

Clareman wrote: »

It could be argued that Batman has the best Batman and Dark Knight has the best Bruce Wayne.

It depends what you mean by Bruce Wayne. Unlike Burton, Nolan was never interested in the dualistic identity thing. His Bruce Wayne doesn’t have split personalities or dark sides. Batman is an act as much as the playboy millionaire thing is. He adopts both of them upon his return to Gotham. Before that he’s just Bruce and remains Bruce to the audience and those closest to him.

I’m not sure either approach is true to the comics.

Clareman

Sad Professor wrote: »

It depends what you mean by Bruce Wayne. Unlike Burton, Nolan was never interested in the dualistic identity thing. His Bruce Wayne doesn’t have split personalities or dark sides. Batman is an act as much as the playboy millionaire thing is. He adopts both of them upon his return to Gotham. Before that he’s just Bruce and remains Bruce to the audience and those closest to him.

I’m not sure either approach is true to the comics.

The whole gravel voice was annoying after a while, the whole recluse thing didn't add up either, at least Nolan's movies gave a back story which Burton's didn't

Alfred Borden

Both suited their era's perfectly but would edge it to Nolans.

Arkaron

It's always gonna depend on which comics. Miller made it pretty clear in TDKR that Wayne is in limbo until becomes Batman again.

phil1nj

That was one of the questions that came up when the "new" batman was announced for the Dawn of Justice movie :

Any physically imposing actor can play Batman - taciturn, moody, lurk in the shadows etc. It's the portrayal of Bruce Wayne that will sell it. I thought that both Bale and Keaton did a decent job of playing the Bruce Wayne character (although Bale had one more outing to develop his take), interesting to see what Afflecks version will be like. I'm leaning towards a more jaded version a la Miller's TDKRs comic.....could be wrong though.

VG31

Saipanne wrote: »

The 1989 one has aged terribly. It looks awful.

A lot of late 80s/90s films do seem to age badly. 60s and 70s films often still look good today.

Clareman

Actually, 1 important point here is that Burton's movie is the first 1 and has a lot of work to do to introduce characters and see the atmosphere for the movie whereas Nolan's movie has already a lot of this done and a lot of the characters already introduced, probably not comparing apples with apples.

the_monkey

Everyone entitled to their opinion etc ... but there is no comparison with Nolans trilogy then the Burton one. (I won't even include the dire Batman Returns)

1989 Batman is an ok film on it's own - but that's aged badly, Nolans trilogy is a masterclass that I suspect will age quite well, BB is 10 years old now and still looks + sounds great.

Mickeroo

Clareman wrote: »

Batman 1989 was a great stand alone movie, but it really threw away the whole comic book history, stuff likie

• The Joker killing the Waynes
• Batman "killing" Jack Napier
• The Joker having a history
• Batman randomly killing people
• The Joker being killed in the end

Add in the fact you don't really know where Batman is coming from except to get revenge for his parents death.

The Dark Knight brings a lot of comic book history along with a brilliant (IMO) performance of the Joker, Batman is about the villain as much as it is about Batman.

The animated series took the "Joker killed Batman's parents" thing as canon too iirc. Was Alan Moore's The Killing Joke written after Batman 1989?

Clareman

Didn't Killing Joke have a back story of the Joker being an engineer with a pregnant wife who was dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman? Red Hood was involved in it as well, I think

Mickeroo

Clareman wrote: »

Didn't Killing Joke have a back story of the Joker being an engineer with a pregnant wife who was dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman? Red Hood was involved in it as well, I think

Yeah it was my understanding Burton took the chemicals thing and Batman being involved from Killing Joke but just gave Joker a less sympathetic back story, in the comic he was a down on his luck stand-up comic forced to turn to crime to support his family.

The Red Hood in it was a costume the gangsters forced joker to wear to draw attention from themselves.

Professey Chin

Clareman wrote: »

Didn't Killing Joke have a back story of the Joker being an engineer with a pregnant wife who was dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman? Red Hood was involved in it as well, I think

Yep. Joker was Red Hood. But he also said that if hes going to have a past he likes it to be multiple choice

Clareman

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah it was my understanding Burton took the chemicals thing and Batman being involved from Killing Joke but just gave Joker a less sympathetic back story, in the comic he was a down on his luck stand-up comic forced to turn to crime to support his family.

The Red Hood in it was a costume the gangsters forced joker to wear to draw attention from themselves.

I thought the whole "joke" was that both Batman and the Joker were formed by completely random events. I might be mixing it up with another 1 though

Clareman

Professey Chin wrote: »

Yep. Joker was Red Hood. But he also said that if hes going to have a past he likes it to be multiple choice

Yeah, that's why I liked Nolan's portrayal, the Joker gives 2 completely different reasons for his scars rather than setting it in stone.

Mickeroo

Clareman wrote: »

I thought the whole "joke" was that both Batman and the Joker were formed by completely random events. I might be mixing it up with another 1 though

That's the one, don't himself and Batman end up just sitting laughing with one another about the whole thing.

I'm pretty sure it's also the comic Gordon's daughter got crippled in.

Clareman

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's the one, don't himself and Batman end up just sitting laughing with one another about the whole thing.

I'm pretty sure it's also the comic Gordon's daughter got crippled in.

Yeah, Barbara became the Oracle.

That's my evening sorted so, I'm going to watch that again, some of the cartoon movies are the best movies.

Professey Chin

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's the one, don't himself and Batman end up just sitting laughing with one another about the whole thing.

I'm pretty sure it's also the comic Gordon's daughter got crippled in.

Was a messed up comic in general. Shot Barbara in the spine and kidnapped Gordon, showed him pictures of her bleeding out and then he couldnt figure out why Gordon wasnt laughing.

Clareman

I think he was trying to show that he could drive anyone insane with enough torture in his life, for him it was the fact that he lost everything trying to do the right thing, Batman laughed at the "joke" cause his random act was his parents murder. I wouldn't read (see what I did there???) too much into it as Alan Moore tried to bring the same "joke" in The Watchmen.

Back on topic, I don't think anyone could compare the Nolan trilogy to the Burton one, Batman Forever FFS, but it could be argued that Burton made 3 completely separate movies whereas Nolan had a 3 arc storyline to work with. Comparing Batman to Dark Knight isn't really a fair comparison either as it's not comparing the first movies in the trilogy against each other, putting Dark Knight up against Batman Begins might be a better comparison as both were the second movie, but that's about the only similarity between the 2.

Mickeroo

Clareman wrote: »

I think he was trying to show that he could drive anyone insane with enough torture in his life, for him it was the fact that he lost everything trying to do the right thing, Batman laughed at the "joke" cause his random act was his parents murder. I wouldn't read (see what I did there???) too much into it as Alan Moore tried to bring the same "joke" in The Watchmen.

Back on topic, I don't think anyone could compare the Nolan trilogy to the Burton one, Batman Forever FFS, but it could be argued that Burton made 3 completely separate movies whereas Nolan had a 3 arc storyline to work with. Comparing Batman to Dark Knight isn't really a fair comparison either as it's not comparing the first movies in the trilogy against each other, putting Dark Knight up against Batman Begins might be a better comparison as both were the second movie, but that's about the only similarity between the 2.

Burton didn't make Batman Forever, that was Joel Schumacher the same guy who made Batman & Robin.

Clareman

Mickeroo wrote: »

Burton didn't make Batman Forever, that was Joel Schumacher the same guy who made Batman & Robin.

Oops, you are right of course, I was just blaming Schumacher for Batman & Robin, I though Burton was involved in 3, but that's why Keaton resigned if I remember correctly.

TheDoc

Batman is a big deal to me, and was a massive part of my childhood and growing up. The '89 film has a very special place for me and I'll always love it.

I don't really do the "which is better" I've taken them seperately and being able to absolutely ADORE the new trilogy, while still loving the original two Keaton did. Only pity is that he didn't do more.

Simon2015

Batman89 is for kids.

Dark Knight is for adults.

Both are good films but I much perfer the Dark Knight.

KingBrian2

Dark Knight works as a Trilogy like one big Graphic Novel with Batman Begins & The Dark Knight Rises.

Tim Burton's 1989 Batman is a superb stand alone film as is the sequel. Neither of them need to be connected.

If you remove Heath Ledger's fantastic turn as the Joker from the Dark Knight, does it stand up as strongly? Batman Begins was a pretty good movie, but made better considering the absolute abomination of Batman movies that came before it; Ledger made Dark Knight, and I have to say that I found the last movie over-long and boring in parts.

Clareman

Deleted User wrote: »

If you remove Heath Ledger's fantastic turn as the Joker from the Dark Knight, does it stand up as strongly? Batman Begins was a pretty good movie, but made better considering the absolute abomination of Batman movies that came before it; Ledger made Dark Knight, and I have to say that I found the last movie over-long and boring in parts.

The Villains always made Batman, it could be said that Jack made his movie. For me the biggest issues with each movie is Batman randomly killing people and the whole bat sonar thing, I can forgive the sonar thing a lot easier than the killing, but I don't think you can compare the 2 movies against each other as they aren't the same story except for the villain.

Nervous Wreck

Who does he kill in either movie?

Clareman

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Who does he kill in either movie?

In the first movie he drives the batmobile into the factory with loads of villains in it and just dropped a bomb, the batmobile barely made it out in time.

Simon2015

Clareman wrote: »

In the first movie he drives the batmobile into the factory with loads of villains in it and just dropped a bomb, the batmobile barely made it out in time.

We don't know for sure if he killed them the villains could of got away.

Clareman

He indiscriminately dropped a bomb in a populated factory in an area he knew there was people. Also, didn't he actually tell the Joker at the end that he was going to kill him?

Simon2015

Clareman wrote: »

He indiscriminately dropped a bomb in a populated factory in an area he knew there was people. Also, didn't he actually tell the Joker at the end that he was going to kill him?

It was at night the factory was probably empty . It was just the jokers security guarding the factory. Without seeing any dead bodies you cant say they were killed.

When he told the joker he was going kill him that was more of an emotional response he acutally tried to save the Joker when he was falling off the ledge.

Clareman

Simon2015 wrote: »

It was at night the factory was probably empty . It was just the jokers security guarding the factory. Without seeing any dead bodies you cant say they were killed.

When he told the joker he was going kill him that was more of an emotional response he acutally tried to save the Joker when he was falling off the ledge.

Fair enough, I just like the whole "You have 1 rule, I have no rules" dynamic between the Joker and Batman and the Joker always trying to get him to break it.

JustTheOne

Villains:)

Clareman

JustTheOne wrote: »

Villains:)

Baddies, hencemen, whatever, not an easy role to describe in 1 word

JustTheOne

Clareman wrote: »

Baddies, hencemen, whatever, not an easy role to describe in 1 word

Ha I know just love the reference as villains, like baddies, takes me right into the film/comic mode:)

Agricola

I havent read the comics but Burton's films have that highly stylistic, surreal look and atmosphere which I remember from the cartoon series as a kid, and which was also used extremely well in the games developed by Rocksteady in recent years. That vibe will always be synonymous with the Batman universe to me, so the 1989 film would shade it as my favourite.