Posts: 2061 Location: Gotham City Joined: 30.07.05
Posted on 06-08-2008 21:51
now i'm going to have to say The Dark Knight was better than Batman, and i think many of you can agree. i'm not saying Batman was bad, but just that The Dark Knight was better.
i know this one guy, and he tells me Batman is better. and i really don't understand why. he said batman's voice sucked in the dark knight, and that batman begins was a big disappointment. and he claims himself to be a batman fan. he leaves me scratching my head.
maybe he's suffering from nostalgia? i wanted to punch this guy in the face, but he's older than me. hahaha.
or am i missing something about Batman that was so great? the dark knight growls the whispering batman89 down to the ground if you ask me.
In my opinion TDK is the far superior Batman film.
Batman is a character driven franchise, anyone who has read any of the comic books can tell you this. Now if this is the case, how can what is basically the average action movie with a little psychological depth added be superior to a dramatic movie that gives terrific, life-like depictions of the characters we know and love?
In Batman they couldn't decide what to do with Joker. In one scene he's a dangerous gangster, the next a harmless prankster, and next a homicidal artist... They were so driven to make Joker funny and larger than life that they never gave him enough grounding to be a truely compelling character.
In The Dark Knight they give so much grounding to the character it's frightening... The character was truely frightening. And while some say this version is disloyal to the comic books; I say it's the most loyal interpretation yet. Sure he was visually different from the books... But there was not a single moment in the movie where he didn't 100% resemble the Joker in the books... He's become so creepily life-like he's even more threating; but it's stil lthe same character.
Of course, I could go on comparing the depictions of Batman, Dent, Gordon and Alfred; but that would take a while...
Basically, in 1989 common people weren't ready for a deep, psychology driven superhero-- especially not Batman, who was still known as good ole' Adam West to the general public-- so Tim Burton did the best he could with what he had. It wasn't the Batman movie we deserved, but it was the one we needed.
Never start with the head; the victim gets all fuzzy!
Posts: 726 Location: The Shadow Of St Albans Abbey Joined: 28.07.06
Posted on 07-08-2008 02:44
As much as I like the 89 film - it's always left me wanting a bit more. I'm old enough and been around long enough that I remember the hype going into it, and as much as I couldnt say I didn't like it, I can still clearly remember I was disappointed when I left the cinema that day. These days, I watch the 66 movie more than I do the 89 film.
As a contest, DK versus 89 is (to me at least) an absolute non-starter.
The same would apply to 89 v Batman Begins too.
If any Batman fan thought otherwise, I'd respectfully suggest they're daft.
You know.. The Nolanverse is what Batman should be. However, for almost 20 yers, Batman was the best we had. Sure, it's weird to watch Batman 89 compared to Begins, or TDk, but, it was the best at the time. Up until Spiderman, it was the best Superhero movie. It made more at the Box office, ect..
So to compare the two.. plot wise, yea ok, but lets look at it this way, Both films changed the way Comic Book movies were made.
Razhwurz wrote:
In Batman they couldn't decide what to do with Joker. In one scene he's a dangerous gangster, the next a harmless prankster, and next a homicidal artist... They were so driven to make Joker funny and larger than life that they never gave him enough grounding to be a truely compelling character.
In The Dark Knight they give so much grounding to the character it's frightening... The character was truely frightening. And while some say this version is disloyal to the comic books; I say it's the most loyal interpretation yet. Sure he was visually different from the books... But there was not a single moment in the movie where he didn't 100% resemble the Joker in the books... He's become so creepily life-like he's even more threating; but it's stil lthe same character.
I remember reading an interview with Sam Hamm where he stated that he'd originally written The Joker to be in his early-mid thirties for the '89 Batman, but when he was told Nicholson had been cast he was more than happy to re-write it as it was Jack f'n Nicholson. It just makes me wonder how much of the character was rewritten for Nicholson's pleasing, as I'm sure some aspects of the script were.
I'd also like to think The Joker dancing to Prince in the museum when he's 'meeting' Vicki Vale was put it just to highlight the connection with Prince. Otherwise...I demand a justifcation!
But yeah, while one of my main complaints about that movie is The Joker becomes just another standard Jack Nicholson character but in white makeup, I do think some of it would have been rewritten to get him to sign on, and some of it changed to more suit the feel of a Burton film. I could of course be totally wrong. It's not unknown to happen...
TDK is definetly closer to the source material, but I still prefer Burton's movies, especisally BR. I know that they arent exactly what Batman is in the comics, but that is the version of Batman i grew up with, so to me, those movies will always be more superior to me.
Batkilt wrote:
I do think some of it would have been rewritten to get him to sign on, and some of it changed to more suit the feel of a Burton film. I could of course be totally wrong. It's not unknown to happen...
Actually you're completely right... I do recall reading that when Nicholson signed on he did so under the condition that the script be handed to another writer so he could rewrite the majority of Joker's lines to better fit a Nicholson character.
Never start with the head; the victim gets all fuzzy!
lol I love how the Schumacher "Batmans" have been turned into partners (and how KilmerBatman blows up in the end).
On the "this town's only big enough for one Batman"... Didn't he say that-- or something like it-- To Rachel in TDK after Dent's Batman press conferance?
Never start with the head; the victim gets all fuzzy!
R.I.P. Heath
Edited by Razhwurz on 08-08-2008 12:58
Heh. Its a really awesome video. To me, Keaton is still and will always be the superior Batman. Obviously Bale is a close second, but i could live without the growl he has.
Posts: 726 Location: The Shadow Of St Albans Abbey Joined: 28.07.06
Posted on 09-08-2008 08:09
batboy99 wrote:
Heh. Its a really awesome video. To me, Keaton is still and will always be the superior Batman. Obviously Bale is a close second, but i could live without the growl he has.
The growl is surely based on Kevin Conroy's BTAS stuff. The difference between the two is KC's sounded natural. I don't dislike it with Bale, but I can't help but think it's poor if I compare it directly to Conroy.
