|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on May 20, 2009 21:05:43 GMT -5
Also, I want to say this... I do agree that Keaton played a better Batman, but I think Bale played a better Bruce Wayne. Keaton's Wayne was pretty much Batman without the suit. He was always just staring at the wall and brooding. Bale actually seemed like a playboy to me.
|
|
Nekron has risen aka Gamera...
Don Corleone
Yep, The Black Lantern Corps have the Superman of Earth-2 as a member...... We're f*****d!!!!
Posts: 1,427
|
Post by Nekron has risen aka Gamera... on May 21, 2009 0:01:34 GMT -5
While I prefer Jack as Joker, I thought Heath's version was pretty good for the Joker starting out early in his career so to speak
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on May 21, 2009 0:24:22 GMT -5
I have to disagree with him on this. It doesn't seem right that he completely discards Harvey Dent because he's barely in Batman, but yet he bases his decision on a random side character. Aaron Eckhart was absolutely amazing as Harvey Dent, but was completely overshadowed by the hype for Ledger (who, to be fair, deserved most if not all of it).
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on May 21, 2009 0:25:29 GMT -5
I have to disagree with him on this. It doesn't seem right that he completely discards Harvey Dent because he's barely in Batman, but yet he bases his decision on a random side character. Aaron Eckhart was absolutely amazing as Harvey Dent, but was completely overshadowed by the hype for Ledger (who, to be fair, deserved most if not all of it). Exactly, EMB, that's what I was commenting on in page one. Seems to me he was just saying stuff to keep the score going back and forth.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on May 21, 2009 0:33:07 GMT -5
While neither movie is all that respectful to the source material, Batman '89 is certainly the lesser offender. I can still pop that movie in and enjoy it for what it is, and for all its changes (aka stuff Tim Burton got wrong), it still has a very entertaining story, great performances and is beautiful to look at.
The Dark Knight on the other hand I just can't stand. Christopher Nolan has a very shallow imagination, as demonstrated by his desire to make Gotham and its inhabitants look as visually dull as possible. Add that in with a Batman who looks like a rubber Transformer and a Joker who wears frigging facepaint (a HUGE crime, if you know anything about the Batman universe), and you have a movie that I flat-out hate.
So all in all, Batman '89 wins pretty easily for me.
|
|
Strotha
Hank Scorpio
In heaven, everything is fine
Posts: 6,384
|
Post by Strotha on May 21, 2009 1:07:20 GMT -5
However, I would put Batman Returns over Batman Begins, and I know I'm in the vast, vast.... VAST minority on that one. I would, too. I think Batman is way better than The Dark Knight. Dark Knight and Batman Begins are still awesome movies, though.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on May 21, 2009 1:30:41 GMT -5
I didn't like Batman Begins at all.
I LOVED Dark Knight, and LOVE Batman as well as Batman Returns.
Batman Begins is lower on the pole than Batman and Robin for me, as at least that one had Alicia Silverstone. Although, for some reason, her suit didn't have Bat Nipples.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on May 21, 2009 1:40:27 GMT -5
I have to disagree with him on this. It doesn't seem right that he completely discards Harvey Dent because he's barely in Batman, but yet he bases his decision on a random side character. Aaron Eckhart was absolutely amazing as Harvey Dent, but was completely overshadowed by the hype for Ledger (who, to be fair, deserved most if not all of it). Mr "YOU CAN'T GIVE IN!!!" better than Number 1 guy Bob? The hell you say!
|
|
Magician under the moonlight
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Always Beaten To The Punchline. Always.
A magician and a thief. That's Badass
Posts: 15,727
|
Post by Magician under the moonlight on May 21, 2009 2:26:25 GMT -5
Also, I want to say this... I do agree that Keaton played a better Batman, but I think Bale played a better Bruce Wayne. Keaton's Wayne was pretty much Batman without the suit. He was always just staring at the wall and brooding. Bale actually seemed like a playboy to me. Wasn't that the point of the Batman character? You never get to see much of Bruce Wayne in comic and cartoon. And from what you see, As batman, You don't see any difference.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Strike on May 21, 2009 6:13:25 GMT -5
While neither movie is all that respectful to the source material, Batman '89 is certainly the lesser offender. I can still pop that movie in and enjoy it for what it is, and for all its changes (aka stuff Tim Burton got wrong), it still has a very entertaining story, great performances and is beautiful to look at. The Dark Knight on the other hand I just can't stand. Christopher Nolan has a very shallow imagination, as demonstrated by his desire to make Gotham and its inhabitants look as visually dull as possible. Add that in with a Batman who looks like a rubber Transformer and a Joker who wears frigging facepaint (a HUGE crime, if you know anything about the Batman universe), and you have a movie that I flat-out hate. So all in all, Batman '89 wins pretty easily for me. Being a little biased towards the source material don't ya think? Automatically dismissing all of the changes as "wrong" for the sole reason of being different from the source is really idiotic thinking.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,310
|
Post by Push R Truth on May 21, 2009 6:20:03 GMT -5
While neither movie is all that respectful to the source material, Batman '89 is certainly the lesser offender. I can still pop that movie in and enjoy it for what it is, and for all its changes (aka stuff Tim Burton got wrong), it still has a very entertaining story, great performances and is beautiful to look at. The Dark Knight on the other hand I just can't stand. Christopher Nolan has a very shallow imagination, as demonstrated by his desire to make Gotham and its inhabitants look as visually dull as possible. Add that in with a Batman who looks like a rubber Transformer and a Joker who wears frigging facepaint (a HUGE crime, if you know anything about the Batman universe), and you have a movie that I flat-out hate. So all in all, Batman '89 wins pretty easily for me. Being a little biased towards the source material don't ya think? Automatically dismissing all of the changes as "wrong" for the sole reason of being different from the source is really idiotic thinking. Or it's just an opinion, ya know. When I see a movie that is based off popular source material, I like it when they embrace it a little bit rather than ignore most of it.
|
|
|
Post by Macho Dude Handy Damage on May 21, 2009 6:30:04 GMT -5
a Joker who wears frigging facepaint (a HUGE crime, if you know anything about the Batman universe), and you have a movie that I flat-out hate. So the fact that the Joker wore facepaint in his original apperances (and wasn't white because of chemicals) back in the 40s doesn't count then? And besides, Nolan tries to make the characters as realistic as possible. Sometimes a bit too realistic, I think, but a Joker with facepaint doesn't bother me, as it awould make sense for him to wear some kind of mask to hide his disfigured face and identity.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on May 21, 2009 8:16:53 GMT -5
While neither movie is all that respectful to the source material, Batman '89 is certainly the lesser offender. I can still pop that movie in and enjoy it for what it is, and for all its changes (aka stuff Tim Burton got wrong), it still has a very entertaining story, great performances and is beautiful to look at. The Dark Knight on the other hand I just can't stand. Christopher Nolan has a very shallow imagination, as demonstrated by his desire to make Gotham and its inhabitants look as visually dull as possible. Add that in with a Batman who looks like a rubber Transformer and a Joker who wears frigging facepaint (a HUGE crime, if you know anything about the Batman universe), and you have a movie that I flat-out hate. So all in all, Batman '89 wins pretty easily for me. Being a little biased towards the source material don't ya think? Automatically dismissing all of the changes as "wrong" for the sole reason of being different from the source is really idiotic thinking. I'll forward this to all of the people complaining about changes in Transformers, GI Joe, DragonBall and X-men. Why is it okay for Nolan to change things because of his 'vision' but when another franchise does it, It's raping childhoods?
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on May 21, 2009 12:53:25 GMT -5
I'm with him on everything but the action sequences, which I think still had too much shaky-cam on Dark Knight's part.
I did enjoy DK's philosophizing, though.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on May 21, 2009 13:04:05 GMT -5
The Dark Knight is far superior as a BATMAN movie. Only Nolan's movies seem to care about Bats himself, Burton (and most of the live-action Bat filmmakers after him) don't really care about character development for Bats so much as they do the villain. In fact, the best thing about The Dark Knight is that they never really explain how it is that the Joker got so mentally messed up, and its the villain's actions, rather than his origin (thankfully NOT another Spiderman villain sob story) that define him as evil.
Burton has always been a great stylistic visionary, but why do I feel more of an emotional connection to Pee Wee after 5 mins of Pee Wee's Big Adventure than to Batman in his entire movie?
And one final thing to everyone complaining about "fidelity to source material": In comic books, there are so many retcons, reboots, and staff changes that its hard to find one singular vision of the character. Other than Batman's origin, it's very hard to find a continuous "vision" of the character, esp. since his role, characterization, and even costume design have been through many changes.
|
|
|
Post by Free Hat on May 21, 2009 13:28:07 GMT -5
a Joker who wears frigging facepaint (a HUGE crime, if you know anything about the Batman universe), and you have a movie that I flat-out hate. So the fact that the Joker wore facepaint in his original apperances (and wasn't white because of chemicals) back in the 40s doesn't count then? And besides, Nolan tries to make the characters as realistic as possible. Sometimes a bit too realistic, I think, but a Joker with facepaint doesn't bother me, as it awould make sense for him to wear some kind of mask to hide his disfigured face and identity. Actually there's a couple of panels in Batman #1 where the Joker is seen without his shirt on, and his entire body is chalk white. So yes, his skin was bleached even in his earliest appearances, but it was just never mentioned. But as far as the source material goes, neither film is any more or less faithful than the other, as they both draw from different eras of the comics. In Burton's film, Batman is based mostly on the character's first appearances, with touches of the Dark Knight Returns thrown in for good measure. Batman is far more brutal in his methods and is willing to kill. The Joker on the other hand mostly takes his inspiration from the 70s comics, or at least that's how the character was written. Whether or not Nicholson captured that effectively is open for debate. TDK is basically the opposite in that it puts the 70's O'Neil era Batman against the Kane/Finger era Joker. Batman is psychologically troubled, but he's not constantly brooding like he is in the modern comics. Nolan also goes to the trouble of showing a lot more of his detective skills. Nolan's Joker draws from his first couple of appearances by just making him a little less clownish and more methodical in his scheming. The whole multiple origin thing also draws inspiration the Killing Joke. So in conclusion, neither is really unfaithful to the source material.
|
|
|
Post by zarius on May 21, 2009 13:51:11 GMT -5
Hey, I love Bob to. He's my number one guy, but when truly analyzing the supporting cast... from how well the actors played their part, to how much one likes them, to how big of a bearing they have on the story... Bob is a non-factor. "Gonna need a moment alone...."
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 21, 2009 14:07:59 GMT -5
The Dark Knight is far superior as a BATMAN movie. Only Nolan's movies seem to care about Bats himself, Burton (and most of the live-action Bat filmmakers after him) don't really care about character development for Bats so much as they do the villain. In fact, the best thing about The Dark Knight is that they never really explain how it is that the Joker got so mentally messed up, and its the villain's actions, rather than his origin (thankfully NOT another Spiderman villain sob story) that define him as evil. Burton has always been a great stylistic visionary, but why do I feel more of an emotional connection to Pee Wee after 5 mins of Pee Wee's Big Adventure than to Batman in his entire movie? And one final thing to everyone complaining about "fidelity to source material": In comic books, there are so many retcons, reboots, and staff changes that its hard to find one singular vision of the character. Other than Batman's origin, it's very hard to find a continuous "vision" of the character, esp. since his role, characterization, and even costume design have been through many changes. I think Burton kinda took the WCW with Scott Hall approach. Everyone knew Batman from the 1966 show, all the various cartoons, and action figures that had been out. Yeah, people knew who Joker was too...but they didn't know anything about Joker (unlike Batman) so I believe that's why Burton decided to focus more on the clown than the bat. It worked for me. I adore both movies to pieces, but I still like '89 just a teeny bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Mattification on May 21, 2009 18:32:02 GMT -5
I think people (and this goes for all comic book movies) would enjoy them a lot more if they accepted that the film isn`t just transferring the comics into motion pictures. Treat it as it`s own entity.
Most of the complaints I`ve heard about TDK, with the exception of the 'Batman voice' have been about how it`s not totally faithful to the comics etc. If you can get past that, there`s an amazing film waiting for you at the other side.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on May 21, 2009 20:43:44 GMT -5
Burton has always been a great stylistic visionary, but why do I feel more of an emotional connection to Pee Wee after 5 mins of Pee Wee's Big Adventure than to Batman in his entire movie? Paul Reubens had been portraying the Pee Wee character for several years before they made the movie. Michael Keaton didn't have that time-frame to "find" his Batman.
|
|