Batman (1989) vs Batman: The Dark Night (2008)

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Batman '89 fucking sucks. It sucked in 89 and it still sucks now. It's not even close to anything Nolan has done with Batman in the last two films, whether we are judging as a portrayal of Batman or as a film in general. Batman was a cheezy, cookie cutter, paint by numbers action film with zero going for it. Dark Knight is a masterful film worthy of high praise. Seriously, comparing Dark Knight or Begins to anything Burton did is like comparing Batman '89 to the 60s TV show (except at least Adam West and the boys knew they were bein campy. I think Burton actually thought he was making a dark film).

"Batman" and "Batman Returns" = classics. get over it.

Batman Begins & The Dark Knight>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman & Batman Returns........ get over it

Batman was alright, I'll give it that, it set the bar, but Spiderman far exceded that bar that with Spiderman 1&2 that Batman is not worth mentioning anymore. I mean dogg, Batman was a dated movie the moment the year ended, it was heavy in the 80's, when the 80's were coming to a close. That's why Batman Returns had a different look, but as Burton feared, Batman Returns had too many characters. This is why Burton never introduced Robin (Marlon Waynes was even casted and paid for the part), because Batman didn't seem to fit Robin, and Batman Returns had too many characters. They were decent movies, worthy of passing the bar that the first two Superman movies set (number 3&4 never happened, just like Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and Spiderman 3, and I have yet to see X-Men III so I'll throw that in too) and allowing superhero movies to get away from being like the comic book and telling a story that will connect with the popular crowd. But at the end of the day, the Batman series don't touch the Dark Knight series. Seriously Heath was better than Jack, Batman Begins set up Dark Knight perfectly where as Batman Returns seemed to have no flow coming in from Batman, and the story of Bruce Wayne is easier to follow with Nolan telling it as oppose to Burton,

Your analogies make no sense..."Batman" may not have been true to the comics, but it was great as a film.

[S P I C E]

The Dark Knight is easily the better movie,  that cant be debated

[M Dogg™]

Batman '89 fucking sucks. It sucked in 89 and it still sucks now. It's not even close to anything Nolan has done with Batman in the last two films, whether we are judging as a portrayal of Batman or as a film in general. Batman was a cheezy, cookie cutter, paint by numbers action film with zero going for it. Dark Knight is a masterful film worthy of high praise. Seriously, comparing Dark Knight or Begins to anything Burton did is like comparing Batman '89 to the 60s TV show (except at least Adam West and the boys knew they were bein campy. I think Burton actually thought he was making a dark film).

"Batman" and "Batman Returns" = classics. get over it.

Batman Begins & The Dark Knight>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman & Batman Returns........ get over it

Batman was alright, I'll give it that, it set the bar, but Spiderman far exceded that bar that with Spiderman 1&2 that Batman is not worth mentioning anymore. I mean dogg, Batman was a dated movie the moment the year ended, it was heavy in the 80's, when the 80's were coming to a close. That's why Batman Returns had a different look, but as Burton feared, Batman Returns had too many characters. This is why Burton never introduced Robin (Marlon Waynes was even casted and paid for the part), because Batman didn't seem to fit Robin, and Batman Returns had too many characters. They were decent movies, worthy of passing the bar that the first two Superman movies set (number 3&4 never happened, just like Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and Spiderman 3, and I have yet to see X-Men III so I'll throw that in too) and allowing superhero movies to get away from being like the comic book and telling a story that will connect with the popular crowd. But at the end of the day, the Batman series don't touch the Dark Knight series. Seriously Heath was better than Jack, Batman Begins set up Dark Knight perfectly where as Batman Returns seemed to have no flow coming in from Batman, and the story of Bruce Wayne is easier to follow with Nolan telling it as oppose to Burton,

Your analogies make no sense..."Batman" may not have been true to the comics, but it was great as a film.

As I said,Batman made it ok to go away from the comic if it means a better story in the movie. My main point was that Batman was dated by years end. In a movie so engulfed in the 80's, the movie was out of style by 1990. Also, Batman Begins and Dark Knight both were far greater than Batman and Batman Returns it's not funny. The two movies were stories that flowed well, and made sense. Batman and Batman Returns were movies that seemed to throw stuff on the wall and saw what sticks. Dripping somewhat into the comics by dropping Joker into acid, and having the Joker kill people by having them laugh to death was very well done, but killing Bruce's parents, and then killing Joker at the end both seemed to be controversial to comic book fans, and then on Batman Returns there was little mention to the events on Batman, Catwoman coming to life instead of being a jewel theft did not work out in the movie, and maybe adding Marlon Wayne as Robin might have been a good idea after all. (that's not a good thing) Also, the Burton's lack of establishing Jim Gordon as a major charactor and having Harvey Dent (played by Billy Dee Williams actually, which I agreed with) more of a presents seemed to have them just sitting there, and you don't feel the importance of either in the series. When Two-Face (now played by Tommy Lee Jones) says to Batman that Bruce Wayne was a good friend to him, you don't realize it because there is no character development from Batman on who is Harvey Dent. In the Dark Knight, you know who Harvey Dent is, and you know what he means to the city. You know Jim Gordon from Batman Begins, and how he became a great cop in the series. Burton was great at building up Joker vs. Batman, but the movies fell flat because there was no development of anyone else.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

^I agree that "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" were garbage, but the Tim Burton films were classics as far as stand-alone films go. Forget the comics...they were done very well as individual movies, and that's not very debatble.

[Don Jacob]

you know what i don't know what it is with people on here and the comics they read


every comic book nerd i work with or have met in real life said they love the first two batman movies


i'm not all up into comic books...never have, never will, but i do know a good movie when i see it



i like

batman-1989
batman returns-1992
the dark knight-2008


i think these movies were "aright"

batman forever-1995
batman begins-2005

i think these movies are corny

OG batman movie-1960's (?)
batman and robin

[J Bananas]

you know what i don't know what it is with people on here and the comics they read


every comic book nerd i work with or have met in real life said they love the first two batman movies


i'm not all up into comic books...never have, never will, but i do know a good movie when i see it



i like

batman-1989
batman returns-1992
the dark knight-2008


i think these movies were "aright"

batman forever-1995
batman begins-2005

i think these movies are corny

OG batman movie-1960's (?)
batman and robin

+1 agree to the fullest

[M Dogg™]

^I agree that "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" were garbage, but the Tim Burton films were classics as far as stand-alone films go. Forget the comics...they were done very well as individual movies, and that's not very debatble.

as I said, Batman OG followed the comics to an extent too, more so on developing Joker than Dark Knight, BUT, Dark Knight and Batman Begins set up a whole Gotham, complete with Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent and a whole city. Tell me how big Harvey Dent was in Batman, was he even in Batman Returns. You are living in the past. Watch the DVDs again, then watch Batman Begins and Dark Knight again, tell me if your opinion stays the same.

you know what i don't know what it is with people on here and the comics they read


every comic book nerd i work with or have met in real life said they love the first two batman movies


i'm not all up into comic books...never have, never will, but i do know a good movie when i see it



i like

batman-1989
batman returns-1992
the dark knight-2008


i think these movies were "aright"

batman forever-1995
batman begins-2005

i think these movies are corny

OG batman movie-1960's (?)
batman and robin

As I said, Batman follows the comics as well, most are still mad over Joker killing Batman, as I said it help build a movie though.

I rank them different

Loved:
Dark Knight

Liked:
Batman
Batman Begins

Alright:
Batman Returns
Batman Forever

Sucked:
Batman: the Movie
Batman & Robin

Want to see:
The Batman serials... lol

[David Mack]

y'all a bunch of youngstas that were suckin on ya momma's titty when da OG batman came out nigga. But don't trip G da Homeboy Kimbo fenna educate ya fools. Kimbo done be the hood batman ya feel me!! I represent da hood and if dat hollywood batman mafaka wants some ya betta believe Kimbo gonna whoop dat ass like poontang ya dig?

[Sweet & Tender Hooligan]

Batman '89 fucking sucks. It sucked in 89 and it still sucks now. It's not even close to anything Nolan has done with Batman in the last two films, whether we are judging as a portrayal of Batman or as a film in general. Batman was a cheezy, cookie cutter, paint by numbers action film with zero going for it. Dark Knight is a masterful film worthy of high praise. Seriously, comparing Dark Knight or Begins to anything Burton did is like comparing Batman '89 to the 60s TV show (except at least Adam West and the boys knew they were bein campy. I think Burton actually thought he was making a dark film).

"Batman" and "Batman Returns" = classics. get over it.

Batman Begins & The Dark Knight>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman & Batman Returns........ get over it

Batman was alright, I'll give it that, it set the bar, but Spiderman far exceded that bar that with Spiderman 1&2 that Batman is not worth mentioning anymore. I mean dogg, Batman was a dated movie the moment the year ended, it was heavy in the 80's, when the 80's were coming to a close. That's why Batman Returns had a different look, but as Burton feared, Batman Returns had too many characters. This is why Burton never introduced Robin (Marlon Waynes was even casted and paid for the part), because Batman didn't seem to fit Robin, and Batman Returns had too many characters. They were decent movies, worthy of passing the bar that the first two Superman movies set (number 3&4 never happened, just like Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and Spiderman 3, and I have yet to see X-Men III so I'll throw that in too) and allowing superhero movies to get away from being like the comic book and telling a story that will connect with the popular crowd. But at the end of the day, the Batman series don't touch the Dark Knight series. Seriously Heath was better than Jack, Batman Begins set up Dark Knight perfectly where as Batman Returns seemed to have no flow coming in from Batman, and the story of Bruce Wayne is easier to follow with Nolan telling it as oppose to Burton,

Your analogies make no sense..."Batman" may not have been true to the comics, but it was great as a film.

As I said,Batman made it ok to go away from the comic if it means a better story in the movie. My main point was that Batman was dated by years end. In a movie so engulfed in the 80's, the movie was out of style by 1990. Also, Batman Begins and Dark Knight both were far greater than Batman and Batman Returns it's not funny. The two movies were stories that flowed well, and made sense. Batman and Batman Returns were movies that seemed to throw stuff on the wall and saw what sticks. Dripping somewhat into the comics by dropping Joker into acid, and having the Joker kill people by having them laugh to death was very well done, but killing Bruce's parents, and then killing Joker at the end both seemed to be controversial to comic book fans, and then on Batman Returns there was little mention to the events on Batman, Catwoman coming to life instead of being a jewel theft did not work out in the movie, and maybe adding Marlon Wayne as Robin might have been a good idea after all. (that's not a good thing) Also, the Burton's lack of establishing Jim Gordon as a major charactor and having Harvey Dent (played by Billy Dee Williams actually, which I agreed with) more of a presents seemed to have them just sitting there, and you don't feel the importance of either in the series. When Two-Face (now played by Tommy Lee Jones) says to Batman that Bruce Wayne was a good friend to him, you don't realize it because there is no character development from Batman on who is Harvey Dent. In the Dark Knight, you know who Harvey Dent is, and you know what he means to the city. You know Jim Gordon from Batman Begins, and how he became a great cop in the series. Burton was great at building up Joker vs. Batman, but the movies fell flat because there was no development of anyone else.

Agree with everything this guy has said in the thread so far....

[Javier]

Batman Begins was amazing.  It's the first super hero movie that got into the psychology of what it means to be one, which resulted into a great character study.  That's what separates Nolan's films to Burton's.  It's not the realism, it's not which one is more true to the comics, etc...it's about the substance of the character.  This is also the reason why the sequel is special, because not only the substance is there Batman but it's also there with the Joker and Two-Face.  That's why I i get confused when people like The Dark Knight, without even seeing Batman Begins.  My guess is that they only like The Dark Knight because of the Joker's performance and stunts done in the movie, but the movie is much deeper than that. 


Style vs Substance

[Kilo4]

Old Batman will ALWAYS be the vest.

Never seen any of this NEW shit cause thats all it is, a shit remake.

[K.Dub]

Old Batman will ALWAYS be the vest.

?

[Styles1]

Jack is a superior Joker. He didn't need to be an ultra-violent character in order to make the Joker work. He turned in a comedic performance with a nice touch of psychopathy.

The new Batman movie is a better written story and has the advantage of newer technology.

As far as the "comics" go....thats only basing it on a certain "set" of newer comics. The Batman comics have been written for decades, so who's to say which movie follows the comics the best? The Batman comics haven't been that "dark" for 5 or 6 decades.   

[Shallow]

Batman '89 fucking sucks. It sucked in 89 and it still sucks now. It's not even close to anything Nolan has done with Batman in the last two films, whether we are judging as a portrayal of Batman or as a film in general. Batman was a cheezy, cookie cutter, paint by numbers action film with zero going for it. Dark Knight is a masterful film worthy of high praise. Seriously, comparing Dark Knight or Begins to anything Burton did is like comparing Batman '89 to the 60s TV show (except at least Adam West and the boys knew they were bein campy. I think Burton actually thought he was making a dark film).

"Batman" and "Batman Returns" = classics. get over it.

Batman Begins & The Dark Knight>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman & Batman Returns........ get over it

Batman was alright, I'll give it that, it set the bar, but Spiderman far exceded that bar that with Spiderman 1&2 that Batman is not worth mentioning anymore. I mean dogg, Batman was a dated movie the moment the year ended, it was heavy in the 80's, when the 80's were coming to a close. That's why Batman Returns had a different look, but as Burton feared, Batman Returns had too many characters. This is why Burton never introduced Robin (Marlon Waynes was even casted and paid for the part), because Batman didn't seem to fit Robin, and Batman Returns had too many characters. They were decent movies, worthy of passing the bar that the first two Superman movies set (number 3&4 never happened, just like Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, and Spiderman 3, and I have yet to see X-Men III so I'll throw that in too) and allowing superhero movies to get away from being like the comic book and telling a story that will connect with the popular crowd. But at the end of the day, the Batman series don't touch the Dark Knight series. Seriously Heath was better than Jack, Batman Begins set up Dark Knight perfectly where as Batman Returns seemed to have no flow coming in from Batman, and the story of Bruce Wayne is easier to follow with Nolan telling it as oppose to Burton,

Your analogies make no sense..."Batman" may not have been true to the comics, but it was great as a film.

Fuck true to the comics. They sucked as films. I could give a shit how true to the comics any super hero film is as long as it's a good film (Blade wasn't even close to the comics but it was far better than it would have been if they did follow the comic). Batman and Batman Returns we're shitty corny movies that pretended to be more than they were. They were just bad attempts at re-creating Beeltejuice with a Edward Scissorhands twist for the second film.

They were decent movies, worthy of passing the bar that the first two Superman movies set

Superman 1 and 2 blow Batman and Returns out of the water.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

They sucked as films.

off