West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Now_Im_Not_Banned on July 27, 2008, 11:54:51 AM
-
With all the talk of the new "Batman" being one of the greatest films of all time and the best comic book movie ever made, I was wondering how many people still think the classic was the better movie. I personally do. Not to take anything away from "The Dark Night", cuz it was great, but I just prefer Burtons vision of "Batman"...I prefer Keaton to Bale and Jack to Heath (though both Bale and Heath handled their roles amazingly)...I just think you can't beat the classic. Whatdya say?
-
The Dark Knight, by a lot.
Batman Begins was also better.
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
-
Oh yeah and Keaton is a better Batman but Bale is a better Bruce Wayne
-
IMO, Batman > Batman Begins
I'm kinda split on who is the better Alfred.
-
Oh yeah and Keaton is a better Batman but Bale is a better Bruce Wayne
agreed, didnt like Bale as batman but did as Wayne
Old Alfred > This Alfred
Heath > Jack
Dark Knight > OG Batman
-
IMO, Batman > Batman Begins
I'm kinda split on who is the better Alfred.
OG Alfred.
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k169/naomicro/alfred.jpg)
-
I never thought Jack could be beat as Joker but Heath was better no doubt. Heath was Joker, he played that role so pefectly that it was scary, the movie was amazing and even though everyone in it did a great job, Heath flat out owned the movie.
-
I never thought Jack could be beat as Joker but Heath was better no doubt. Heath was Joker, he played that role so pefectly that it was scary, the movie was amazing and even though everyone in it did a great job, Heath flat out owned the movie.
co sign
-
IMO, Batman > Batman Begins
I'm kinda split on who is the better Alfred.
OG Alfred.
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k169/naomicro/alfred.jpg)
I think you're right. He would give his life for that nigga Bruce.
-
The Dark Knight, by a lot.
-
the dark knight is probably one of the greatest films ever made.
dark knight>batman
but that's overall
burton's batmobile>>>>>>nolan's
visually burton wins
i like both joker's equally the same......heath's was more raw and scary, where jack looked the part and was funny....both had classic lines though
i go back and forth between keaton and bale......i didn't really care for Batman begins, but absolutely love dark knight, but keaton was consistantly batman in both films he was in....i guess like someone said before....bale is a better Bruce and keaton is a better batman per se. i don't like how keaton's batman just let his chick always know his identity and shit
the score was infinitely better in the original .....the only good thing i think hans zimmer did with the score was that creepy high pitched sound that played everytime joker was on screen/about to be. but other than that Danny elfman is the KING
the bat symbol (as dumb as it is to talk about) is better in the OG.......it's just so much more artistic and visually compelling i just want to frame my dvd box when i see it....i mean shit you take a look
(http://www.sfilmscinema.com/Images/SubImages/Articles/Batman/Original%20Batman%20Cover.jpg) compared to(http://vook.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/tdk_logo.jpg)
-
the dark knight > batman begins > batman (1989)
i've never really liked any of the first 4 (batman, batman returns, batman & robin, batman forever) as they were quite campy and gay. jack didnt portray the joker, he was jack playing jack in makeup. the joker is meant to be scary, terrifying and make your kids have nightmares. heath got that accomplished. the joker killing batmans parents? yeah, lets just make some shit up. what about alfred bringing vicky vale down to the batcave? yeah, why not!
the first 4 weren't even batman movies, they simly took the batman character and made some shit up. nolan knows what he's doing, from batman begins it was evident that he was a fan of the source material. i can live with little things (league of shadows vs league of assassins et al), but to simply make shit up as you go along is wack.
the dark knight gets my vote
-
everyone point and laugh at the comic book nerd.
-
If we are going point for point, Batman (1989) vs. Dark Knight (2008) then I have to say this.
Bale was way better as Batman, I actually think Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. Keaton had Wayne's more personal side, Bale never let Wayne show his personal side. Keaton as Wayne way great because he owned Wayne's personal demons, and he allowed himself to have Wayne show his darkside, were as Bale was just the cocky jerk Wayne, Bale had tons more swag but didn't let you seen Wayne as who he is. As for Batman, visually, Bale had a way better Batman, he also had like 40 pounds on Keaton. This allowed for a more believable Batman, and Bale allowed for Batman to enter that grey area that Batman always does, that makes you think his crossing the edge were as Keaton's Batman didn't seem to be someone that will take it all the way to the edge.
So
Bruce Wayne:
Batman>Dark Knight
Batman:
Batman<Dark Knight
Joker:
Batman<Dark Knight
I love Jack, trust me, I love Jack, but Heath just dominated the role. There can never be another Joker, the role has been retired, 'cause Heath just made Joker the way he was suppose to be.
Alfred:
Batman>Dark Knight
Alfred in Batman was more involved, and he seemed like he would risk his like for Mr. Wayne, were as the Dark Knight's Alfred doesn't come off like that.
Com. Jim Gordon:
Batman<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Dark Knight
Gordon in Batman just seem to be there, Gordon in Dark Knight was a key player and aid to Batman the way he should be.
Harvey Dent:
Batman<<<<<<Dark Knight
There was so much potential for Harvey Dent in the first Batman series, in the Dark Knight you have a character that was built up, and made into Two-Face right before our eyes.
Theme music:
Batman>>>>>>>Dark Knight
Burton had that ear, I was sad to see Nolan didn't use the same score.
Symbol:
Batman>Dark Knight
Batman's symbol was much more 80's, and wouldn't be used now, but it's much better for posters.
Batmobile:
Batman>>>>>>Dark Knight
Batman always has a nice ride, and his cars are legendary, so to see a "tumbler" was sort of a let down.
Secondary transportation:
Batwing<<<<Batpod
The Batpod was just great, the Batwing looked nicer but was shot down. I want to rid the Batpod, the Batwing I fear wouldn't leave the ground.
Visual:
Batman<Dark Knight
Dark Knight was gritty, Batman was darker. To be darker than the Dark Knight is saying something, but Dark Knight looked more like real life.
-
Bale was way better as Batman, I actually think Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. Keaton had Wayne's more personal side, Bale never let Wayne show his personal side. Keaton as Wayne way great because he owned Wayne's personal demons, and he allowed himself to have Wayne show his darkside, were as Bale was just the cocky jerk Wayne, Bale had tons more swag but didn't let you seen Wayne as who he is. As for Batman, visually, Bale had a way better Batman, he also had like 40 pounds on Keaton. This allowed for a more believable Batman, and Bale allowed for Batman to enter that grey area that Batman always does, that makes you think his crossing the edge were as Keaton's Batman didn't seem to be someone that will take it all the way to the edge.
I thought Bale did show his more personal side in both Begins and TDK, specifically whenever he would talk to Alfred.
-
Bale was way better as Batman, I actually think Keaton was a better Bruce Wayne. Keaton had Wayne's more personal side, Bale never let Wayne show his personal side. Keaton as Wayne way great because he owned Wayne's personal demons, and he allowed himself to have Wayne show his darkside, were as Bale was just the cocky jerk Wayne, Bale had tons more swag but didn't let you seen Wayne as who he is. As for Batman, visually, Bale had a way better Batman, he also had like 40 pounds on Keaton. This allowed for a more believable Batman, and Bale allowed for Batman to enter that grey area that Batman always does, that makes you think his crossing the edge were as Keaton's Batman didn't seem to be someone that will take it all the way to the edge.
I thought Bale did show his more personal side in both Begins and TDK, specifically whenever he would talk to Alfred.
Not at the level of Keaton, who would show a side that could be hurt, where as Bale showed off Wayne as some who was personal to Alfred, but not to Rachael, not to anyone else. Keaton showed a crazy side in his exchange with Joker in Vicki Vale. Bale seemed more reserved as Wayne, but Keaton seemed way more at ease playing the role. I said it many times in my life, Keaton was not a great Batman, too small, not rough enough with villians other than Joker at the end, but he played a DAMN GOOD Bruce Wayne. Bale is a GREAT BATMAN, from tapping cell phones to his obsession with stopping Joker, though still saving his life.
-
We all have good memories of the old Batman, but watch it again after you've watched The Dark Knight. It's zero competition in every category. Set design, directing, story, acting, Dark Knight is superior in every single way. No one could possibly say Jack's Joker was better. Heath captured the role perfectly. And Keaton did a terrible job, bad acting, bad everything. Same with Clooney and Kilmer, horrible acting.
-
And Keaton did a terrible job
LOL
-
the new one, no fuckin doubt
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
Church...
-
It's been ages since I saw those "old school" Batman movies, so I can't say really, but the Dark Knight is an awesome movie!
Anyway, the old batmobile kicks the new batmobile's ass! Damn I hate that new one!
-
the dark knight > batman begins > batman (1989)
i've never really liked any of the first 4 (batman, batman returns, batman & robin, batman forever) as they were quite campy and gay. jack didnt portray the joker, he was jack playing jack in makeup. the joker is meant to be scary, terrifying and make your kids have nightmares. heath got that accomplished. the joker killing batmans parents? yeah, lets just make some shit up. what about alfred bringing vicky vale down to the batcave? yeah, why not!
the first 4 weren't even batman movies, they simly took the batman character and made some shit up. nolan knows what he's doing, from batman begins it was evident that he was a fan of the source material. i can live with little things (league of shadows vs league of assassins et al), but to simply make shit up as you go along is wack.
the dark knight gets my vote
+1...great point.
Dark Knight > Batman Begins > Batman
-
"I love Jack, trust me, I love Jack, but Heath just dominated the role. There can never be another Joker, the role has been retired, 'cause Heath just made Joker the way he was suppose to be."
Heath's acting was Oscar worthy but the Joker character is far bigger than any A-list actor. Warner Bros will reboot the franchise in ten years with a new cast, director etc., for the new generation of fans.
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
pretty much
-
It's hard to say, the Dark Knight was probably more entertaining because of the improved special effects and plot twists. It's hard to beat the classics though.
-
the dark knight > batman begins > batman (1989)
i've never really liked any of the first 4 (batman, batman returns, batman & robin, batman forever) as they were quite campy and gay. jack didnt portray the joker, he was jack playing jack in makeup. the joker is meant to be scary, terrifying and make your kids have nightmares. heath got that accomplished. the joker killing batmans parents? yeah, lets just make some shit up. what about alfred bringing vicky vale down to the batcave? yeah, why not!
the first 4 weren't even batman movies, they simly took the batman character and made some shit up. nolan knows what he's doing, from batman begins it was evident that he was a fan of the source material. i can live with little things (league of shadows vs league of assassins et al), but to simply make shit up as you go along is wack.
the dark knight gets my vote
+1...great point.
Dark Knight > Batman Begins > Batman
-
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 '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 '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,
-
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.
-
The Dark Knight is easily the better movie, that cant be debated
-
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.
-
^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.
-
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
-
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
-
^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
-
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? 8)
-
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....
-
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
-
Old Batman will ALWAYS be the vest.
Never seen any of this NEW shit cause thats all it is, a shit remake.
-
Old Batman will ALWAYS be the vest.
?
-
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.
-
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.
-
They sucked as films.
off
-
Old Batman will ALWAYS be the vest.
Never seen any of this NEW shit cause thats all it is, a shit remake.
That's the worst opinion/attitude to have.
How can anyone say Jack was better then Ledger as Joker. Batman isn't a comedy, or a dark comedy. Everything about TDK is better then any 4 of the originals. Nolan also gives more coherent stories. In the comics, the villains didn't all die at the end of each film. The first 4 were childish, simple minded films.
-
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.
I say Batman is better than Superman, but both sequels blow huge chunks. No need debating this though, I'm having a better time debating Sccit on his Batman opinions.
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
pretty much
Yup. I prefer the new ones today though.
Although I gotta say I still love Jack Nicholson's Joker. Ledger's Joker was better - I was tripping over the fact that they could make the movie crowd laugh out loud when The Joker killed the guy with the pencil. They didn't reach absurdity like that with Jack, but I still loved Jack's performace.
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
pretty much
Yup. I prefer the new ones today though.
Although I gotta say I still love Jack Nicholson's Joker. Ledger's Joker was better - I was tripping over the fact that they could make the movie crowd laugh out loud when The Joker killed the guy with the pencil. They didn't reach absurdity like that with Jack, but I still loved Jack's performace.
Nolan did put some of the old movie, like when Joker was hanging at the end, only he had Batman save him.
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
pretty much
Yup. I prefer the new ones today though.
Although I gotta say I still love Jack Nicholson's Joker. Ledger's Joker was better - I was tripping over the fact that they could make the movie crowd laugh out loud when The Joker killed the guy with the pencil. They didn't reach absurdity like that with Jack, but I still loved Jack's performace.
Nolan did put some of the old movie, like when Joker was hanging at the end, only he had Batman save him.
I figured he did that to rib the old movie. The point is that Batman doesn't let people die. Batman would not have let the Joker fall in any case. Nolan was saying tisk tisk Tim Burton.
And NIK. You talk as if Burton films (any Burton films, not just Batman) are high art. Newsflash. He's never really been that praised. He's a poor man's Kubrick who tries to hard.
-
Based on a lot of your opinions alone guys I can see why Bush got elected twice. People are fuckin' stupid by and large.
-
^ Primo pic ^.
The new Batman is awesome...............but........Batman '89 was the shiit!
-
Dark Night but not by alot
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
pretty much
Yup. I prefer the new ones today though.
Although I gotta say I still love Jack Nicholson's Joker. Ledger's Joker was better - I was tripping over the fact that they could make the movie crowd laugh out loud when The Joker killed the guy with the pencil. They didn't reach absurdity like that with Jack, but I still loved Jack's performace.
Nolan did put some of the old movie, like when Joker was hanging at the end, only he had Batman save him.
I figured he did that to rib the old movie. The point is that Batman doesn't let people die. Batman would not have let the Joker fall in any case. Nolan was saying tisk tisk Tim Burton.
And NIK. You talk as if Burton films (any Burton films, not just Batman) are high art. Newsflash. He's never really been that praised. He's a poor man's Kubrick who tries to hard.
LMAO@"poor mans Kubrick"...wow.
-
The OG Batman is nostalgic. It reminds us of our childhood which is why we all like it a lot. The Dark Knight is clearly the better movie though. I even dusted off my old VHS copy of Batman and watched it the other day just to be sure.
pretty much
Yup. I prefer the new ones today though.
Although I gotta say I still love Jack Nicholson's Joker. Ledger's Joker was better - I was tripping over the fact that they could make the movie crowd laugh out loud when The Joker killed the guy with the pencil. They didn't reach absurdity like that with Jack, but I still loved Jack's performace.
Nolan did put some of the old movie, like when Joker was hanging at the end, only he had Batman save him.
I figured he did that to rib the old movie. The point is that Batman doesn't let people die. Batman would not have let the Joker fall in any case. Nolan was saying tisk tisk Tim Burton.
And NIK. You talk as if Burton films (any Burton films, not just Batman) are high art. Newsflash. He's never really been that praised. He's a poor man's Kubrick who tries to hard.
LMAO@"poor mans Kubrick"...wow.
OK, you win. Batman is better than Dark Knight. Tim Burton is better than Stanley Kubrick. And let's say Jack Nicholson is better than Marlon Brando.
I never realized that Burton was superior to Kubrick until I read it coming out of your post. props!
-
I never said Burton is superior to Kubrick...he's obvious not. But to imply that Burton is a "poor mans Kubrick" would be just as ridiculous.
-
I never said Burton is superior to Kubrick...he's obvious not. But to imply that Burton is a "poor mans Kubrick" would be just as ridiculous.
Well you should have said it because it's correct. Burton>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kubrick.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
-
^^ do you write blogs Nik? You should write em i think people would think your very opininated and a asshole but would keep reading you. I seriously think you should write blogs
-
LMAO at NIK! You know less about movies then you do about Basketball
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
-
LMAO at NIK! You know less about movies then you do about Basketball
You're a sore loser...literally. sore because you're a loser in reality. now go jerk to true romance, geek.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
-
^^ do you write blogs Nik? You should write em i think people would think your very opininated and a asshole but would keep reading you. I seriously think you should write blogs
naah...im not down.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
Kubrick was a director with a unique visual style that he used to create abstract art. As shown in Strangelove, Space Odyssey, and Clockwork.
Now what would the opposite of that be? Hmmm....
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
Kubrick was a director with a unique visual style that he used to create abstract art. As shown in Strangelove, Space Odyssey, and Clockwork.
Now what would the opposite of that be? Hmmm....
you STILL called Burton a "poor mans Kubrick"...it was STILL a retarded statement.
-
I just saw the dark night...shit was tight...a good 9/10 8) 8) 8)
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
Kubrick was a director with a unique visual style that he used to create abstract art. As shown in Strangelove, Space Odyssey, and Clockwork.
Now what would the opposite of that be? Hmmm....
you STILL called Burton a "poor mans Kubrick"...it was STILL a retarded statement.
And I'm STILL saying it now. If you want weird storylines with great visuals you go rent a Kubrick film. If they are all rented and you don't have the money to buy one you rent a Burton film, or buy one from the bargain bin. Beetlejuice comes pretty cheap these days.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
Kubrick was a director with a unique visual style that he used to create abstract art. As shown in Strangelove, Space Odyssey, and Clockwork.
Now what would the opposite of that be? Hmmm....
you STILL called Burton a "poor mans Kubrick"...it was STILL a retarded statement.
And I'm STILL saying it now. If you want weird storylines with great visuals you go rent a Kubrick film. If they are all rented and you don't have the money to buy one you rent a Burton film, or buy one from the bargain bin. Beetlejuice comes pretty cheap these days.
i think you are forgetting this gem
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/196538~Mars-Attacks-Posters.jpg)
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
Kubrick was a director with a unique visual style that he used to create abstract art. As shown in Strangelove, Space Odyssey, and Clockwork.
Now what would the opposite of that be? Hmmm....
you STILL called Burton a "poor mans Kubrick"...it was STILL a retarded statement.
And I'm STILL saying it now. If you want weird storylines with great visuals you go rent a Kubrick film. If they are all rented and you don't have the money to buy one you rent a Burton film, or buy one from the bargain bin. Beetlejuice comes pretty cheap these days.
i think you are forgetting this gem
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/196538~Mars-Attacks-Posters.jpg)
I was counting Burton's best stuff. That film makes him a poor man's Hype Williams.
-
you're either a total idiot or a extremely unfunny person. i'll go with the latter.
Stick to basketball, because you don't know fucking shit about movies. Calling Burton a poor man's Kubrick is a complement because it puts Burton in the same sentence as Kubrick and he doesn't even belong in the same book. Kubrick was a masterful genius. Burton pretends to be one and he may even have convinced himself that he is. Now he'll never win an Oscar. That's fine because many greats over the years werere ahead of their time, but no one will ever look back on the shit Tim Burton calls art and ever say he was robbed. He sucks. He's barely better than Tarantino. He just throws a bunch of weird characters in with goofy colours and thinks it's visual high art. It's not. I hate his work almost as much as I hate Paul Haggis. The thing is, I'm not even that huge a Kubrick fan.
the whole point is that their whole style is nothing alike, genius...it's obviously YOU who knows nothing about movies.
I know they are nothing alike. Burton is shit. Kubrick is not shit. That's the whole point.
smart guy...in order for you to label Burton a "poor mans Kubrick", he has to have a similar style to Kubrick, or somewhat of a copied style. do you realize that Burton is like the opposite of Kubrick? come on, now. thats more pathetic than spice saying i know nothing about movies only because he likes my cock in his mouth.
Kubrick was a director with a unique visual style that he used to create abstract art. As shown in Strangelove, Space Odyssey, and Clockwork.
Now what would the opposite of that be? Hmmm....
you STILL called Burton a "poor mans Kubrick"...it was STILL a retarded statement.
And I'm STILL saying it now. If you want weird storylines with great visuals you go rent a Kubrick film. If they are all rented and you don't have the money to buy one you rent a Burton film, or buy one from the bargain bin. Beetlejuice comes pretty cheap these days.
i think you are forgetting this gem
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/196538~Mars-Attacks-Posters.jpg)
I was counting Burton's best stuff. That film makes him a poor man's Hype Williams.
That movie was ill... what you talking about? I loved that movie... great high movie... after a lot of 151
-
I was feeling the same way about mainstream movies that I felt about hip-hop... all show and no substance. I had not seen a new movie this year just as I had not bought a new album this year (except for the nas album, which I didn't like much anyway).
I happened to catch Dark knight by accident because other people were watching a bootleg version at one of the places I work. And I must say....
Dark knight is to movies what Detox is supposed to be for hiphop! It really set a new standard. The plot was intricate and detailed, batmans character was inspiring, and Heath Ledger was larger than life as the Joker. I couldn't believe it because I thought it would be like all other big budget movies... sexy women, big explosions, and st8 bullshit! But this was suprisingly good.
IT MAKES ALL THE OLD BATMAN MOVIES AND TV SHOWS LOOK CHEESY AS HELL. All the corny lines, predictable superhero plots.
-
I was feeling the same way about mainstream movies that I felt about hip-hop... all show and no substance. I had not seen a new movie this year just as I had not bought a new album this year (except for the nas album, which I didn't like much anyway).
I happened to catch Dark knight by accident because other people were watching a bootleg version at one of the places I work. And I must say....
Dark knight is to movies what Detox is supposed to be for hiphop! It really set a new standard. The plot was intricate and detailed, batmans character was inspiring, and Heath Ledger was larger than life as the Joker. I couldn't believe it because I thought it would be like all other big budget movies... sexy women, big explosions, and st8 bullshit! But this was suprisingly good.
IT MAKES ALL THE OLD BATMAN MOVIES AND TV SHOWS LOOK CHEESY AS HELL. All the corny lines, predictable superhero plots.
Well said. Except Batman Begins, which isn't as good as DK, also eliminated the cheesy crap.
-
In the hospital scene, Ledger's Joker looked like the angry love child of Ronald McDonald and Wendy's...
-
In the hospital scene, Ledger's Joker looked like the angry love child of Ronald McDonald and Wendy's...
lol...+1 8) 8) 8)
-
"Mars Attacks" was fire...stop the hatin.
-
"Mars Attacks" was fire...stop the hatin.
word son... 8) 8) 8)
-
every movie tim burton has done has been tight, except sweeney todd.
-
every movie tim burton has done has been tight, except sweeney todd.
I thought "Sweeney Todd" was great.
-
i coudlnt get passed the singing
-
every movie tim burton has done has been tight, except sweeney todd.
Money.
but I didn't like Big Fish either. I fell asleep :(
-
big fish is amazing. gut you a peach optimo and blaze it up and i'd bet you'd change your mind.
-
the dark knight was way way way better beyond batman
-
batman in '89 was the shit. i went to see that.