Face it about Burton's Batman movies...

[TomServoFan]

Without them and their successes, the new cinematic franchise and the animated series would never happen.

I think they both brought Batman back to the public as making him cool and discarding his 60's goofy image to his dark "Kane/Miller'-esque self. The first one even made hollywood history as one of the highest grossing movies of all time and even some academy award nominations especially Nicholson whom is on the AFI's top 100 cinematic villains list, especially the original movie having so much craze and merchandise it was the year of the Bat.

[CBikle]

I agree and I'll take it a little further.

The success of the Batman franchise opened the door for all the superhero movies that have come since, including The Mask and the Spider Man and X-Men franchises.

[caboose]

Without them and their successes, the new cinematic franchise and the animated series would never happen.

I think they both brought Batman back to the public as making him cool and discarding his 60's goofy image to his dark "Kane/Miller'-esque self. The first one even made hollywood history as one of the highest grossing movies of all time and even some academy award nominations especially Nicholson whom is on the AFI's top 100 cinematic villains list, especially the original movie having so much craze and merchandise it was the year of the Bat.

No ones ever denied what you're saying, but others have put it in a less baiting manner.

[TomServoFan]

Afterall in the late 80's, the Superman movie franchise crashed and burned but this movie gave new faith that people can do comic book movies again and successful ones.

[Heraclevs]

One could argue that Burton's Batman wouldn't have been possible without the phenomenal success of Miller's "Dark Knight Returns." Without that, the property wouldn't have been such an attractive temptation to film.


- Romans 9

[The Zapper]

Without them and their successes, the new cinematic franchise and the animated series would never happen.

I think they both brought Batman back to the public as making him cool and discarding his 60's goofy image to his dark "Kane/Miller'-esque self. The first one even made hollywood history as one of the highest grossing movies of all time and even some academy award nominations especially Nicholson whom is on the AFI's top 100 cinematic villains list, especially the original movie having so much craze and merchandise it was the year of the Bat.

Perhaps, but perhaps something else would have filled the void. It's hard to tell. Now I'll agree that Batman (1989) was directly responsible for BTAS, but that's about it.

[pariah-1972]

Peoiple don't want to give the original Burton Film credit for doing a lot of things possibly because it wasn't gritty or realistic enough.
to that i say "BAH"

[Totoro Man]

Without them and their successes, the new cinematic franchise and the animated series would never happen.

I think they both brought Batman back to the public as making him cool and discarding his 60's goofy image to his dark "Kane/Miller'-esque self. The first one even made hollywood history as one of the highest grossing movies of all time and even some academy award nominations especially Nicholson whom is on the AFI's top 100 cinematic villains list, especially the original movie having so much craze and merchandise it was the year of the Bat.

yeah. I think everybody would acknowledge this.

so... what's your point?

it still doesn't change the fact that I like "Batman Begins" better than ANY of the Burton films. and it doesn't change the fact that "Batman: the Animated Series", in my opinion is STILL better than any of the live action movies.

on a visual level, I've got no complaints about the Burton Batman movies--not a single one.

I just like the new adaptation better.

if the whole point of this thread is "you SHOULD like the Burton batman films better because I just happen to like them best"... :rolleyes:

then this thread is pointless. if you're doing this to say, "give Burton some props, will ya?"

I'll say. "yep, he did a great service to the Batman franchise."

so, if you're trolling for accolades for Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns"...I just wanted to say, "Batman Begins" is STILL a better movie. :p

Kevin Conroy STILL does a better interpretation of Batman than Micheal Keaton. and I believe that Mark Hamill's Joker is much better than Jack Nicholson's. :D

[TomServoFan]

No way, Caesar Romero does a live-action Joker better then Ledger and Nicholson combined.

[Totoro Man]

Peoiple don't want to give the original Burton Film credit for doing a lot of things possibly because it wasn't gritty or realistic enough.
to that i say "BAH"

that's not the real problem. the problem is well... Batman killing people. the Joker 'creating' Batman for the sake of "drama". Batman revealing his secret identity to a new strange woman in every damned movie! having the Joker steal every friggin scene from Batman... there were lots of problems with the Burton Batman films. the fact that they were dark and gritty and realistic (relative to Batman, at the time, they WERE!) was the least of my complaints!

it was certainly more believable than Frank Miller's "the Dark Knight Returns"!!:eek:

[Totoro Man]

No way, Caesar Romero does a live-action Joker better then Ledger and Nicholson combined.

hah, so you STILL think Mark Hamill's better than Nicholson? ;) I'd take Ceasar Romero over Nicholson too.

opinions will vary. and isn't it obvious I'm simply goading you? :D

[TomServoFan]

Well what i'm saying is that sure Begins is better then both Burton movies but i still think Burton's Batman movies were great in their own right! They were much better then Schumacher's.

[Totoro Man]

hahahah, THAT'S for sure.

I love Burton's visual style, though. I prefer the set design and the gothic kookiness. and Burton never had such a sanctimonious, annoying Katie Holmes character in it... which helps things out a bit.

I'd -almost- bet money that Maggie Gyllenhall will do more to get me to like that character than Katie Holmes could ever do. maybe I won't be rooting for her to die (again)... maybe not. if she's still written as a sanctimonious twerp--then probably not. :rolleyes:

[willtupper]

Said it before, and I'll say it again: Batman Begins is a Tim Burton movie.

You have Batman.

You have a big bad guy with a mysterious past, that has several connections to our hero in question.

You have him TRYING TO GAS THE WHOLE CITY. That's right. In BOTH MOVIES.

They're almost twin brothers to one another. And sure, Burton's version is a little LARGER than LIFE, but that's alright. Because that's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh... I like it :).

But, seriously... they're the same dang movies.

[EmeraldOutlaw]

No way, Caesar Romero does a live-action Joker better then Ledger and Nicholson combined.

Considering we haven't seen the full out Ledger portrayal yet, I don't think this is a fair claim to make. And if Ledger's work is only half as true to the Killing Joke source material he referenced, I'll give him the edge over goofy Romero any day of the week.

[pariah-1972]

that's not the real problem. the problem is well... Batman killing people. the Joker 'creating' Batman for the sake of "drama". Batman revealing his secret identity to a new strange woman in every damned movie! having the Joker steal every friggin scene from Batman... there were lots of problems with the Burton Batman films. the fact that they were dark and gritty and realistic (relative to Batman, at the time, they WERE!) was the least of my complaints!

it was certainly more believable than Frank Miller's "the Dark Knight Returns"!!:eek:
He didn't kill Joker ! Joker creating Batman was done not for drama but to move the movie along .
batman didn't reveal his secret in the first one his butler did it.
i am thinking you haven't seen the movie in quie a while.
:rolleyes:

[Captain Jim]

One could argue that Burton's Batman wouldn't have been possible without the phenomenal success of Miller's "Dark Knight Returns." Without that, the property wouldn't have been such an attractive temptation to film.

I can't see this at all.

[Choppa]

Who argued that Burton's films didn't open doors for other works?

[DonC]

No way, Caesar Romero does a live-action Joker better then Ledger and Nicholson combined.


Assuming that comment isn't a joke, how much of Ledger's Joker have you seen? I was at Wizard World Chicago last year and attended the Dark Knight panel. I've actually seen footage of Ledger in action and it was insane. Fans are going to love it.

[the goddamn batman]

He didn't kill Joker !

Odd... the person you quoted didn't say he killed Joker. The poster you quoted said Batman killed PEOPLE. ANd he did.

He also didi kill Joker. Maybe not directly or intentionally, but in the end, Batmans actions were the cause of Jokers death.

Joker creating Batman was done not for drama but to move the movie along .

It didn't move anything along. It gave Batman 'motivation' that Batman, if you understand the character at all, shouldn't need.

[the goddamn batman]

I can't see this at all.

Agreed.

Dix caractères au maximum

[Ramiel]

Said it before, and I'll say it again: Batman Begins is a Tim Burton movie.

You have Batman.

You have a big bad guy with a mysterious past, that has several connections to our hero in question.

You have him TRYING TO GAS THE WHOLE CITY. That's right. In BOTH MOVIES.

They're almost twin brothers to one another. And sure, Burton's version is a little LARGER than LIFE, but that's alright. Because that's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh... I like it :).

But, seriously... they're the same dang movies.

What? No, Batman and Batman Begins are pretty different, they may share some plot points and be set in similar tones but they aren't that much alike.

[pariah-1972]

Odd... the person you quoted didn't say he killed Joker. The poster you quoted said Batman killed PEOPLE. ANd he did.

He also didi kill Joker. Maybe not directly or intentionally, but in the end, Batmans actions were the cause of Jokers death.



It didn't move anything along. It gave Batman 'motivation' that Batman, if you understand the character at all, shouldn't need.Sorry who else did he kill?
and no he didn't kill Joker it was an accident,
if Joker didn't try to get away by helicopter the gargoyle would have stayed in place.

[Ramiel]

Sorry who else did he kill?
and no he didn't kill Joker it was an accident,
if Joker didn't try to get away by helicopter the gargoyle would have stayed in place.

He killed a lot of Joker's henchmen throughout the movie. And, as far as the Joker goes, he was already airborne on the latter when Batman tied him to the gargoyle, so it's implied that Bats did it with intent to kill

[pariah-1972]

He killed a lot of Joker's henchmen throughout the movie. And, as far as the Joker goes, he was already airborne on the latter when Batman tied him to the gargoyle, so it's implied that Bats did it with intent to killI don't remember him killing any henchmen and i don't think it was his intent to kill Joker i don't think he could have known that that Gargoyle was going to come loose.
and he looked somewhat surprised that it did happen,

[Ramiel]

I don't remember him killing any henchmen and i don't think it was his intent to kill Joker i don't think he could have known that that Gargoyle was going to come loose.
and he looked somewhat surprised that it did happen,

Well, he killed at least two I believe in the bell tower I believe by throwing them down the staircases and when he blows up the factory he drops the bomb literally at about five or so men's feet, I highly doubt they made it. I'm actually pretty sure he killed more throughout the movie, but I'll have to watch it again for sure.

He throw the Joker off the roof originally with ever intention of killing him, I think it's safe to say he probably expected Joker to die with the gargoyle stunt. I also don't remember him looking shocked or surprised, he just looked like he did throughout most of the movie as Batman

[Super Buddies Forever]

Why can't the majority of comic fans just accept and appreciate the various interpretations of the characters in different media?

For all of the chest-thumping about how infinite Earths and multiverses give us limitless iterations of characters, can't we just view the movies in the same light? Appreciate the Burton movies for what they were (a gothic fairytale version of Batman) and the Nolan films for what they're doing (an uber-realistic Batman).

If the DC multiverse ever expands past 52, I'd really want Earth-89 to be the Burtonverse, just to see where the franchise may have gone after Batman Returns.

[Ramiel]

Why can't the majority of comic fans just accept and appreciate the various interpretations of the characters in different media?

For all of the chest-thumping about how infinite Earths and multiverses give us limitless iterations of characters, can't we just view the movies in the same light? Appreciate the Burton movies for what they were (a gothic fairytale version of Batman) and the Nolan films for what they're doing (an uber-realistic Batman).

If the DC multiverse ever expands past 52, I'd really want Earth-89 to be the Burtonverse, just to see where the franchise may have gone after Batman Returns.

Ok, but what does this have to do with anything being discussed:confused:

[pariah-1972]

Why can't the majority of comic fans just accept and appreciate the various interpretations of the characters in different media?

For all of the chest-thumping about how infinite Earths and multiverses give us limitless iterations of characters, can't we just view the movies in the same light? Appreciate the Burton movies for what they were (a gothic fairytale version of Batman) and the Nolan films for what they're doing (an uber-realistic Batman).

If the DC multiverse ever expands past 52, I'd really want Earth-89 to be the Burtonverse, just to see where the franchise may have gone after Batman Returns.That would be interesting, but i don't know if too many people could pull off a burton style consistently.

[Kid Kyoto]

Peoiple don't want to give the original Burton Film credit for doing a lot of things possibly because it wasn't gritty or realistic enough.
to that i say "BAH"

Which misses the point. One of the things DKR and Burtons Batman did was decided that superheroes are not in the real world, they are in a fantasy world where every building has gargoyles, where bizzare gangs roam the streets and a guy dressed as a bat seems fairly normal.

The real strength of Burton's films was the set design that made you feel like Gotham City was a real place and not the world outside your window.

Anyway, who's saying otherwise?

[Kid Kyoto]

Appreciate the Burton movies for what they were (a gothic fairytale version of Batman) and the Nolan films for what they're doing (an uber-realistic Batman).


Which is why I was really bored by Batman Begins. It was far too much 'Batman goes shopping' and too little Batman kicks ass.

And the more you think about Batman, the less sense it makes. I mean if the suit and batmobile are military prototypes, they 1000s of engineers, designers, procurement clerks, researchers, congressional staffers and so on know about them. And once you see the one of a kind military transport running around Gotham city it's not too hard to find out where that transport went and who access to it now.

I liked Burton's fairy tale a lot more.

Where did he get the car? Who knows, he's Batman, he has a car.

[The Zapper]

I can't see this at all.
Well, I think that The Dark Knight Returns helped form the kind of movie that was made. Not that it made it possible for a film, but it opened it up to a darker tone.

I don't remember him killing any henchmen and i don't think it was his intent to kill Joker i don't think he could have known that that Gargoyle was going to come loose.
and he looked somewhat surprised that it did happen,

Burton Batman kills. He blatantly bombs a building with people in it, he threw a couple to their deaths, he kills The Joker, and just for good measure, he deliberately stuffs a bomb into the pants of a clown thug in Batman Returns. No matter how you view it, he kills.

[The Xenos]

Let's not forget that Dark Knight Returns wouldn't have been possibly with out Denny O'Neil and Neal Adam's going back to the creature of the night Batman after years of camp.

[pariah-1972]

Let's not forget that Dark Knight Returns wouldn't have been possibly with out Denny O'Neil and Neal Adam's going back to the creature of the night Batman after years of camp.Yes but noone wants to acknowledge that since Frank Miller is like jesus christ to christians.
:p

[The Xenos]

Well, like Jesus to Batman comic fans if Jesus was obessed with whores.

Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores.

[metalhead_dave743]

I agree and I'll take it a little further.

The success of the Batman franchise opened the door for all the superhero movies that have come since, including The Mask and the Spider Man and X-Men franchises.

No, no, no, no no.

If that was the case, it wouldn't have taken over a decade for the first X-Men movie to be made. Any progress that Burton made got shot down by Schumacher.

I credit the X-Men movies for opening the door for super hero movies, INCLUDING Batman Begins. Burton not so much.

I give Burton credit for opening the door to B:TAS, which is MILES ahead of anything Burton did with Batman.

[metalhead_dave743]

Sorry who else did he kill?
and no he didn't kill Joker it was an accident,
if Joker didn't try to get away by helicopter the gargoyle would have stayed in place.

The one's in Batman were mentioned. As I said before in the TKD thread, in Returns, Batman toasted that fire eater with the exhaust in his Batmobile, and he strapped that bomb to the big dude and threw him down some pit. Let's not forget the machine gun turrets on the Batmobile.

[pariah-1972]

Ok well Batman did technically kill Ra's in Begins so you can't pin that on Burton.

[TROUBLEZ]

Well, I think that The Dark Knight Returns helped form the kind of movie that was made. Not that it made it possible for a film, but it opened it up to a darker tone.



Burton Batman kills. He blatantly bombs a building with people in it, he threw a couple to their deaths, he kills The Joker, and just for good measure, he deliberately stuffs a bomb into the pants of a clown thug in Batman Returns. No matter how you view it, he kills.

So what? In DKR Batman uses a GUN to shoot a mutant thats holding a baby hostage. In the next panel you see the mutant fell into the corner with blood splattered on the wall. Very un-Batman like.

[The Batman]

Yup, he had machine guns on the Batmobile and he used them to open a garage door. Nolan had missiles on his Batmobile too and it took a ridiculously long time to put the driver in an odd position to fire them too. Also, didn't the Batplane used to have a machine gun on it back in the day?

[metalhead_dave743]

Ok well Batman did technically kill Ra's in Begins so you can't pin that on Burton.

Yeah but that was pretty much in the heat of the fight. It was Batman's last resort. Hell he even said to Gordon that he was going to stop them from loading the train but he MAY have needed Gordon's help. Blowing up the track was just the final fail safe.

As I said in TDK's thread, Joker's stupidity to hang on to the helicoptor while there was a stone statue tied to him that was about to fall off the church is what killed him.

[pariah-1972]

Yeah but that was pretty much in the heat of the fight. It was Batman's last resort. Hell he even said to Gordon that he was going to stop them from loading the train but he MAY have needed Gordon's help. Blowing up the track was just the final fail safe.

As I said in TDK's thread, Joker's stupidity to hang on to the helicoptor while there was a stone statue tied to him that was about to fall off the church is what killed him.ThANK YOU !!!!!

[matthewaos]

It's not that I don't like Batman begins, it's just that I think Burton's movies are better. And I think that they are some of the few Super Hero movies that are actually good as movies.

[DeadXMan]

Three words why 89 was beter then BB

Billy. Dee. Williams.

I would kill to have seen him as two-face

[the goddamn batman]

Well, like Jesus to Batman comic fans if Jesus was obessed with whores.

Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores. Whores.

It's comments like this that make me think it's all of you who are obsessed with whores. Miller's written tons of women who aren't whores, but you know, forget them, he's written whores!!!


Oh and, Jim, can you just please ban me so I don't have to respond to this bullshit anymore? My will power isn't what it should be.:o

[pariah-1972]

It's comments like this that make me think it's all of you who are obsessed with whores. Miller's written tons of women who aren't whores, but you know, forget them, he's written whores!!!


Oh and, Jim, can you just please ban me so I don't have to respond to this bullshit anymore? My will power isn't what it should be.:oSo basically Frank Miller is beyond reproach for you?

[Ramiel]

As I said in TDK's thread, Joker's stupidity to hang on to the helicoptor while there was a stone statue tied to him that was about to fall off the church is what killed him.

I still say it was Batman's intent to kill him, because no more then 5 minutes before that he threw (or punched, can't remember) the Joker off the tower and then looked over to see the splat. Sorry, I have a hard time believing that the same guy who just did that, only hoped to capture Joker with that gargoyle stunt

[Captain Jim]

So basically Frank Miller is beyond reproach for you?

Pariah, please stop baiting GD Batman.

[pariah-1972]

Pariah, please stop baiting GD Batman.

Sorry Jim i didn't think i was baiting him.

[metalhead_dave743]

I still say it was Batman's intent to kill him, because no more then 5 minutes before that he threw (or punched, can't remember) the Joker off the tower and then looked over to see the splat. Sorry, I have a hard time believing that the same guy who just did that, only hoped to capture Joker with that gargoyle stunt

Oh right. I've seen that movie a shit load of times and there are ALWAYS details that keep escaping me.

[vazel]

And the more you think about Batman, the less sense it makes. I mean if the suit and batmobile are military prototypes, they 1000s of engineers, designers, procurement clerks, researchers, congressional staffers and so on know about them. And once you see the one of a kind military transport running around Gotham city it's not too hard to find out where that transport went and who access to it now.
Hmm, but the employees are surely on an NDA. I'd imagine Wayne is counting on that to keep everyone's mouth shut.

[TomServoFan]

Well Christopher Nolan does love Burton's vision of Batman as he stated in some interviews and considers them brilliant and visual movies, i think he's paying tribute to them with his take on Batman.

Afterall the 1989 movie made almost any 80's child into a Batman fan like it did to me when i was 7. I remembered back in 1989 i remembered all the hype especially seeing it twice in a theater and loving iti had the cards, the magazine to the movie, a t-shirt, toys, stickers, my mom bought me the movie for christmas and i even ate the cereral, i also enjoyed watching the 60's campy show on the Family Channel. Ah memories! thanks to that movie i became a Batman fan.

[Ramiel]

Oh right. I've seen that movie a shit load of times and there are ALWAYS details that keep escaping me.

I'm sorry, but are you being sarcastic or actually agreeing with me? Really, I can't tell and I would seriously like to know before I launch a rebuttal

[metalhead_dave743]

I'm sorry, but are you being sarcastic or actually agreeing with me? Really, I can't tell and I would seriously like to know before I launch a rebuttal

My bad, I'm not being sarcastic. I've seen that movie many times but there is shit I still forget. Before Begins I would watch Batman and Returns periodically to refresh myself and remember the details.

But since Begins, it doesn't really matter to me anymore. There was too much that Burton got wrong with the creative liberties he took. Nolan took liberties too, but Burton was closer to crossing the line between Creative Liberties and Full Blown Butchery.

Of course Schumacher ran through that line, ran a marathon and built a home where he ended up.

[pariah-1972]

I wonder if there is some poor deluded soul that actually prefered the Schumacher films?
it's funny i just read on wiki the other day he did an interview right before the movie was released were he didn't know the difference between The Thing and Bane.

[satchmo the dragon]

Maggie is hot so I'll buy many tickets based on that alone.

[Ramiel]

My bad, I'm not being sarcastic.

Oh, ok, it was the all caps Always that threw me

[Nick Soapdish]

Well what i'm saying is that sure Begins is better then both Burton movies but i still think Burton's Batman movies were great in their own right! They were much better then Schumacher's.

Way to go out on a limb there. :D

However, I agree with the initial premise. The Burton Bat-movies were very good and re-established the character, giving WB a reason to do the Animated Series and strongly influencing the character for the next few years at least. He also developed the city of Gotham as a character of its own.

I actually liked the second better than the first and I don't know why. He crams three plots in and muffs two of them pretty badly. He distorts the character even more than the previous movie and double that for the Penguin.

But he gets the Catwoman/Batman plot down great and the mood is still there.

Sorry who else did he kill?
and no he didn't kill Joker it was an accident,
if Joker didn't try to get away by helicopter the gargoyle would have stayed in place.


I don't remember him killing any henchmen and i don't think it was his intent to kill Joker i don't think he could have known that that Gargoyle was going to come loose.
and he looked somewhat surprised that it did happen,

So it's manslaughter instead of murder.

Others have already mentioned some of the thugs that he killed. And he was worse in the second movie.

Yeah but that was pretty much in the heat of the fight. It was Batman's last resort. Hell he even said to Gordon that he was going to stop them from loading the train but he MAY have needed Gordon's help. Blowing up the track was just the final fail safe.

As I said in TDK's thread, Joker's stupidity to hang on to the helicoptor while there was a stone statue tied to him that was about to fall off the church is what killed him.

I don't think that the Joker would've survived being tied to a statue that fell off the church, even if he wasn't hanging onto the chopper. It's still a long fall.

Ok well Batman did technically kill Ra's in Begins so you can't pin that on Burton.

The writers tried to give him an out for that. As he said, "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you either."

I'm not sure if that would count as manslaughter or not. Probably so since he left him on a train that he'd sabotaged the brakes and had a reasonable expectation would be crashing.


Hmm, but the employees are surely on an NDA. I'd imagine Wayne is counting on that to keep everyone's mouth shut.

Somehow Lucius is the only person at Wayne Enterprises that knows about all that stuff.

[mattx110]

The defense department would rather not explain why life-saving military technology and advanced vehicles that cost millions in private contracts has turned up basically nothing feasible.

If Nolan didn't feel it was worth mentioning in the film, we can make up reasons that are just as much fun. With umm... Rutger Hauer in charge, Waynetech turned into the land of politics. With Fox in charge, well, he's not gonna tell.

[metalhead_dave743]

I don't think that the Joker would've survived being tied to a statue that fell off the church, even if he wasn't hanging onto the chopper. It's still a long fall.

Yeah but the statue was still on the church when Joker got tied to it. Hanging on the rope ladder and having the chopper move upward pulled the statue off the roof.



The writers tried to give him an out for that. As he said, "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you either."

I'm not sure if that would count as manslaughter or not. Probably so since he left him on a train that he'd sabotaged the brakes and had a reasonable expectation would be crashing.



First, I'm pretty sure it was Ras who stabbed out the breaks. I'll have to watch BB again to makes sure. And even so, as I said before, blowing up the monorail was only a last resort.

[Nick Soapdish]

First, I'm pretty sure it was Ras who stabbed out the breaks. I'll have to watch BB again to makes sure. And even so, as I said before, blowing up the monorail was only a last resort.

Nah, that was Bats. It sorta slips by you at first, but it comes out when Ra's is gloating to Bats.

Ra's: You lack the courage to do what is necessary. That's why you can't save Gotham and can't stop this train.

Bats "Who said anything about stopping it?"

Ra's looks up at the front of the train with a shocked expression.

Bats punches him while he's not looking.

I'm not blaming Bats for Ra's' death. I think that he had a fairly reasonable expectation that Ra's could survive by jumping out and I sorta see it as along the lines of letting Ra's lie in the bed that he made. But I don't think that the law would see it the same way and I'd be less happy about Bats doing that in the comic.

And I figure if I'm blaming Bats for the Joker's death in the first one, it's close enough to the same thing.

[Ric Flair]

Mmm, yes. Very important.

[The Batman]

That's spot on about Nolan Batman and Ras in the train and manslaughter. How many people do we think died when he blew up the League of Shadows monastary? Or was that another miraculously, unrealistically injury/death free set piece like the Batmobile chase?

"I'm not an executioner, I will not kill this man. However, I'm gonna blow this place up which will probably kill alot more people but that's more like manslaughter and it'll happen off screen so I doubt too many people will care anyways." ;)


Burton Batman might've gone up that tower with every intention of killing the Joker, much like Nolan Bats had every intention of killing Joe Chill, but when he tied the Joker to that gargoyle it was all about keeping him from getting away. Batman was just hanging there with Vicky Vale, from that point on the Joker did himself in.

[metalhead_dave743]

Nah, that was Bats. It sorta slips by you at first, but it comes out when Ra's is gloating to Bats.

Ra's: You lack the courage to do what is necessary. That's why you can't save Gotham and can't stop this train.

Bats "Who said anything about stopping it?"

Ra's looks up at the front of the train with a shocked expression.

Bats punches him while he's not looking.



Of course Bat's said that, but he also said to Gordon that he was going to stop Ra's from loading that train in the first place but he MIGHT need Gordon's help. Maybe he only said that to Ra's just to stick it to him. It wasn't his intention to blow up the tracks in the first place. And Batman WASN'T the one who screwed the brakes up.

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1427486_Proof.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1427486_Proof.jpg)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1427486_Proof.jpg

As you can see, it is Ra's who is stabbing out the brakes with his broken sword. Batman went over to the brakes and Ras attacked him, shoved him out of the way, and stabbed the controls. MAYBE Batman went over there to screw with the brakes and Ras did it for him, but I doubt it.

[jesse_custer]

I have no idea what this thread is about now, but a lot of Nolan's film is wasted effort. For a director of Nolan's caliber to allow KATIE HOLMES to be in a Batman film is unacceptable. Rutger Hauer was also misused (and rather boring). Michael Caine is very likeable, but he doesn't seem like Alfred, especially when compared to Michael Gough's portrayal.

And Gordon saves the day by learning how to use the Batmobile in a few minutes? So this is realism?

At least Burton didn't have an obsession with fantasy or reality in his work. And at least his supporting cast kicked tremendous ass all-around. Robert Wuhl, man, is incredible. Even the Joker's right-hand man was funny. And Jack Palance. Jesus Christ, you have to be high to think Begins had a better cast.

Having said all of this, Begins is still a good movie, just an incredibly overrated one when you talk to fans.

[mattx110]

I have no idea what this thread is about now, but a lot of Nolan's film is wasted effort. For a director of Nolan's caliber to allow KATIE HOLMES to be in a Batman film is unacceptable. Rutger Hauer was also misused (and rather boring). Michael Caine is very likeable, but he doesn't seem like Alfred, especially when compared to Michael Gough's portrayal.

And Gordon saves the day by learning how to use the Batmobile in a few minutes? So this is realism?

At least Burton didn't have an obsession with fantasy or reality in his work. And at least his supporting cast kicked tremendous ass all-around. Robert Wuhl, man, is incredible. Even the Joker's right-hand man was funny. And Jack Palance. Jesus Christ, you have to be high to think Begins had a better cast.

Having said all of this, Begins is still a good movie, just an incredibly overrated one when you talk to fans.
Gordon is ex-military. Maybe he tried a couple tanks for a spin?

And the fact that the joker had a right hand man sucks. And didn't Batman shoot machine guns and rockets at the joker? Just cause he's incompetent, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to kill him.

[The Batman]

... and Nolan Batman was going to kill Joe Chill until someone beat him to it by seconds. Just because he's slow on the draw doesn't mean he wasn't trying to kill him.


Begins takes an almost complete 180 during it's climax. All the realism that Nolan spent 3/4 of the movie fashioning gets thrown out the window for a Rube Goldberg plot involving microwave emitters, runaway trains, Gordon comically driving around in the Batmobile, and psychotrophic hallucinagens in the water supply. That stuff seemed out of place given the tone established by Nolan and it made the film feel uneven. Burton's film at least has that consistency of tone.

[pariah-1972]

Aaaaaaah sanity.:)

[jesse_custer]

And the fact that the joker had a right hand man sucks.

In theory. The fact that Joker kills his right-hand man with little to no reason is awesome and perfectly emulates what the clown murderer is all about.

[The Batman]

Hasn't the Joker had a gang or a couple of flunkies at least more often than not over the past sixty odd years? The great "Joker's Five-Way Revenge" was all about him going after some of his henchmen.

Why does him having a flunky automatically suck?

[pariah-1972]

Hasn't the Joker had a gang or a couple of flunkies at least more often than not over the past sixty odd years? The great "Joker's Five-Wat Revenge" was all about him going after some of his henchmen.

Why does him having a flunky automatically suck?It doesn't.
i can barely think of any interpretation (nolan included) where he doesn't have any henchmen at all.

[mattx110]

Hasn't the Joker had a gang or a couple of flunkies at least more often than not over the past sixty odd years? The great "Joker's Five-Way Revenge" was all about him going after some of his henchmen.

Why does him having a flunky automatically suck?
It made him seem like he had a loyalty to this guy who he knew in his old life. He was always a gangster throughout the film because of it. And then he died. In the comics, we've got years of post-gangster Joker that makes him a different, and much more insane character.
And the term was "Right hand man". Joker can have plenty of "flunkies" but his relationship with Harley was a lot sicker and more demoralizing. He almost treated his friend as human rather than as a pet that he needs to train to love and fear him. Although, can't have everything, and Jack certainly did a fine job of dancing around and shooting people, which are requirements for being a "Joker". The complete lack of emotional resonance has just as much chance of making him a stage-star as a serial killer.

[The Batman]

I don't think the Joker, or Jack Napier, had anything resembling loyalty to anyone ever. I think he used Grissom's gang, and the various elements of his old life because it was the best easiest way to proceed with his new career as the world's first fully functional homocidal artist.

[mattx110]

I don't think the Joker, or Jack Napier, had anything resembling loyalty to anyone ever. I think he used Grissom's gang, and the various elements of his old life because it was the best easiest way to proceed with his new career as the world's first fully functional homocidal artist.
Well, the loyalty (or percieved loyalty) does end the second Joker starts to take on batman (unless I'm remembering it wrong), so there might be an arguable clean line between the two worlds that Jack steps out of.

[The Batman]

Where do you see the loyalty? I see loyalty on Bob's part for Jack/Joker, even if it's loyalty born out of fear and a steady payday, but I don't see any loyalty flowing the other way. Like I said, I don't think Jack/Joker kept Bob around for any other reason than that he was convenient.

[mattx110]

Where do you see the loyalty? I see loyalty on Bob's part for Jack/Joker, even if it's loyalty born out of fear and a steady payday, but I don't see any loyalty flowing the other way. Like I said, I don't think Jack/Joker kept Bob around for any other reason than that he was convenient.
What ,so suddenly my personal relationships are shallow and meaningless?!?!? (joke)

Anyway, movie gangsters care about "history" and "brotherhood" and all this stuff that maybe, before he was sold out by his boss, Napier cared about too. Then he takes out the old guy, and keeps his only ally within the organization around. Without Batman, I don't know if Jack would have gone as far as he did. He seemed a bit fixated on the whole "showmanship" thing, and if the world of "freaks" didn't exist, he might've been just another gangster with his own posse.

[Darth Joker]

Then how come I don't have the munchies?

BATMAN (1989)
Michael Keaton
Kim Basinger
Jack Nicholson
Jack Palance
Michael Gough
Pat Hingle
Billy Dee Williams...

is a better cast than...

BATMAN BEGINS
Christian Bale
Michael Kane
Gary Oldman
Liam Neeson
Ken Watanabe
Katie Holmes
Cillian Murphy
Rutger Hauer
Tom Wilkinson
Morgan Freeman?

Are you serious?

Batman Begins may have had a more talented group of actors working on the movie set than 89 Batman had, but with the notable exception of Commissioner Gordon (and perhaps Batman himself), I do feel that 89 Batman has actors who fit the roles that they were casted to play moreso than Batman Begins did.

One of the strengths of 89 Batman is that, to me, all of the key roles (except Gordon's) is very well casted. Michael Keaton did a decent Batman and Bruce Wayne. Nothing great, mind you, but superior to Clooney's overly warm Batman, and Kilmer's somewhat bland Batman.

Still, the main positive for Batman Begins for me - the thing that really sets it apart from the other live-action Batman movies - is that they FINALLY got Commissioner Gordon right. Gary Oldman did a superb job in that role.

[jesse_custer]

What Darth Joker said. There are plenty of movies with "great actors" that don't work because the actors don't fit the roles.

Katie Holmes.

Owned.

[pariah-1972]

I'm not sure exactly why Katie Holmes was the only weak spot.. i don't think she did a great job but i think she was handed a difficult role and one that was way different from her Dawsons Creek character.
but i also think her relationship with Tom Cruise and her converting to scientology didn't help matters.

[jesse_custer]

Her lack of talent is probably the real reason why she sucked. It's almost as if I could read Bale's mind: "Why the hell am I in the same movie with this excuse for an actress?"

[pariah-1972]

Her lack of talent is probably the real reason why she sucked. It's almost as if I could read Bale's mind: "Why the hell am I in the same movie with this excuse for an actress?"I don't know about lack of talent but i think she was miscast.
she has won acclaim in other roles.

[jesse_custer]

Winning acclaim is a funny thing, though. You have people who get praise all the time who don't really deserve it (Sean Penn). And then you have people who deserve praise but don't really get it (Sterling Hayden). So I tend to overlook acclaim and instead examine the actual merit of the actress or actor.

Katie Holmes' acting comes down to this: When somebody says something serious, look pensive and concerned, and as you retort to your fellow cast member, make sure to shake your head as you talk so as to seem natural. Only problem is that you do this incessantly, with your face having the variation of a same-sided coin.

[pariah-1972]

Winning acclaim is a funny thing, though. You have people who get praise all the time who don't really deserve it (Sean Penn). And then you have people who deserve praise but don't really get it (Sterling Hayden). So I tend to overlook acclaim and instead examine the actual merit of the actress or actor.

Katie Holmes' acting comes down to this: When somebody says something serious, look pensive and concerned, and as you retort to your fellow cast member, make sure to shake your head as you talk so as to seem natural. Only problem is that you do this incessantly, with your face having the variation of a same-sided coin.I'm not a great judge on acting ability but i don't think she was as bad as the others.
but i think with her looks and her reputation people have a hard time believing she was a tough no nonsense lawyer who could also defend herself against thugs.
although i don't think her and Bale had much chemistry but then they seemed to have blurred the lines between childhood friend and potential romance.

but i think she did much better than the chick from the spider man movies but a lot of that has to do with the comparison between the comic book version which Katie holmes didn't have to worry about.

i would like to see her get her career back but i don't think thats in Tom Cruises best interest.

[Choppa]

How can anyone say that the actors in Begins didn't fit the roles? Most of the characters in the movie had characterizations that were different than the comics, like Alfred, Ra's, Lucious, so what is that statement based on?

[jesse_custer]

Michael Caine didn't strike me as a butler at all. More like an old friend you just keep around for quick laughs.

Rutger Hauer was so awkward and forgettable that I couldn't believe he's the same magnificent actor who portrayed the tragic and complex Roy Batty in "Blade Runner."

Now, Liam Neeson, on the other hand, has the kind of big voice to fit a pretentious bastard like Ra's.

[pariah-1972]

Michael Caine didn't strike me as a butler at all. More like an old friend you just keep around for quick laughs.

Rutger Hauer was so awkward and forgettable that I couldn't believe he's the same magnificent actor who portrayed the tragic and complex Roy Batty in "Blade Runner."

Now, Liam Neeson, on the other hand, has the kind of big voice to fit a pretentious bastard like Ra's.I agree with most of that Caine didn't have the "proper" british accent to portray a Alfred to me he seemed more like a family friend that was taking care of things until Bruce could get his head together.

[mattx110]

Bruce only acts like Alfred is the butler when he's in a pissy mood anyway.

He's always been a surrogate father, and always had a sense of humor.

[jesse_custer]

All I know is that Caine wasn't acting like a) Alfred or b) a butler. Michael Gough did a much more convincing job, fits the "surrogate father" model perfectly, and was funnier in a more understated way that actually fits the character.

[Darth Joker]

Michael Caine didn't strike me as a butler at all. More like an old friend you just keep around for quick laughs.

Rutger Hauer was so awkward and forgettable that I couldn't believe he's the same magnificent actor who portrayed the tragic and complex Roy Batty in "Blade Runner."

Now, Liam Neeson, on the other hand, has the kind of big voice to fit a pretentious bastard like Ra's.

Agreed. Caine's a great actor, but he was miscast here. Holmes, in my opinion, simply can't handle a role this serious. She's better off doing shallow sitcom stuff, to be brutally frank.

Kim Basinger was much, much better as a serious Batman/Bruce Wayne love interest.

As far as casting actors, the only thing Begins got right that 89 Batman got wrong was Gordon... and since Gordon is such a minor role in the 89 Batman, you can almost forget that.

On the flip side, Begins got Alfred and the main love interest wrong. That detracts a fair bit from non-action scenes.

[jesse_custer]

Oldman is Gordon, no doubt. I hope they do more of the "Batman disappearing before Gordon turns around, causing the detective to quip" stuff in the new movie.

[mattx110]

All I know is that Caine wasn't acting like a) Alfred or b) a butler. Michael Gough did a much more convincing job, fits the "surrogate father" model perfectly, and was funnier in a more understated way that actually fits the character.
well, Michael Gough was the best part of the other Batman films. I don't mind something different. I don't think it's wrong, although this Alfred seems to be from the other side of town from the traditional one.

And she wasn't really a love interest. "We'll go on a date when you rid gotham of crime" just seems like another way to say "it's not you, it's me" to me.

[Darth Joker]

Oldman is Gordon, no doubt. I hope they do more of the "Batman disappearing before Gordon turns around, causing the detective to quip" stuff in the new movie.

Agreed. Bale and Oldman and Liam Neeson really did shine in Batman Begins - so Begins deserves a lot of credit there. So the characters surrounding the main action in the plot were very well-casted, and that's why Batman Begins is a pretty good movie. It's most of the rest of the casting that prevents it from being the masterpiece that some think it was, though.

[Rattlehead]

Michael Caine didn't strike me as a butler at all. More like an old friend you just keep around for quick laughs.

Alfred is more of an old friend to Bruce than a butler. He really hasn't been portrayed as a butler/servant type character in the comic books in a long time. He's a dues ex machina a lot of times as well. He was Thomas Wayne's friend first, employee second. He sticks around due to his loyalty to Bruce's father, which is touched upon in the movie. Micheal Gough was better in the role though, for sure.

Rutger Hauer was so awkward and forgettable that I couldn't believe he's the same magnificent actor who portrayed the tragic and complex Roy Batty in "Blade Runner."

The role Rutger was playing was really forgettable in itself. He was just there as a foil for the magnificant Morgan Freeman really. Actually, much like Jack Palance's forgettable role in 89. The only memorable thing about Palance's role in that film was Joker calling him Sugarpops before he turns him to swiss cheese.

Now, Liam Neeson, on the other hand, has the kind of big voice to fit a pretentious bastard like Ra's.

Along with Bale, this was casting brilliance. He also looked the part. Cillian Murphy as Johnathan Crane was a stroke of genius as well. I honestly felt both Burton and Nolan did a great job with their casting choices for the most part. Sure, you have Katie Holmes stinking up the joint in Begins, but you also had Kim Basinger stuck in pouty-face mode for the entirety of Burton's movie. She was not the Lois Lane-esque Vicki Vale as portrayed in the comics. She was a self-important wind bag.

[pariah-1972]

My biggest problem besides Bale's acting was the shitty looking action scenes where you couldn't tell what was going on.

[Rattlehead]

My biggest problem besides Bale's acting was the shitty looking action scenes where you couldn't tell what was going on.

Christian Bale was great in the movie. His Bruce was a little weak, but he was an awesome Batman.

[mattx110]

My biggest problem besides Bale's acting was the shitty looking action scenes where you couldn't tell what was going on.
So what you didn't like about the acting was the directing?

[pariah-1972]

Christian Bale was great in the movie. His Bruce was a little weak, but he was an awesome Batman.I felt like he was constantly trying to hard and it seemed forced most of the time.
i felt Micheal Keaton even tho he didn't look the part was able to get inside the character even if it was a slightly different bruce.


the one scene that comes to mind is when he is brooding with the lights off in one of his diners, i think that scene spoke more to me than just about any comic book i've ever read.
and for me at least it was the first time i realized how nutty Bruce really is.

[pariah-1972]

So what you didn't like about the acting was the directing?You are either confusing youreself or confusing me not sure which one:confused:

i meant to say that my two biggest problems was Bales acting and then the direction of the action scenes... does that help or did i just confuse you more?

[mattx110]

You are either confusing youreself or confusing me not sure which one:confused:

i meant to say that my two biggest problems was Bales acting and then the direction of the action scenes... does that help or did i just confuse you more?
I read it as "my biggest problem with".

All clear now.

[jesse_custer]

I'll go ahead and say that Robert Wuhl was more entertaining than Morgan Freeman, although I liked Freeman despite the fact that he is overused now. Wuhl was just a classic smartass, right up there with Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm from "Jurassic Park."

The role Rutger was playing was really forgettable in itself. He was just there as a foil for the magnificant Morgan Freeman really. Actually, much like Jack Palance's forgettable role in 89. The only memorable thing about Palance's role in that film was Joker calling him Sugarpops before he turns him to swiss cheese.

Palance's "You are my number one guy" line is one of the best-delivered pieces of dialogue in his career, and that's saying something. It also sets up a really funny scene with Nicholson later in the movie.

One thing that made Begins quite good was Nolan's hallucination sequences. No way Burton could have pulled that off as well.

[Darth Joker]

I do think that Keaton's performance in Batman is very much underrated. This can be the downside of having an absolutely awesome main antagonist performance - a rock solid, even if unspectacular, main protagonist performance can often get forgotten.

I honestly don't see Bale as being that much better than Keaton in the Batman role. Bale probably has a bit of an edge as Batman, but you could argue that Keaton was a superior Bruce Wayne.

Like pariah said, Keaton had some Bruce Wayne scenes that were great in my eye - they really hammered home the essence of who Bruce Wayne is. And the beauty is that Keaton did it almost exclusively with body language - it was actually pretty impressive.

[jesse_custer]

Initially, I thought Bale topped Keaton's performance, but now I'm not so sure. Does anybody remember the first time you saw the criminal in Burton's film say "Who are you?" and Keaton's reply "I'm Batman." The way Keaton whispers that line is phenomenal, and it never gets old. Keaton also appeared more methodical than Bale, but then again, Begins takes place before Batman is comfortable.

[Rattlehead]

I'll go ahead and say that Robert Wuhl was more entertaining than Morgan Freeman, although I liked Freeman despite the fact that he is overused now. Wuhl was just a classic smartass, right up there with Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm from "Jurassic Park."

I hate, hate, hate, hated Robert Wuhl in 89. I actually cheered when Vickie ran him over with the car. Maybe I was supposed to dislike him though.

Palance's "You are my number one guy" line is one of the best-delivered pieces of dialogue in his career, and that's saying something. It also sets up a really funny scene with Nicholson later in the movie.

See, I like Jack Palance, but you could have had anyone play that part really. He was more a part of the scenery, and like you state, his best parts in the movie came from Jack Nicholson's reactions to him. Of course, Jack Nicholson stole the show throughout the entire movie.

[Darth Joker]

Initially, I thought Bale topped Keaton's performance, but now I'm not so sure. Does anybody remember the first time you saw the criminal in Burton's film say "Who are you?" and Keaton's reply "I'm Batman." The way Keaton whispers that line is phenomenal, and it never gets old. Keaton also appeared more methodical than Bale, but then again, Begins takes place before Batman is comfortable.

I agree. Keaton delivered that line wonderfully.

I did like how methodical Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne was. He really captured the inwardly passionate/outwardly strong and silent, highly competent nature of the character.

[mattx110]

Bale got to do entire scenes of fake shallow playboy.
Keaton kept getting distracted by the Joker showing up:(

[Nick Soapdish]

I like Michael Caine, but Michael Gough was Alfred.

Just like Gary Oldman is Commissioner Gordon.

I thought that Kim Basinger was painfully bad in Batman. Katie Holmes wasn't anything to write home about, but she wasn't as bad as I was expecting.

[Rattlehead]

I do think that Keaton's performance in Batman is very much underrated. This can be the downside of having an absolutely awesome main antagonist performance - a rock solid, even if unspectacular, main protagonist performance can often get forgotten.

I honestly don't see Bale as being that much better than Keaton in the Batman role. Bale probably has a bit of an edge as Batman, but you could argue that Keaton was a superior Bruce Wayne.

Like pariah said, Keaton had some Bruce Wayne scenes that were great in my eye - they really hammered home the essence of who Bruce Wayne is. And the beauty is that Keaton did it almost exclusively with body language - it was actually pretty impressive.

I thought Keaton was great in the movie. My only gripe was he didn't do enough to differentiate Batman from Bruce Wayne. His demeanor inside and outside of the cowl was exactly the same. That's why I think Bale was superior in the role, as he became a completely different person once he put the costume on.

[jesse_custer]

Well, I'm not sure about Keaton not differentiating. When he played Wayne, he seemed as if he just couldn't fit into society despite his riches. When he played Batman, his character took on so much more purpose; you could see it in his demeanor. And that's really what the character is all about.

[Darth Joker]

I thought Keaton was great in the movie. My only gripe was he didn't do enough to differentiate Batman from Bruce Wayne. His demeanor inside and outside of the cowl was exactly the same. That's why I think Bale was superior in the role, as he became a completely different person once he put the costume on.

I see your point here. I will say that I liked the voice-alteration touch that Bale used - having Batman have an uniquely husky voice.

[Rattlehead]

I see your point here. I will say that I liked the voice-alteration touch that Bale used - having Batman have an uniquely husky voice.

That's something I think would be imperative to the whole secret identity thing. If he talks just like Bruce Wayne while dressed up as Batman, especially while cavorting around with a reporter like Viki Vale in both personas, then it's not going to be too hard for people to figure out. It's also something that Kevin Conroy used to great effect in the Animated Series. His Bruce and his Batman sounded nothing alike. That's also something that stands out the most about Jean Paul Valley's time as Batman. There's a scene where he's talking to Gordon, and Gordon remarks that he knows it's not the same guy. He's trying to imitate the voice, but it's not the voice.

[jesse_custer]

Kevin Conroy was brilliant in that series.

Actually, everything was brilliant in that series.

[pariah-1972]

Kevin Conroy was brilliant in that series.

Actually, everything was brilliant in that series.I liked the series but i just felt like it could have used more action.
:o

[Choppa]

Like I said, most of the characters in Begins were unlike their comic counterparts.

Alfred was much more of a father than a sarcastic butler. Ra's wasn't trying to rid the planet of humans and repopulate it, he just wanted to keep things in check with the League, Lucious is more than just someone who runs Wayne Ent, he is involved with the R&D area and doesn't have as prominent a role in the company (until the end at least), and there's others.

[jesse_custer]

Your points have validity, but some of the actors still didn't seem right for their roles.

The Begins cast was just too large in general.

[Choppa]

Your points have validity, but some of the actors still didn't seem right for their roles.

The Begins cast was just too large in general.

This is what I was asking before, how can they not "be right" for roles that are different than what's in the book. What are you judging them against if they aren't intended to be representations of the book.

[jesse_custer]

Sometimes, bad or insufficient acting is just bad or insufficient acting. I'm not comparing them to the books so much as questioning their abilities to convince me at all in the context of the story.

[Ramiel]

I thought Keaton did a good job in portraying the creature of the night aspect of the Batman mythos and I think Bale did a better job of portraying the detective and intimidation aspect of the Batman mythos. Overall, both were good, it's hard to tell which did better in my view honestly.

As far as it goods, I like Nolan's Begins and Burton's Batman movies both, but the main problem is that Burton's movies feels as if they're more about the villains then Batman. I mean you have to have screen time for villains and their development as well as the heroes, but they seemed to come off as completely stealing the show in the end

[Alan2099]

As far as it goods, I like Nolan's Begins and Burton's Batman movies both, but the main problem is that Burton's movies feels as if they're more about the villains then Batman. I mean you have to have screen time for villains and their development as well as the heroes, but they seemed to come off as completely stealing the show in the end
On the flipside, I thought Ra's was far too subdued and not nearly grandiose enough.

I also want to say that Keaton is the only person that's really made me care about Bruce Wayne. Not Batman, not some rich guy facade, but the real character of Bruce Wayne himself. His portrayal added a lot of meat to a character that's mostly just used to sit around, feel sorry for himself, and put on a Batman costume.

[Ramiel]

On the flipside, I thought Ra's was far too subdued and not nearly grandiose enough.

I can agree there, but Begins is suppose to be about Bruce Wayne and his evolving into Batman and the villains were suppose to play a second fiddle to the progress of Wayne into Batman and then Batman as a detective or, at least, that's how I perceived it.

Burton's film, when I read about them, sound like Batman vs a villain, but instead it seems as if Batman is almost completely overtaken, especially in the first movie. Seems there is very little of character development about him. Not that they completely ignored Batman/Wayne, but I always felt the character was so in the shadows. To me, the first film seemed more like The Joker featuring Batman. I'm not sure if this was the intended context of Burton or not, but on a personal level that's one of the reasons I usually put Burton's movie a little lower then Begins.

And, on a side note, I do agree about what you said about Ras, but Liam just seemed to fit so well with what I envisioned as a live action version of the character. He was a lot more subdued but it really aced what I was hoping for personally.

I liked the series but i just felt like it could have used more action.
:o

:eek:

[pariah-1972]

I can agree there, but Begins is suppose to be about Bruce Wayne and his evolving into Batman and the villains were suppose to play a second fiddle to the progress of Wayne into Batman and then Batman as a detective or, at least, that's how I perceived it.

Burton's film, when I read about them, sound like Batman vs a villain, but instead it seems as if Batman is almost completely overtaken, especially in the first movie. Seems there is very little of character development about him. Not that they completely ignored Batman/Wayne, but I always felt the character was so in the shadows. To me, the first film seemed more like The Joker featuring Batman. I'm not sure if this was the intended context of Burton or not, but on a personal level that's one of the reasons I usually put Burton's movie a little lower then Begins.

And, on a side note, I do agree about what you said about Ras, but Liam just seemed to fit so well with what I envisioned as a live action version of the character. He was a lot more subdued but it really aced what I was hoping for personally.



:eek:Lol Shock and awe.
nothing towards you,
but i sometimes wish alternative opinions to things weren't so controversial and headache inducing.

[Ramiel]

Lol Shock and awe.
nothing towards you,
but i sometimes wish alternative opinions to things weren't so controversial and headache inducing.

Yeah, but TAS, man TAS

[pariah-1972]

Yeah, but TAS, man TASIts hit and mass for me personally i'm sorry i liked it at first but now it seems a little dated in some aspects.
and Kevin Conroys voice seems deeper in the Justice League episodes.

[Ramiel]

Its hit and mass for me personally i'm sorry i liked it at first but now it seems a little dated in some aspects.
and Kevin Conroys voice seems deeper in the Justice League episodes.

Wow, I really think this is the first time I've heard anybody saying anything remotely negative about TAS. I understand the dated issue, but it's from the early-mid 90s, animation is like special effects, it's going to get done better and the precursor is going to feel dated, that's just how it works in that type of entertainment. But, yeah, just really caught me off guard back there

[pariah-1972]

Wow, I really think this is the first time I've heard anybody saying anything remotely negative about TAS. I understand the dated issue, but it's from the early-mid 90s, animation is like special effects, it's going to get done better and the precursor is going to feel dated, that's just how it works in that type of entertainment. But, yeah, just really caught me off guard back thereIts not the 90s animation but it's the dated noir and art deco elements that leave me cold for some reason.

[Ramiel]

Its not the 90s animation but it's the dated noir and art deco elements that leave me cold for some reason.

Well, I don't know then, I still catch it occasionally on TV when I can and, if anything, I like it a more then I did originally.

[Ironman2978]

I like Tim Burton's Batman but I like Chris Nolan's Batman more.

[pariah-1972]

Well, I don't know then, I still catch it occasionally on TV when I can and, if anything, I like it a more then I did originally.The X-men animated series has seem dated to me in some ways too.
Superfriends has dated really really badly.
i have trouble reading any comic before 1970.
i am not a normal person obviously.

[pariah-1972]

I like Tim Burton's Batman but I like Chris Nolan's Batman more.Blasphemer !

:p

[The Zapper]

The X-men animated series has seem dated to me in some ways too.


I really hope you're not trying to claim that the X-Men cartoon is animated as well as BTAS. You're entitled to your opinion, but really? I don't care if people liked the X-Men cartoon more, but they were not, and are not, any where near the same quality in animation.

[pariah-1972]

I really hope you're not trying to claim that the X-Men cartoon is animated as well as BTAS. You're entitled to your opinion, but really? I don't care if people liked the X-Men cartoon more, but they were not, and are not, any where near the same quality in animation.No i'm not but i have noticed other problems with the show from my perspective.

[metalhead_dave743]

Wow, I really think this is the first time I've heard anybody saying anything remotely negative about TAS. I understand the dated issue, but it's from the early-mid 90s, animation is like special effects, it's going to get done better and the precursor is going to feel dated, that's just how it works in that type of entertainment. But, yeah, just really caught me off guard back there

You should have seen my reaction when I saw his opinion of TAS on the TDK thread in the TV forums, took me two days to wake up.:D

I'll agree that Conroy's voice wasn't as good in the first season of TAS, a little too whispery, but man when he fixed that he had such a BOOMING presence. He was so freaking badass.

One of my favorite scenes from TAS by the way was when he fought that invisible guy, either it rained or he cracked a water tower and water spilled out. It ruined his costume and the guy is shocked that he can be seen now and then he looks at Batman. Batman cracks his this pissed off glare and says, "Peak a boo," and NAILS him in the face. And then the asswhoopings begin.

[Darth Joker]

This is what I was asking before, how can they not "be right" for roles that are different than what's in the book. What are you judging them against if they aren't intended to be representations of the book.

I'm sorry, but with truly classic, extremely well-known and mythologized, fictional characters - such as the supporting casts of Batman and Superman - people tend to get in their mind a pretty firm picture of what Supporting Cast Character A (Alfred) or Supporting Cast Character B (Lois Lane in Superman Returns, for example) should be like.

Intellectually, I get the argument that you're making, but as a Batman fan, I have a pretty firm idea of what Alfred should be like (in my opinion), and honestly... I don't want a significant deviation from that. The same applies to Lois Lane in any Superman film I'd watch.

Perhaps it would be better if I said that I felt that certain characters were changed from the source material too much, and it's the script-writer who is more responsible for that than a "miscasted" actor. Perhaps it would be fairer if I said that.

Either way, I still perfer 89 Batman's Alfred, main female character (love interest or not), and main villain to those of Batman Begins. Batman Begins has a better Commissioner Gordon, and perhaps an ever so slightly better Batman. The rest of the casting comparisons is largely a toss-up in my mind.

At the end of the day, I care more about Alfred, whoever the main female character is, and the Joker than I do about Gordon and a slight quality difference for Batman. It's close, I'll admit, but I still perfer 89 Batman, overall, to Batman Begins.

[Ramiel]

You should have seen my reaction when I saw his opinion of TAS on the TDK thread in the TV forums, took me two days to wake up.:D

I'll agree that Conroy's voice wasn't as good in the first season of TAS, a little too whispery, but man when he fixed that he had such a BOOMING presence. He was so freaking badass.

One of my favorite scenes from TAS by the way was when he fought that invisible guy, either it rained or he cracked a water tower and water spilled out. It ruined his costume and the guy is shocked that he can be seen now and then he looks at Batman. Batman cracks his this pissed off glare and says, "Peak a boo," and NAILS him in the face. And then the asswhoopings begin.

Yeah, it's going to take some adjustments, I do believe that's the first time I've seen anyone criticize TAS in anyway or form, well outside the idiots who refuse to like simple case it's a cartoon, but that's a different matter.

I also do remember that episode, it had a subplot with the villains daughter forging a slight friendship with Batman I believe. Great episode, I mean, heck, all the episodes are great at their very least.

[Darth Joker]

Yeah, it's going to take some adjustments, I do believe that's the first time I've seen anyone criticize TAS in anyway or form, well outside the idiots who refuse to like simple case it's a cartoon, but that's a different matter.

I also do remember that episode, it had a subplot with the villains daughter forging a slight friendship with Batman I believe. Great episode, I mean, heck, all the episodes are great at their very least.

Well... I have to disagree with you there, and perhaps shock you a bit. Honestly, I think it's a bit much to think that every signle episode of Batman: TAS is pure gold. Overall, the series was definitely gold, but it did have some dull episodes.

On the rare occassion when it drifted entirely away from any of Batman's established rogues gallery (as it did a few times), I found that the episode tended to lack a certain dynamic flare. For example, I vaguely remember a Batman: TAS episode where the main villain was this whacky guy living out in the sewers and manipulating kids into doing his bidding. Honestly, that episode did nothing for me at the time that I saw it.

Also - and this is kind of funny considering it started Batman: TAS, IIRC - the Man-Bat episodes do nothing for me now when I re-watch them.

I will say, though, that if the Joker, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, or some combination there-of, showed up, it was basically guaranteed to be a golden episode.

[Ramiel]

Well... I have to disagree with you there, and perhaps shock you a bit. Honestly, I think it's a bit much to think that every signle episode of Batman: TAS is pure gold. Overall, the series was definitely gold, but it did have some dull episodes.

On the rare occassion when it drifted entirely away from any of Batman's established rogues gallery (as it did a few times), I found that the episode tended to lack a certain dynamic flare. For example, I vaguely remember a Batman: TAS episode where the main villain was this whacky guy living out in the sewers and manipulating kids into doing his bidding. Honestly, that episode did nothing for me at the time that I saw it.

Also - and this is kind of funny considering it started Batman: TAS, IIRC - the Man-Bat episodes do nothing for me now when I re-watch them.

I will say, though, that if the Joker, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, or some combination there-of, showed up, it was basically guaranteed to be a golden episode.

I know of the episodes you speak of and I thought they were all pretty good, I guess I shouldn't have great at there least, but I've yet to see an episode that didn't enjoy quite a bit personally

[The Zapper]

No i'm not but i have noticed other problems with the show from my perspective.

That's cool. I just misunderstood.

[Rattlehead]

The X-men animated series has seem dated to me in some ways too.
Superfriends has dated really really badly.
i have trouble reading any comic before 1970.
i am not a normal person obviously.

You're right about the X-Men cartoon aging badly. I rented "The Phoenix Saga" DVD over the weekend, and I could barely get through it. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid, and now that I'm an adult, it's really not very good. There's almost no characterization to be had, the animation is stiff, and the voice-over work is downright atrocious. The guy who played Proffesor X is really bad. It was neat that the show would lift plots directly from Claremont's comics, but without the old Claremont's knack for making the characters interesting, it just fell flat.

Super Friends is just plain goofy, but I don't think it ever tried to be anything more than that.

I also have trouble reading Golden Age comics, especially Batman ones. There's no substance there, just goofy fluff for the most part.

[pariah-1972]

You're right about the X-Men cartoon aging badly. I rented "The Phoenix Saga" DVD over the weekend, and I could barely get through it. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid, and now that I'm an adult, it's really not very good. There's almost no characterization to be had, the animation is stiff, and the voice-over work is downright atrocious. The guy who played Proffesor X is really bad. It was neat that the show would lift plots directly from Claremont's comics, but without the old Claremont's knack for making the characters interesting, it just fell flat.

Super Friends is just plain goofy, but I don't think it ever tried to be anything more than that.

I also have trouble reading Golden Age comics, especially Batman ones. There's no substance there, just goofy fluff for the most part.I think its because the audience has become more sophisticated that comics are reflecting that for the most part.
as far as the show it was easier to take if you had only had a working knowledge of the books or didn't know who they were.
i think most genres media tends to date especially if you weren't around to have some sort of nostalgia for it.
me personally i love anything comic book related from the 70's and 80s which was what i read growing up.
but i could see someone younger not really getting them.
as for the phoenix saga the cartoon one was a little confusing for me compared to the comic one.:(

[heavysoul]

Said it before, and I'll say it again: Batman Begins is a Tim Burton movie.

You have Batman.

You have a big bad guy with a mysterious past, that has several connections to our hero in question.

You have him TRYING TO GAS THE WHOLE CITY. That's right. In BOTH MOVIES.

They're almost twin brothers to one another. And sure, Burton's version is a little LARGER than LIFE, but that's alright. Because that's the way, uh-huh, uh-huh... I like it :).

But, seriously... they're the same dang movies.

Very, very true.

I'll take Kim Bassinger's scream over Katie Holmes' crooked smile everytime.

[Ramiel]

Very, very true

No, it's not very true at all, Batman and Batman Begins are very different