|
|
Post by mightyjack on May 27, 2006 18:39:43 GMT -5
Burton didn't really "get" Batman and watching both it and Batman Begins back to back illustrates that point in no uncertain terms.
I read something that summed it up best - Batman and it's sequel are nice Tim Burton films that happen to have a guy in a bat costume in them.
Batman Begins is a true Batman film. It evokes the spirit of the character perfectly and is one of the classic comic related movies because it truly understands the character it's covering, just as the Spider Man movies before it did.
As a super hero fan Batman Begins is a work of art.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV's Cowboy on May 27, 2006 20:04:30 GMT -5
I personally think Begins is the better one. Burton's Batman while alright just hasn't aged well for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shep on May 28, 2006 10:43:45 GMT -5
I thought they were both pretty crap.
Read Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" graphic novel instead.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus 
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on May 28, 2006 14:58:45 GMT -5
Burton didn't really "get" Batman and watching both it and Batman Begins back to back illustrates that point in no uncertain terms. I read something that summed it up best - Batman and it's sequel are nice Tim Burton films that happen to have a guy in a bat costume in them. Batman Begins is a true Batman film. It evokes the spirit of the character perfectly and is one of the classic comic related movies because it truly understands the character it's covering, just as the Spider Man movies before it did. As a super hero fan Batman Begins is a work of art. You hit the nail on the head, MJ. While I like the Burton films, which look like masterpieces next to Joel Schumacher's Batdreck, they are both pretty flawed. The first by having an unpolished script (it was made during the infamous 1988 screenwriters strike and the script weaknesses definitely show); the second by getting a bit too bizarre at times. Batman Begins is the one Batman film that (finally) gets it right. It's not perfect (the completely miscast Katie Holmes stands out as a major flaw), but as Superhero films go, it's as good as it gets. (I'm actually a bit afraid of the inevitable sequel, because it may take some of the sheen off Batman Begins.) |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on May 28, 2006 20:40:49 GMT -5
Dunno, I like the Burton Batman films and Batman begins, but since I began reading a lot of Batman comics this past year (Batman: No Man's Land, and War Crimes/Games/Drums, and the Batman Secrets series), it seems to me that Burton was just doing a vague interpretation of the characters. Something like his first impression or something. Batman Begins was a nice revival of the franchise (with MICHAEL FRIGGIN' CANE as Alfred!). Sure, it was a departure from the comic, but they sorta had to augment it a bit in order to get people other than comic book guys to be interested enough to see it.
This is a weird point for me because I love The Penguin. He's my favorite comic villian in the DC universe, and I love how he's written and the class he has, and just how in control he is. And then there's Batman Returns. A completely different Penguin. Danny DeVito did a fantastic job playing him, but it certainly wasn't him. Penguin was a mutant or something in that film. He's not cool, nor collected, nor in control. But still, I loved it. I've tried to keep my comic book film expectations low, since I know that they will never produce a character who speaks in the exact intonation I imagine when I'm reading, or carries himself the same way I imagine he/she does, or has the casual use of powers/gadgets that I tend to think about comic characters.
So in short, they're both great. I cannot choose. I realize that they aren't all about the comic book, but that's okay. Batman's truest form is in the comics. Burton did a great job with a brooding batman in the first one, and Batman Begins gives an interesting rebirth to the series. I agree though that Keaton was the best overall Bruce Wayne/Batman.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on May 28, 2006 23:58:50 GMT -5
There is one thing that has yet to have been mentioned in this thread that surprisingly nobody has said yet. So I guess I have to do it.
Mask of the Phantasm owns anything Burton threw out.
Phantasm and Begins are the only true theatrical Batman films out there IMO. Although the 60s one is good for entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratso on May 29, 2006 0:45:59 GMT -5
Batman Begins is a classic, that film got Batman and showed how dark it could be.
Burton's films are jokes, Batman fights giant ducks, kills people, the Joker isn't scary, etc. Now don't get me wrong I love these films, but they're not Batman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on May 30, 2006 13:54:26 GMT -5
Batman Begins is the best Batman film ever made, period. The funny part about that is the fact that I didn't even want to see it when I first heard about it being made. I thought it was going to be terrible. You can't imagine my surprise when I walked out of that theater and realized that I had just seen the best Batman film out of all of them. I still love the two Tim burton films, but Begins is clearly the best. I have a feeling there aren't too many fans that would disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Demon's Head on May 31, 2006 20:18:11 GMT -5
Which one do you think was better? Well, I believe that the internal struggles of a conflicted and confused young man made for excellent cinema within Batman Begins because the ultimate hero in the Batman movies was Bruce Wayne. Most people consider Batman to be the true hero, but here you have a man who not only lost his family, but for all intents and purposes, his will to live as well; desperate to avenge his family, he took up the cause of the gun and almost gave into his madness until he was given a reality check by those around him. From there, he started a quest to learn the ways of crime-solving, martial arts training, and other essentials that would aid him in his eventual war-on-crime. For the first time ever, I viewed a Batman film were I wasn't, in the words of co-writer David Goyer, "...marking time every time Bruce [Wayne] came on-screen..." I truly cared for the strong-willed, albeit humanly flawed, character of Bruce Wayne; this is the core of any excellent Batman movie. With Tim Burton's Batman, the story throws you into Gotham City without ever explaining who this man is, and what exactly prompted him into donning a cape and cowl inspired by the visage of a nocturnal nightmare to many. As for the score, I believed that the over-the-top Elfman theme, while fitting for the style of film that Burton wished to achieve, would have been extremely out-of-place within the "universe" if you will, of Nolan's vision for a realistic Gotham. The score was subtle, and meant to pick up on the emotional cues of a man who's life was ruined by a chance encounter with a street criminal and who ultimately decides to dedicate his life towards the prevention of that situation from ever happening again--it's a fool's errand, but this idea proves that no matter the odds, Bruce Wayne's Batman will always defend what he believes is right. And that's why I believe that Batman Begins is the better film. |
|
|
|
Post by The Demon's Head on May 31, 2006 20:26:16 GMT -5
There is one thing that has yet to have been mentioned in this thread that surprisingly nobody has said yet. So I guess I have to do it. Mask of the Phantasm owns anything Burton threw out. Phantasm and Begins are the only true theatrical Batman films out there IMO. Although the 60s one is good for entertainment value. ^ An excellent point, one that I've made in in-depth "nerd conversations" ;D on my website Detective Comments... Batman: Mask of the Phantasm was not only excellently acted by it's main characters, but it (if you look close enough) served as a prototype for Batman Begins. Remember when Bruce was dressed in the black ski-mask with the original belt and no real bat-suit? The same situation happens in B:MotP when he assaults a group of hoodlums robbing a local shipping area! |
|
|
|
Post by The Demon's Head on Jun 1, 2006 4:40:05 GMT -5
I think we can all agree, though, that Batman and Robin was the worst. ^ With a close second going to the 1940's movie serials featuring a stereotypical Japanese villain complete with bad accent... Can you say "rascism"? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jun 1, 2006 11:47:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Jun 1, 2006 17:41:17 GMT -5
I think that Tim Burton's films were okay, but Begins trumps it in my mind.
And you know, since the point was brought up, I think that Mask of the Phantasm even trumps the Burton films.
Batman And Robin was, I agree, the worst of the Batman movies.
Batman Forever might've been a better movie if they'd changed "Riddler" and "Two-Face" to "Mad Hatter" and "Joker."
But back to the main topic, I think the reason that I prefer the Batman Begins story to the Burtin ones is that Burton flip-flopped the focus. One of the reasons that I like many Batman comics is that Batman is a detective before anything else, and as such a good Batman story is one where you watch Batman solve a mystery.
Batman Begins had Batman facing a minor mystery. It barely qualified as a proper mystery, really, though the storyline was certainly intriguing while we watched it.
In the Tim Burton films, Burton's style is one that nearly always causes the main character to be mysterious. As such, we don't really get to see Batman doing much of his detective work so much as we see the end-results of his detective work, while the bigger mystery is Batman himself.
That's very different from the traditional Batman story where you know exactly who Batman is, what his motivation is, and his methods for working.
To make a comparison: if Tim Burton had done a Sherlock Holmes movie instead of a Batman movie, we wouldn't be seeing Holmes deduce just what Moriarty (or whoever) is up to. Instead, we'd be seeing Watson's attempt to delve deeper and deeper into the mind of a highly trained detective who was hopelessly addicted to drugs, or something.
I don't consider myself enough of a film critic to definitively say that one movie is better than another. But I *will* say that Batman Begins is a better Batman story.
I mean, it used possibly the greatest Batman villain of all time (the Joker might be greater, maybe. Maybe.), and it didn't even do more than hint at the fact that Ra's al Ghul is effectively immortal. How many movies can tell a good story while not relying on one of the most notable powers of a given character?
And as for the Frank Miller Batman stories...meh. They were all right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Jun 1, 2006 17:45:49 GMT -5
Off Topic, but Christopher Walken was mentioned, and his character's name was Max Schreck. Was not that the name of the actor that played the vampire in Nosferatu? When Shadow of the Vampire came out, I noticed this. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by vanhagar3000 on Jun 1, 2006 17:58:16 GMT -5
Off Topic, but Christopher Walken was mentioned, and his character's name was Max Schreck. Was not that the name of the actor that played the vampire in Nosferatu? When Shadow of the Vampire came out, I noticed this. Coincidence? no, it's not coincidence, it was intentional. On related trivia, originally Billy Dee Williams was suppose to play that role as Harvey Dent. It would have been different (he would have been district attorney, which makes a lot for sense with a person who wants the mayor in his pocket). In the end the electricution was to burn Dent severly, and he'd be Two-Face in the next movie. But Warner bought out his contract and that was that. |
|
