Your favorite live-action Batman movie:

[Dark Jezter]

For me, it's hard to decide between Batman (1989) and Batman Begins. Both of them are great films that I love a lot. In the end, however, I think that Batman (1989) slightly takes the lead.

Batman (1989) has the following going for it:

• Great costumes: I like Batman's costume in this one better. The "ears" on the costume in Batman Begins just look off to me. I also like the psuedo-1930s/1940s clothing worn by the other characters in the 1989 film.
• Great sets: In Batman, the set designers deliberately used clashing archetectural styles to make Gotham City the ugliest and most uninviting metropolis imaginable. It worked. The Gotham City in 1989's Batman flick definately looks like the nasty, crime-infested hellhole that it's supposed to be.
• Great soundtrack: Danny Elfman's score was so good that Batman the Animated Series borrowed from it. To this day, the theme song from this movie is the music I associate with Batman the most.
• The Joker: Jack Nicholson's performance as Jack "the Joker" Napier was absolutely great. I still laugh every time I think of the scene where he says "Do I look like I'm joking?" with a big grin permanently etched into his face.

Batman Begins has the following going for it:

• Better Characterization of Batman: The 1989 Batman movie only explained how Bruce Wayne became Batman with a few lines of dialogue and a brief flashback scene. Batman Begins, on the other hand, shows the training of Batman, where he got all of his devices, his first crimefighting missions, etc. It does a much better job of explaining the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman.
• Better Secondary Characters: This film takes better advantage of the characters of Alfred and James Gordon than the 1989 movie did.
• More Faithful to the Comics: This is the live-action Batman movie that most resembles the comic books, or at least Batman: Year One by Frank Miller.
• Better Pacing: Batman (1989) was definately slow in some parts. Batman Begins drags a lot less.

Of course, my absolute favorite non-comic portrayal of Batman is Batman: The Animated Series. Of course, we're talking about live-action movies here, not TV shows.

 

[The Serge]

Hands down, Batman Begins.

In all respects, its more faithful to the concept of The Batman. It doesn't become burdened under the "refit bug" that a lot of directors seem burdened by, their attempt to make their mark. This is probably the single greatest flaw in Batman from 1989.

Burton's take on The Batman in that film was the best at the time it came out. It wouldn't be until Batman: The Animated Series debuted that anything would come close to matching the comics on the big or small screen. However, Burton was, from the start, dedicated to redefining the character to meet his own interests rather than making sure there was a faithful transition.

Burton's Batman does kill. There's no doubt about this, particularly in Batman Returns. Burton's Gotham City, while visually impressive, is clearly a fantasy land that isn't meant to be remotely real. While I don't mind fantasy in comics (afterall, that's what superhero comics are), I think that Batman at his best in the comics has always been shown as relatively realistic in a romantic sort of way rather than in some sort of phantasmagorical, operatic way. The depiction of the city in the '89 film reflects that the Batman isn't supposed to exist in any "real world" and, as a result, not to be taken as a serious, dramatic character.

The supporting cast, from Gordon (especially) to Alfred to Vicki Vale, are utterly worthless in that film. They're just sort of there and offer very little. The Joker completely dominates the film... We shouldn't be surprised considering that the marquee has Nicholson's name before Keaton's. Again, this is a reflection of the fact that there's no intent to treat The Batman as a serious, dramatic persona. Finally, Keaton himself, while doing an admirable job, couldn't carry the Batman character. Again, this reflects Burton's desire to place his mark... He wanted an ordinary looking guy who just happened to be rich and bored and perhaps a little mad that his parents were killed. Keaton had the voice and nothing else. He didn't possess the physicality and certainly not the face.

All of these factors, aside from the Batman voice, were rectified in Batman Begins.

First, Nolan isn't out to make his mark... Or, if he is, his desire to do so is overriden by by his dedication to hold true to the core nature of The Batman and his world. As any decent cross-genre adaptation, some sacrifices are made, but Batman Begins maintains the integrity and essence of the comics.

We have a Batman in whom we can understand his motivations. He's a living, breathing person that we can identify with, with whom we can at least sympathize if not empathize. We understand how learns to fight, where he "gets those wonderful toys," and why he does what he does. While the whole "fear theme" goes a little too far (because the actual word is said to many times), this underlying aspect drives the entire film... making it not only a great adaptation of a comic book character (and arguably the best such adaptation to date), but a great movie.

Nolan also does an excellent job with the supporting cast. Gordon, who has relatively little screen time, is extremely memorable and surprisingly strong as a character. Alfred has presence and impact, his role as a mentor and father figure (recall how he echos Thomas Wayne's comments about falling down towards the end of the film?) essential to grounding The Batman. If the weakest character/actor is Rachel Dawes/Katie Holmes (which is debatable and I suspect a reaction to her Dawson's Creek days not to mention the asinine hype surrounding her and Cruise more so than Holmes' own performance), she still stands heads and shoulders over the vapid Vicki Vale who's nothing more than meaningless eye candy whose motivations are non-existent with her being nothing more than a damsel-in-distress.

And the music... Yes, Elfman's score was seminal and the theme extremely memorable; however, the Zimmer and Howard score captures the character's darkness, anger, sadness, and fear to far greater degree. This new score is far closer to a horror/suspense score than a "superhero" score and does the character far more justice.

Although I respect that people may simply prefer one movie over another, I believe that from a purely objective perspective that Batman Begins is better. It's a better movie with a better story, plot, characterizations, cinematography, and (yes) fights (because the fights in this make sense... Not a single thug lasts more than a few seconds with Bats in this film in contrast to the '89 film). And, for comic fans, particularly Batman fans, I can't see how anyone can find preference to any previous Batman movie's portrayal of the character (unless we talk about Batman: Mask of the Phantasm... but that's for another time).

Batman Begins is not only a better adaptation, it's a better movie... It's a good movie that some critics are already suggesting will end up with some Oscar nods. That's high praise for a "comic book" film never once uttered for any of the previous films. No, Oscar nominations may not mean much to all of us, but such a thing would ensure more seriously created comic book adaptations and that's always a good thing.

 

[BvS]

Hands down, Batman Begins... (snip!)...
Batman Begins is not only a better adaptation, it's a better movie...

You've pretty much summed it up. I too love Burton's '89 Batman... but to be honest, that movie really should be called "The Joker", as he was the focus; Batman was almost like a secondary character at certain points. In Batman Begins, the focus never leaves Batman. This is what will distinguish this movie from the last 4. When speaking about the old Batman movies, I find that people often refer to the villians in order to identify which movie they're speaking about. In the future, I think people will refer to Batman's actions and major plot-points to identify this one.

Cheers

 

[Silver Moon]

Batman fighting crime in full daylight! Aquatic Bat Shark Repellant! Batman calmly using a radio with a shark clamped onto his leg! Inexplicable exploding fish!...The movie is a laugh a minute!

I have to agree! And having Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwoman all working together was great! Yes this movie and the show was silly over-the-tip camp - but that's what they were trying for and they did it Perfect! And despite the silliness of the Adam West Batman the Adam West Bruce Wayne was very well played. Great voice too.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Burton's Batman does kill. There's no doubt about this, particularly in Batman Returns.

That's one of the only things I didn't like about Burton's Batman; Burton seems to have did away with Batman's oath to never kill the criminals he hunts (the only time Batman will kill a criminal is if it's the absolute only way to save innocents). Still, Burton's Batman still shows more mercy than Frank Miller's Batman in The Dark Knight Returns story arc, which nearly turned Batman into the Gotham City equivalent of the Punisher.

Burton's Gotham City, while visually impressive, is clearly a fantasy land that isn't meant to be remotely real. While I don't mind fantasy in comics (afterall, that's what superhero comics are), I think that Batman at his best in the comics has always been shown as relatively realistic in a romantic sort of way rather than in some sort of phantasmagorical, operatic way. The depiction of the city in the '89 film reflects that the Batman isn't supposed to exist in any "real world" and, as a result, not to be taken as a serious, dramatic character.

The Lord of the Rings films clearly don't take place in any "real world" either, but I'll be damned if they don't have some serious, dramatic characters. Ditto the Star Wars films, which clearly takes place in a space fantasy setting but has produced some of the most memorable and beloved characters in movie history. I don't think that the slightly stylized Gotham City from Tim Burton's films diminish the characters in any way.

Finally, Keaton himself, while doing an admirable job, couldn't carry the Batman character. Again, this reflects Burton's desire to place his mark... He wanted an ordinary looking guy who just happened to be rich and bored and perhaps a little mad that his parents were killed. Keaton had the voice and nothing else. He didn't possess the physicality and certainly not the face.

And yet, neither did Bale. In my opinion, the only actor who really matched the look and physique of Batman from the comics was George Clooney in Batman & Robin.

However, I still prefer Keaton over Bale.

All of these factors, aside from the Batman voice, were rectified in Batman Begins.

Ah yes, Christian Bale's "raspy bat-voice" he used whenever he was in costume. It was the only part of the movie that I really couldn't stand, mainly because it sounded more silly than intimidating.

If the weakest character/actor is Rachel Dawes/Katie Holmes (which is debatable and I suspect a reaction to her Dawson's Creek days not to mention the asinine hype surrounding her and Cruise more so than Holmes' own performance), she still stands heads and shoulders over the vapid Vicki Vale who's nothing more than meaningless eye candy whose motivations are non-existent with her being nothing more than a damsel-in-distress.

Both Rachel Dawes and Vicki Vale were pretty useless. Easily the weakest characters in their respective movies.

And the music... Yes, Elfman's score was seminal and the theme extremely memorable; however, the Zimmer and Howard score captures the character's darkness, anger, sadness, and fear to far greater degree. This new score is far closer to a horror/suspense score than a "superhero" score and does the character far more justice.

I definately disagree with this one. After two viewings, I found Zimmer's score for Batman Begins to be pretty forgettable. Elfman's score, on the other hand, is one of my favorite movie scores of all time.

Although I respect that people may simply prefer one movie over another, I believe that from a purely objective perspective that Batman Begins is better. It's a better movie with a better story, plot, characterizations, cinematography, and (yes) fights (because the fights in this make sense... Not a single thug lasts more than a few seconds with Bats in this film in contrast to the '89 film).

I disagree that the fight scenes were better in Batman Begins, mainly because it was hard to see what was happening; shame on Christopher Nolan for deciding to use the shaky cam close-up technique for fight scenes that so many movie directors seem to love nowadays.

 

[The Serge]

Still, Burton's Batman still shows more mercy than Frank Miller's Batman in The Dark Knight Returns story arc, which nearly turned Batman into the Gotham City equivalent of the Punisher.

More mercy? Overall, perhaps, but Batman still doesn't kill anyone in TDKR.

The Lord of the Rings films clearly don't take place in any "real world" either, but I'll be damned if they don't have some serious, dramatic characters. Ditto the Star Wars films, which clearly takes place in a space fantasy setting but has produced some of the most memorable and beloved characters in movie history. I don't think that the slightly stylized Gotham City from Tim Burton's films diminish the characters in any way.

I was waiting for this.

It's all about context. In The Lord of the Rings, both the books and the film adaptations, the fantasy realm works due to the context. The fantasy realm has a history, depth, cultural and social mores (not as deep in the films as in the novels, but they're there), and a history do which the characters can refer. There is a dramatic realism because the environment, although fantastic, is treated in a sophisticated, realistic fashion.

We don't have this in Burton's Gotham and, due to the nature in which The Batman is handled, it's not necessarily a problem. Gotham, like The Batman, just is. There's no attempt to rationalize it's status in the world, why it's architecture is as it is, or why it's so crime ridden. This parallels the take on The Batman, who -- aside from the murder of his parents -- seems to have no motivation, no origins, nothing really defining him. He's not meant to be perceived in that film as a serious, dramatic person with whom audiences can sympathize, much less empathize. This is in stark contrast to the Gotham in Batman Begins that is the way it is for reason that are discussed and explored by the characters throughout the telling (just like Middle Earth id discussed and explored by the character throughout LotR). Like Batman, it has a serious role to play and is presented in a manner that most people can identify with and be concerned with. It's a far more realistic and sophisticated fantasy than Burton's version.

Star Wars... Well, I think SW is filled with holes big enough to fly the Death Star through, so I won't address this one.

And yet, neither did Bale. In my opinion, the only actor who really matched the look and physique of Batman from the comics was George Clooney in Batman & Robin.

Hardly.

Bale's 6'1" and probably close to 200 Ilbs. He's not only muscular, he's well defined. Batman is 6'2" and 210 Ibls and is typically illustrated with a muscular, well defined physique. He's a dark man with a brooding look, just like Bale. Clooney possesses none of these characteristics beyond his height, gender, and "race." Bale comes closer than any one in meeting Batman's specifications.

Ah yes, Christian Bale's "raspy bat-voice" he used whenever he was in costume. It was the only part of the movie that I really couldn't stand, mainly because it sounded more silly than intimidating.

He sounded best when he wasn't yelling at someone... Like when he chats with Gordon at the end of the film.

Both Rachel Dawes and Vicki Vale were pretty useless. Easily the weakest characters in their respective movies.

Yes, the weakest characters perhaps, but Dawes was significantly stronger than Vale. Dawes represents the ideal of Gotham, someone who hasn't given up and, despite the darkness around her, still exudes light. Unlike Alfred (who, as far as we know, never left Wayne Manor) or Gordon (who's trapped in his situation), Dawes is out in the thick of things fighting despite the threats to her life. The Dawes character plays an integral role in the telling beyond just being a possible love interest. Her bravery makes sense and her being threatened (because the work she does so threatens the establishment) makes sense. Vale offers none of these things. Her motivations are nebulous as is her interest in Bruce Wayne. The Joker's interest in her is horribly contrived. Her role in the big picture is asinine.

I definately disagree with this one. After two viewings, I found Zimmer's score for Batman Begins to be pretty forgettable. Elfman's score, on the other hand, is one of my favorite movie scores of all time.

This is going to be one that I think I'll be in the minority on. And I understand why. I own at least six or seven Elfman scores and I wore the tape out when I bought the score to Batman 16 years ago. It's fun stuff. However, I still believe that although its a fun (and very romantic score), it doesn't have the "horror" feel that Batman needs to be effective. Just like Batman's portrayal in this film is more accurate (we don't see much of him when he takes on most bad gus), the music captures this accuracy to a greater degree.

I disagree that the fight scenes were better in Batman Begins, mainly because it was hard to see what was happening; shame on Christopher Nolan for deciding to use the shaky cam close-up technique for fight scenes that so many movie directors seem to love nowadays.

They were infinitely better. Batman doesn't toy around. He's in and he's out with most of the fight scenes with thugs... Just like in the comics. Although I recognize folks' distaste for the manner in which the fights were edited, I had no problem with them. I could tell exactly what was happening in the contests. However, the fights in this more closely paralleled those in the comics than those in any/i] of the previous films.

 

[Templetroll]

Just saw it. It was great, enough references to the other movies (the afterburner on the batmobile, comments about the psychology of someone who dresses like a bat) and very good portrayals of Bruce, Alfred, Lucius, Gordon etc. The gear and the car turned out better than I thought it would. Loved Ras, Scarecrow etc. Looking forward to the next one.

 

[Dark Jezter]

More mercy? Overall, perhaps, but Batman still doesn't kill anyone in TDKR.

Nah, he just leaves them crippled for life.

We don't have this in Burton's Gotham and, due to the nature in which The Batman is handled, it's not necessarily a problem. Gotham, like The Batman, just is. There's no attempt to rationalize it's status in the world, why it's architecture is as it is, or why it's so crime ridden.

Sometimes settings are cool for their own sake. Burton's Gotham City is a threatening, corrupt nightmare of a city that Batman seeks to clean up, and that's enough for me. The fact that Burton's movie dosen't include a pretty little lawyer playing sociology professor lecturing on the causes of crime dosen't make the setting any less cool or visually stunning.

This parallels the take on The Batman, who -- aside from the murder of his parents -- seems to have no motivation, no origins, nothing really defining him. He's not meant to be perceived in that film as a serious, dramatic person with whom audiences can sympathize, much less empathize.

Not every action movie needs to be a character study into how the hero became so good and why he does what he does. Does The Princess Bride spend 45 minutes showing Wesley training under the Dread Pirate Roberts? Does First Blood spend half the film showing John Rambo's expiriences in Vietnam? Does Enter the Dragon spend any time explaining how Bruce Lee's character became such a damn good martial artist?

Sometimes it's cool to see a man becoming a hero, a la Batman Begins. And sometimes it's fun to have the hero already there and kicking ass from the beginning of the film, as in Burton's Batman.

This is in stark contrast to the Gotham in Batman Begins that is the way it is for reason that are discussed and explored by the characters throughout the telling (just like Middle Earth id discussed and explored by the character throughout LotR). Like Batman, it has a serious role to play and is presented in a manner that most people can identify with and be concerned with. It's a far more realistic and sophisticated fantasy than Burton's version.

Realistic, yes. But realism isn't a criteria that I'm overly concerned about when it comes to superhero movies. I found Burton's dark and, well, gothic Gotham is much more interesting and memorable than Nolan's futuristic Gotham with it's glass skyscrapers and high-tech monorail.

Hardly.

Bale's 6'1" and probably close to 200 Ilbs. He's not only muscular, he's well defined. Batman is 6'2" and 210 Ibls and is typically illustrated with a muscular, well defined physique. He's a dark man with a brooding look, just like Bale. Clooney possesses none of these characteristics beyond his height, gender, and "race." Bale comes closer than any one in meeting Batman's specifications.

I wouldn't exactly describe Bale as having a dark, brooding look, but if he works for you as Batman, I'm glad for you. I just didn't see it.

 

[The_lurkeR]

Just saw Batman: Begins... no contest here, it's the clear winner.

 

[Taelorn76]

I voted for the 89 version. Just because personaly I loved the way the Jack played the Joker. That is what sold it for me.