Your favorite live-action Batman movie:

[IronWolf]

I am not voting as I haven't seen Batman Begins yet, but I really liked the '89 version. I thought Gotham had a great dark and gritty feel to it.

 

[The Serge]

Nah, he just leaves them crippled for life.

Really? If you're referring to the thug that he kicks in book one, The Batman says that he's young and will recover. And there's no telling what happened to the Mutant Leader.

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.

Which is a reflection of the simplisity of the fantasy. There's no depth. You're essentially admitting as much. I'm not saying that it's not a good thing, but there's no depth to it and as a result it's not as sophisticated or as likely to be taken with any degree of seriousness. Now, whether or not the was Burton's intent, I do not know; however, this is a sharp divergence from the better comics out there that, while recognizing that comics are a fantasy, seek to create more sophisticated fantasies a la LotR or SoFaI.

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?

Princess Bride is a satire on fairy tales with a different goal that Batman. First Blood is not intended to be much more than an action film that offers a basic premise to get the story going. Beyond that, Rambo doesn't really have much of a personality and, as such, isn't meant to be treated all that seriously. Enter the Dragon even more so: we know what motivates Lee's character to enter the tournament, but it's a simple (very simple) narrative that doesn't presume to be more than it is: something to be taken as a serious drama. This is not to say that these films aren't good at what they do, but to say that they're not expected to be more than what they are. They're also (with the exception of PB) not adaptations as far as I know while Batman is.

The Batman character at his best has always been relatively complex for a superhero. He's always possessed a degree of depth that puts him beyond these examples your providing.

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.

Actually, we get Wayne "kicking ass" from the beginning of Batman Begins in addition to dramatic weight, excellent characterization, consistent plotting and storytelling. It can happen in the hands of someone who takes a character of this nature seriously and someone who does not go out of their way to put his/her own personal (and inappropriate) mark on the character.

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.

Realistic within the context of the film. As I said in the previous post. There is nothing realistic about Batman within the context of the film because we learn very little about him, his world, and how and why he does what he does. This simplisity is paralleled with a shallow city.

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.

You must be blind

At any rate, I notice you don't address the other factors I indicate that show that Bale, to date, was the best cast.

As I said before, I didn't dislike the '89 version... I just recognize it for what it is (a serviceable and artsy film) and what it isn't (an faithful adaptation of the character). At the time, it was the best Batman fans had but it wasn't what it could have been despite being a step in the right direction. Batman Begins is far better across all boards when compared to the '89 film in capturing the character.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Which is a reflection of the simplisity of the fantasy. There's no depth. You're essentially admitting as much. I'm not saying that it's not a good thing, but there's no depth to it and as a result it's not as sophisticated or as likely to be taken with any degree of seriousness. Now, whether or not the was Burton's intent, I do not know; however, this is a sharp divergence from the better comics out there that, while recognizing that comics are a fantasy, seek to create more sophisticated fantasies a la LotR or SoFaI.

Gotcha. "Sophisticated" means bad poetry and inconsistant pacing in many parts, or it can also mean convoluted plots for every single character and pointless sex scenes every few chapters.

I don't agree that simple and straightforward automatically equals unsophisticated and not to be taken seriously. Batman: The Animated Series uses the same dark, stylized Gotham and psuedo-1940s clothing styles as Burton's Batman film, and like Burton's film it never explains why things look the way they do, and BtAS remains my favorite portral of Batman in any medium.

Princess Bride is a satire on fairy tales with a different goal that Batman. First Blood is not intended to be much more than an action film that offers a basic premise to get the story going. Beyond that, Rambo doesn't really have much of a personality and, as such, isn't meant to be treated all that seriously. Enter the Dragon even more so: we know what motivates Lee's character to enter the tournament, but it's a simple (very simple) narrative that doesn't presume to be more than it is: something to be taken as a serious drama. This is not to say that these films aren't good at what they do, but to say that they're not expected to be more than what they are. They're also (with the exception of PB) not adaptations as far as I know while Batman is.

The Batman character at his best has always been relatively complex for a superhero. He's always possessed a degree of depth that puts him beyond these examples your providing.

Actually, First Blood was based on a novel, and it diverged from it in many aspects (particularly the ending), but I don't mind this because I'm not one of those people who feels that a movie based on source material needs to slavishly adhere to it in all aspects. In fact, I found the movie much more memorable than the novel (and apparantly so did many others, considering that a lot of people have no idea that the movie was based on a book).

Back to the subject, I really think you're over-rationalizing to cover up a double standard of why the character Batman needs to be explored and explained while the other movie characters do not. Burton's Batman is intended to be a straight-up action/adventure movie, not a character piece. Batman Begins, like Unbreakable, is a "Birth of a Superhero" film. They are two different types of movies. That's why I'm not bothered that Burton's Batman dosen't go into much detail exploring why Bruce Wayne became Batman.

Realistic within the context of the film. As I said in the previous post. There is nothing realistic about Batman within the context of the film because we learn very little about him, his world, and how and why he does what he does. This simplisity is paralleled with a shallow city.

So not learning a lot about somebody in a movie makes them unrealistic? Okay...

As for Gotham being shallow, I'll just refer back to my BtAS example.

As I said before, I didn't dislike the '89 version... I just recognize it for what it is (a serviceable and artsy film) and what it isn't (an faithful adaptation of the character). At the time, it was the best Batman fans had but it wasn't what it could have been despite being a step in the right direction. Batman Begins is far better across all boards when compared to the '89 film in capturing the character.

I don't disagree that Batman Begins is more faithful to the comic books, but still I think that Burton's Batman is still the more enjoyable of the two movies.

 

[The Serge]

Gotcha. "Sophisticated" means bad poetry and inconsistant pacing in many parts, or it can also mean convoluted plots for every single character and pointless sex scenes every few chapters.

No, sophisticated means that there is a concern for the human condition upon which a variety of themes are concerned. I suspect most fans of the genre know this or else have short attention spans... Possibly both.

I don't agree that simple and straightforward automatically equals unsophisticated and not to be taken seriously. Batman: The Animated Series uses the same dark, stylized Gotham and psuedo-1940s clothing styles as Burton's Batman film, and like Burton's film it never explains why things look the way they do, and BtAS remains my favorite portral of Batman in any medium.

Huge difference. Batman: The Animated Series is a series over the course of which we get to know the character, his motivations, his goals, and his desires. It's not a one shot. And, as I said before regarding Burton's adaptation, the city in BTAS parallels the take on the character. Its depth (or lackthereof) is evolves as the series progresses.

Actually, First Blood was based on a novel, and it diverged from it in many aspects (particularly the ending), but I don't mind this because I'm not one of those people who feels that a movie based on source material needs to slavishly adhere to it in all aspects. In fact, I found the movie much more memorable than the novel (and apparantly so did many others, considering that a lot of people have no idea that the movie was based on a book).

A lot of people have no idea how many movies are adaptations from books, poems, or earlier movies... Again, a reflection of short attention spans. And a desire for simplisity... But to each his/her own. I have never seen the entirety of the film, just enough to get the point.

Back to the subject, I really think you're over-rationalizing to cover up a double standard of why the character Batman needs to be explored and explained while the other movie characters do not. Burton's Batman is intended to be a straight-up action/adventure movie, not a character piece. Batman Begins, like Unbreakable, is a "Birth of a Superhero" film. They are two different types of movies. That's why I'm not bothered that Burton's Batman dosen't go into much detail exploring why Bruce Wayne became Batman.

And I'm not disagreeing with what you've said about Burton's Batman... What I'm saying is that this is the fundamental flaw in the adaptation because it robs Batman of what he is...

Batman Begins, on the other hand, better captures the character because it's more concerned about the character than it is about awesome set design, cinematograhy, and witty one-liners from the villain. It's also a deeper film.

My point is, as it's always been, that Burton's film is a weak adaptation when compared to Batman Begins for the reasons illustrated above and in earlier posts.

So not learning a lot about somebody in a movie makes them unrealistic? Okay...

No, realistic in context. There is no motivation for his actions, no explanation for how he accomplishes what he accomplishes, no rationale for his talents and skills. Realistic in context.

As for Gotham being shallow, I'll just refer back to my BtAS example.

I refer to my earlier comments in this post.

I don't disagree that Batman Begins is more faithful to the comic books, but still I think that Burton's Batman is still the more enjoyable of the two movies.

And I'm happy for you. For you, a simpler tale was more fun and I can see the lure. As long as you "don't disagree" that Batman Begins is more faithful, I'm satisfied.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Minority, perhaps, but not alone. I'm right there with you.

(I'm with you on every other point you made, as well. I don't consdider the Burton movies to be Batman movies at all, in all honesty. Some of them are decent movies, but they aren't about the character of Batman as I know him.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The Columbia Batman serials of the 1940s!

Seriously, until Batman Begins they really were the best, though the costumes and special effects left much to be desired.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Though I very much liked BtAS I hated the regurgitations of the 1980s and '90s.

 

[Desdichado]

And I'm not disagreeing with what you've said about Burton's Batman... What I'm saying is that this is the fundamental flaw in the adaptation because it robs Batman of what he is...

This is coming very close to the logical flaw of saying, "this is a bad (or at least not as good as it could be) movie because it's not the movie I wanted to see." Just because you had ideas ahead of time on what a Batman movie should have been doesn't mean that your ideas are objectively true. Tim Burton (and his screenwriters, I suppose) had their own idea on how to present Batman, and just because it doesn't do what you wanted it to do doesn't mean it "robbed" the character. You'd be a lot better off discussing the movies that were made rather than the ones you wanted to make yourself.

 

[The Serge]

This is coming very close to the logical flaw of saying, "this is a bad (or at least not as good as it could be) movie because it's not the movie I wanted to see." Just because you had ideas ahead of time on what a Batman movie should have been doesn't mean that your ideas are objectively true. Tim Burton (and his screenwriters, I suppose) had their own idea on how to present Batman, and just because it doesn't do what you wanted it to do doesn't mean it "robbed" the character.

None of the movies do what I want out of a Batman movie adaptation. And, although I can see how it may appear to be an issue of what I like, that's not the case.

I love The Killing Joke. I think it's a great story, well conceived, well written, and beautifully illustrated. It's one of my favorite Batman stories. And I disagree with it entirely. I disagree with the take on The Joker and I disagree with aspects of The Batman (particularly the end). This does not distract from it being a quality graphic novel even if it isn't the "ultimate" Batman/Joker confrontation I would have written. However, it works because it's consistent in context and focuses on The Batman character as he's evolved over (at the time) 50 years.

And, like I said, I like Burton's Batman. Never said I didn't; however, its take on the character is flawed in a number of ways, with some of those flaws occuring because of the decisions made within the film itself rather than being an adaptation.

You'd be a lot better off discussing the movies that were made rather than the ones you wanted to make yourself.

That's what we're doing. And, in doing so and in rating them, there are going to be sides taken and preferences established. And parallels drawn to the source material. Not once have I said "I would have." I've been drawing comparisons between Burton's adaptation and Nolan's adaptation and how they relate to the source material. For me, although neither is perfect, Nolan's is not only a better, more thorough adaptation, it's a better film overall.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I haven't seen the newest Batman movie yet, but so far the '89 Batman has been my favorite so far. Batman Returns was OK, but you start to see a hint of the cheesy wahoo style of movies that came with the rest of them. Everything after BR was simply crap, IMO.

Kane

 

[Desdichado]

That's what we're doing. And, in doing so and in rating them, there are going to be sides taken and preferences established. And parallels drawn to the source material. Not once have I said "I would have." I've been drawing comparisons between Burton's adaptation and Nolan's adaptation and how they relate to the source material. For me, although neither is perfect, Nolan's is not only a better, more thorough adaptation, it's a better film overall.

I'm not so sure. Saying that the 1989 Batman was a failure that "robbed" the character because it didn't focus on his development into the Batman is a logical flaw. It never intended to, so criticizing it for not doing so seems kinda pointless.

Not that I don't agree completely with your conclusions, it just seems that you (and stevelabny) are criticising the movies based on your own expectations for them rather than really judging the movies based on what's there on screen.

For what it's worth, I actually don't much like the 1989 Batman movie at all; I never saw the second Burton movie, and like everyone else, I could do completely without the Joel Schumacker movies entirely. But I'm not a bigtime Batman fan -- I had little interest in him until Frank Miller showed what he could be about. I'm not as nit-picky about faithfulness to source material -- in fact, I couldn't care less about it if I tried. But I do agree that Batman Begins is a much better movie.

And I never liked Nicholson's Joker either, which apparently makes me very much in the minority.