Your favorite live-action Batman movie:

[Klaus]

Not a real fan of Nicholson-Joker here too! ::raises hand::

Even if they did go for Nicholson, his smile is devilish enough without the make-up that completely robbed him of his facial expressions (the Joker smiles because he finds averything -- specially carnage -- funny, not because he's deformed). And I disliked the Jack Napier angle (specially tying him to Crime Alley).

BTW, even though I think Keaton wasn't very good as Batman, he'd make a really nice Harvey Dent/Two-Face!

 

[Kai Lord]

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.

Oh please. You just undermined any weight of your review with such a ridiculous statement.

It's a better movie with a better story, plot, characterizations, cinematography, and (yes) fights (because the fights in this make sense...

Yes, in your opinion. And an opinion I happen to share. But to suggest that gives you some sort of "objective" perspective is laugh out loud silly.

 

[The_Universe]

Batman Begins, though not by as large a margin as I would have thought. The 1989 Batman is perhaps slightly *more* flawed, but Nolan's vision is not without it's quirks and problems (see other's notes about water and the composition of the human body). Regardless, I think Begins has the character "most right" among the choices, but I still think that of all the screen adaptations of the Batman, the Animated Series has been the best and most faithful. Every time I think about it, I appreciate that show more and more.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Not one mention of this live acton Batman?: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=pd_sxp_f/102-1036944-7008164?v=glance&s=dvd

Do you think "Batman and Robin" (1949) is the one true film and that all others are pale imitations of the original?

 

[sniffles]

Batman Begins, hands down.

I love Tim Burton, but his take on Batman never quite satisfied me.

I've always thought the biggest challenge of a Batman film is that the actor in the lead role actually has to play two parts: Batman and Bruce Wayne. In the previous films the actors never quite worked for me in both roles. But Christian Bale made both of them equally convincing.

The other films also tried to have too many villains and tell too many stories. Somehow director Christopher Nolan managed to have multiple villains without stealing any of the limelight from the title character.

 

[The Serge]

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.

Actually, I do think that there are attempts to develop or at least draw sympathy (and maybe empathy) for the character. It just fails miserably because the overarching nature of the film is so simple. We see Wayne's parents' murder; we see him dropping off roses and Vale wondering about him; we see Vale and Wayne "fall in love;" we get Alfred's comments about mourning the Waynes' son. All of this is here but very little of it is explored. It's a gaping hole that I think is paralleled by the overall concept of the film, from set design, to the nebulous nature of The Batman's crusade.

And, again, even if it's true that there was no intent to focus on character development, it still fails to support itself well as an adaptation. In that alone, it's not as successful a film.

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.

I understand what you're saying (and saying in a far more mature and sophisticated way than certain other people) and I can see how this comes across. I don't believe that I am though I don't know if there's any way to prove it.

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.

There's a lot more great storytelling out there beyond just Miller's rendition of the character if you're interested.

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

Although I was entertained by Nicholson's Joker, he wasn't really The Joker. That version of the character possessed too much of an identity... Although one could argue that it better defined the character for laypersons. His Joker was funny and sinister, but he was neither down right insane in a pyschotic way (more along Moore's handling of the character) or a wholly evil, diabolical sociopath (my preference and, apparently, Miller's). Not to mention that he looked nothing like the character. That said, I think the best Joker for a live action Batman was probably Ceasar Romero. He looked like him (sans the moustache) and his laugh was perfect.

 

[The Serge]

Ah, Kai Lord. Always a pleasure to incur your disdain and wrath.

Oh please. You just undermined any weight of your review with such a ridiculous statement.

I appreciate your concern.

Yes, in your opinion. And an opinion I happen to share. But to suggest that gives you some sort of "objective" perspective is laugh out loud silly.

Then laugh and call it a day or offer a more substantive post that this.

 

[Kai Lord]

Ah, Kai Lord. Always a pleasure to incur your disdain and wrath. I appreciate your concern.

Fear the dark side of ENWorld. Disdain leads to wrath. Wrath leads to concern. Concern leads to...suffering.

Then laugh and call it a day or offer a more substantive post that this.

Okay. And I actually don't recall any previous disagreements between you and I...but now you've got me curious...

 

[DonTadow]

Actually, I do think that there are attempts to develop or at least draw sympathy (and maybe empathy) for the character. It just fails miserably because the overarching nature of the film is so simple. We see Wayne's parents' murder; we see him dropping off roses and Vale wondering about him; we see Vale and Wayne "fall in love;" we get Alfred's comments about mourning the Waynes' son. All of this is here but very little of it is explored. It's a gaping hole that I think is paralleled by the overall concept of the film, from set design, to the nebulous nature of The Batman's crusade.

And, again, even if it's true that there was no intent to focus on character development, it still fails to support itself well as an adaptation. In that alone, it's not as successful a film.


I understand what you're saying (and saying in a far more mature and sophisticated way than certain other people) and I can see how this comes across. I don't believe that I am though I don't know if there's any way to prove it.


There's a lot more great storytelling out there beyond just Miller's rendition of the character if you're interested.


Although I was entertained by Nicholson's Joker, he wasn't really The Joker. That version of the character possessed too much of an identity... Although one could argue that it better defined the character for laypersons. His Joker was funny and sinister, but he was neither down right insane in a pyschotic way (more along Moore's handling of the character) or a wholly evil, diabolical sociopath (my preference and, apparently, Miller's). Not to mention that he looked nothing like the character. That said, I think the best Joker for a live action Batman was probably Ceasar Romero. He looked like him (sans the moustache) and his laugh was perfect.

I'd like to see them throw some makeup on Mark Hamill. He just has the joker down packed and theres no real reason with all the technology and make up nowdays he couldn't play the character in this day and age.

 

[The Serge]

Fear the dark side of ENWorld. Disdain leads to wrath. Wrath leads to concern. Concern leads to...suffering.

Okay. And I actually don't recall any previous disagreements between you and I...but now you've got me curious...

It's happened a few times about a year or two ago. I have a long memory. Although I don't recall the precise conversation, I do know that only difference then and now (similar comments from you after a long tirade from me) is that you deigned to clarify your positions.