Batman (1989) Vs Batman Begins (2005)

[General Zod]

It's been awhile since I've seen the 89 Batman, but I do think it did a better job at not spending any more time on Batman's origin than it had to. I also think it did a better job at showing how grimdark Gotham was without just using lots of violence. I might need to rewatch again to confirm my memory of it.

[Havok]

The funny thing about 89 is I'm recognizing all the music from Lego Batman.

[General Zod]

Oh yeah, the Danny Elfman score is pretty much the defining Batman music since Adam West's theme song. I just can't remember any of the tracks from Nolan's Batman for the life of me.

[Lord Revan]

Oh yeah, the Danny Elfman score is pretty much the defining Batman music since Adam West's theme song. I just can't remember any of the tracks from Nolan's Batman for the life of me.

only one I can remember is that creepy as tune they used for the Joker, rest of the nolan stuff was pretty much "generic action movie" music, it worked but wasn't anything rememoreble. where as Danny Elfman's score had several peices that worked well and stuck to your mind.

[Havok]

I wouldn't say 89's music is dated, I mean, Prince is fucking timeless, but it has a more... rompy feel to it.
Actually, I think I already hit it... it's like a video game score. You can tell when the chase part is and the fighting part and the sneaky part.
Or it could just be the the theme was so pervasive (All 4 movies, the cartoons and pretty much anything Batman) in nerd culture that that's how they started scoring things as the people that grew up with it started writing their own music for games.

The Joker's theme in TDK is just simply fucking fantastic and, I hate this word, epic.

[FSTargetDrone]

Elfman's opening to Batman (1989):



And Zimmer's opening to Batman Begins:



Prince's music aside, I think Elfman's score wins, hands down. I do like Zimmer's work in BB, but Elfman's seems more sweeping, has more impact.

[FSTargetDrone]

I think the Batmobile was handled BETTER and more realistically in the 05 movie.
I LIKE the Batmobile from the 89 movie more.

Just for fun, the introductions in each movie for the respective Batmobile/Tumbler:





Between these 2 scenes, I think Zimmer's score is best.

Sorry about the abysmal video quality. These were the only ones I could find.

Anyway, what a difference! I think I prefer the look of Burton's Batmobile, but clearly Nolan's is capable of so much more. I think it helps a great deal that Nolan had real, wide open city streets to use (aside from the model shots) but Burton's Batmobile was confined almost entirely to the film set.

[FSTargetDrone]

Missed the edit window, but for the sake of completeness, here is the second scene of Burton's Batmobile when it's seen leaving the city:

[ray245]

I don't know if I would prefer the 89 Batman over Batman Begins. Namely, the former feels like it is a stage musical that constantly reminds you that Gotham is a soundstage and not a real city, while the later makes you believe that this is a vast world not limited to Gotham alone.

If we look at it purely as a piece of cinema, I would think that BB feels much more cinematic than 89.

[Gaidin]

Who said anything about "like"? I didn't ask which one you fucking liked more you fucking moron. LEARN TO FUCKING READ or just keep reinforcing my insults about you.

Are you incapable of examining something and saying "this was handled better than this" without hurting your fragile nerd sensibilities?

Let me give you an example dumbfuck:
I think the Batmobile was handled BETTER and more realistically in the 05 movie.
I LIKE the Batmobile from the 89 movie more.

Are you so simple minded that you can not fathom that distinction? Fucking christ.

And it is fucking TWO not TO. Jesus.

Let me put it in simple terms for you. When you ask a question about two movies where I have to pull more contrasts in even a casual analysis and the only two comparisons are Batman and Gotham City, I really am not going to like one more than the other and fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you don't like it. They're just two movies. Now if you do something crazy like talk about games(heh, you do that sometimes I hear), maybe Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed IV, games where I'd be pulling more comparisons than contrasts from them, because they are hilariously similar. Ubisoft does that sometimes lately. Then you'll get what you want. Too damn bad if you don't like how I do things.

[Batman]

Bullshit. You know the new bat suit is better. Yet you like the old one. You fucking said it yourself...

No it's not. It's less unrealistic. That's not the same thing as 'better'.

I do think Begins was the better movie overall, but one of the things I liked about the '89 Batman was that they jumped right into the action, because everybody likely to watch that movie already knows the origin story anyway.

See how you can recognize something is better, yet LIKE something else more?

Way to misrepresent what I wrote. I think Begins is the better movie because I LIKE it better.There is no objective standard. I just liked certain aspects of the old movie more.

It's just like with real cars. The new Chargers are better cars all around, yet I like the old 60s Chargers way more. And then: here is why...
It's not fucking hard.

Except there's objective standards why new cars are better than old ones-better mileage, more eco-friendly, less breakdowns, air condition, air bags, better crash survivability, and so on. There's no such thing for movies.

[TheFeniX]

Batman and Robin was BAD. I could spend hours breaking it down on so many levels and it fully deserves the ire directed at it. That said, I've seen it at least a dozen times because I enjoy it. Mostly for Auhnold's hilariously bad puns among other things such as the entire cast hamming it up with him.

Except there's objective standards why new cars are better than old ones-better mileage, more eco-friendly, less breakdowns, air condition, air bags, better crash survivability, and so on. There's no such thing for movies.

This analogy really doesn't work when it comes to entertainment. Just having a better production value, more money, or whatever doesn't make a movie more enjoyable. Air bags and other equipment might be better from a safety stand-point, but it doesn't make a vehicle more enjoyable to operate. My wife's old Corolla might have all those things, but it's boring to drive. Meanwhile, my old Dakota may have been a gas-guzzling Dodge POS, but at any point I could see a rough spot of dirt/sand, throw it in 4H and have a blast. Provided you don't need to tow anything (which I do/did), the Corolla is obviously the better choice from a money and safety stand-point, but even my wife preferred to drive my truck.

I don't think you can really measure entertainment in the way you're alluding to.

[Batman]

That's exactly my point. There is no objective 'better' where entertainment is concerned.

[Havok]

Let me put it in simple terms for you. When you ask a question about two movies where I have to pull more contrasts in even a casual analysis and the only two comparisons are Batman and Gotham City, I really am not going to like one more than the other and fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you don't like it. They're just two movies. Now if you do something crazy like talk about games(heh, you do that sometimes I hear), maybe Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed IV, games where I'd be pulling more comparisons than contrasts from them, because they are hilariously similar. Ubisoft does that sometimes lately. Then you'll get what you want. Too damn bad if you don't like how I do things.

So Gaidin comes into thread asking specifically for the poster to compare X and Y, gauge which one is better and why, and flat out refuses to do so, then has a fit because I call him an idiot for not doing anything the OP asks. But too damn bad.
Stay golden pony boy.

[Purple]

Let me put it in simple terms for you. When you ask a question about two movies where I have to pull more contrasts in even a casual analysis and the only two comparisons are Batman and Gotham City, I really am not going to like one more than the other and fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you don't like it. They're just two movies. Now if you do something crazy like talk about games(heh, you do that sometimes I hear), maybe Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed IV, games where I'd be pulling more comparisons than contrasts from them, because they are hilariously similar. Ubisoft does that sometimes lately. Then you'll get what you want. Too damn bad if you don't like how I do things.

So Gaidin comes into thread asking specifically for the poster to compare X and Y, gauge which one is better and why, and flat out refuses to do so, then has a fit because I call him an idiot for not doing anything the OP asks. But too damn bad.
Stay golden pony boy.

Here is a thought. How about you lay down the standards for comparison in a way that can be algorithmically used to compare individual works of art and/or entertainment other than subjective taste. What angle do you want this approached from? Are we to analyze the individual works based on their literally construction (use of metaphor, use of character tropes etc.) or maybe their execution (use of sound, color, camera angles) or what?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I admit I'm a little baffled by the prevailing opinions in this thread. No disrespect to Danny Elfman, but I had to do a doubletake when I saw people saying his score was better than Zimmer's. Likewise, while I can certainly understand (and generally agree with) most of the criticisms of Nolan/Bale, I don't feel that that any of them actually seriously detract from Batman Begins. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I felt The Dark Knight was the weakest of the trilogy, carrying the distinction of a plot that truly strained suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. However, since this thread only concerns Batman Begins, that's not an issue here.

I'm not a huge comic book fan. I don't mind the stories and characters they've given rise to, and the greater mythology they've effectively created as a form of modern-day fairy tales, and I generally enjoy those fairy tales. However, I've never had any interest in comic books for the sake of comic books. Perhaps that affects my take on the Batman films: I appreciate the more down-to-earth tack Nolan took; the stripped-down comic bookness of it all. Instead of the Joker being a psychotic madman who was dunked in a vat of... laugh-juice, or whatever, and throwing grenades of magic gas that cause people to laugh to death, he's just a (relatively) normal human being who just happens to subscribe to a demented philosophy of nihilistic entropy and engages in random acts of destruction to carry it out. Similarly, Bane isn't a Hulk-esque green 'roid-juice cyborg, he's just a really tough dude with a lot of painkillers. That groundedness is something that lets someone like me get into the presented fairy tale and appreciate it for what it is. It may not be any more plausible than the Stargate program or modern humans being descended from ancient Cylon hybrids, but like both of those shows, it doesn't blatantly violate what a "reasonable person" might consider believable.

'89 Batman is too fantastic for me. It's akin to watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The Wizard of Oz: a technicolor circus ride (and indeed, Elfman's score reminds me very much of something one might hear in a carnival show). While there's nothing wrong with being entertained by that, it doesn't really command much interest from me. There is something to be said for spectacle and wonder when it comes to film, but when it comes right down to it, I have to give the nod to Batman Begins' more level-headed approach. I go back to all three Nolan films now and then to rewatch them, simply because I enjoy their portrayal of superheroes and supervillains and the fairy tale they weave.

[Gandalf]

Except there's objective standards why new cars are better than old ones-better mileage, more eco-friendly, less breakdowns, air condition, air bags, better crash survivability, and so on. There's no such thing for movies.

That only works if you choose to use those metrics. It largely comes down to what you want out of a car and some definitional issues. If you value economy, then stripping some safety measures to save money makes a car better. However, if you value safety, then economy measures become less relevant. While these remain objective measures, the choice of which ones to use for your definition of "better" is up to the user and their subjective opinion.

[Havok]

'89 Batman is too fantastic for me.

Yes, ninjas, city destroying secret global conspiracies, and microwave water steamers are way less fantastical than a guy in the mob, taking over the mob and having them wear purple jackets.

[TheFeniX]

I appreciate the more down-to-earth tack Nolan took; the stripped-down comic bookness of it all. Instead of the Joker being a psychotic madman who was dunked in a vat of... laugh-juice, or whatever, and throwing grenades of magic gas that cause people to laugh to death, he's just a (relatively) normal human being who just happens to subscribe to a demented philosophy of nihilistic entropy and engages in random acts of destruction to carry it out.

Who also claims to not be a guy who has a plan, yet said "not plan" is so ridiculously convoluted, relying on way more than just luck (more likely divine intervention) to pull off. In a town where criminals are walking around with automatic weapons, rocket-launchers, and enough remote-detonated explosives to level multiple buildings and be able to move them around with no one giving fucks, I'm supposed to believe anyone with any money would still be in that town, much less keep their kids in public school and not heavily guarded private schools?

'89 Batman is too fantastic for me. It's akin to watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The Wizard of Oz: a technicolor circus ride (and indeed, Elfman's score reminds me very much of something one might hear in a carnival show). While there's nothing wrong with being entertained by that, it doesn't really command much interest from me. There is something to be said for spectacle and wonder when it comes to film, but when it comes right down to it, I have to give the nod to Batman Begins' more level-headed approach. I go back to all three Nolan films now and then to rewatch them, simply because I enjoy their portrayal of superheroes and supervillains and the fairy tale they weave.

My problem with the Nolan films is that they are only "level-headed" on the surface. You're talking about Bruce Wayne. A sympathetic Gotham socialite with access to near limitless resources who could perform all manner of change just through the power of money and "hey, I'm a rich white guy whose parents got murdered." Instead, he meets up with a mysterious ninja clan and learns to kung-fu fight bad guys while Morgan Freeman hooks him up with cool shit and his butler doesn't ship him off to the loony bin.

Batman is a fantasy from the start. 89 Batman was just more upfont about it.

[Havok]

Here is a thought. How about you lay down the standards for comparison in a way that can be algorithmically used to compare individual works of art and/or entertainment other than subjective taste. What angle do you want this approached from? Are we to analyze the individual works based on their literally construction (use of metaphor, use of character tropes etc.) or maybe their execution (use of sound, color, camera angles) or what?

You know, sometimes I just think you guys are smarter than you probably actually are and I don't need to spell things out for you like you are children. Silly me.

As I pointed out, and really shouldn't have had to, the movies are incredibly similar as they deal with a multitude of the same issues.

They are both about Batman, his beginnings in Gotham City, his past, who killed his parents, how he balances the love life of Bruce Wayne VS the vigilante life of Batman, how the police start and end up viewing him, how cool the Batmobile is...

To add, you also have a love interest, two wildly different versions of Commissioner Gordon, corrupt police that everyone knows about that not even other police can do anything about, the completely different philosophies of the two Batmans, the two different views Gotham has of Bruce Wayne. Really the only thing in the two movies that are not comparable in an objective aspect to each other is the villain as the Joker and Ra's Ah Gul are supposed to be polar opposites of each other.

But if you want to compare scores, as people have done, and the other technical aspects like camera work, coloring, then that is fine, again, which one is better and why. Do I have to hold your hand? Compare what ever you want.

But to come into the thread and stamp your feet and say "I LIKE THEM BOTH AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" and then say the two Batman movies are impossible to compare? Come the fuck on.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I honestly think Batman The Movie worked better as a comedy than Batman Begins worked as a drama. The Tim Burton Batman is somewhere in between; it was unique and stylistic when it came out, but decades of Tim Burtonization later it's pretty hard to take seriously.

[Havok]

Watch it without the music. Elfman's sound track does detract from the seriousness of it, but without it you it's actually fairly serious and the Joker and Batman seem way more fucking psychotic.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's a tough choice. To be honest, I like EVERY Batman movie. I don't dislike any of them. I'm just a huge Batman fan and always have been. There is something about each of the movies that enjoy, all the way down to Arnold Schwarzenegger's terrible puns.

That said, apparently I need to make a firm decision on one versus the other, since apparently Havok has literally never in his life experienced someone having a difficult time choosing between two things based on subjective opinion and will flip out at me for daring to suggest that it is possible to like two things equally based on their own merits.

In that light, I chose "Batman Begins". I think it is a better constructed movie from a story-telling standpoint, and I think on a formal level (cinematography, editing, etc.) it is more solidly executed. That doesn't mean I don't love "Batman" though. I like its dreamy absurdity and the nice subtle way Keaton was able to inject a level of insanity into the role, just simmering under the surface waiting to erupt.

EDIT:

I honestly think Batman The Movie worked better as a comedy than Batman Begins worked as a drama.

While Batman The Movie does have some profoundly funny moments, to me it doesn't really work as a comedy. Maybe a dark comedy. Honestly, that whole movie just feels like a fever dream, especially when you try to deconstruct it. The atmosphere is very unsettling in a very subtle manner. Despite how terrible he's been for years, Burton was once the master of building atmosphere.

[The Cooler King]

Hm. Hard to say, but I think Begins just BARELY edges it for me. I still think Keaton is THE best live-action Bruce Wayne put onscreen, and Nicholson makes a perfect Joker. I love the Batmobile in the '89 movie, too. That said, the sheer amount of gunplay Batman engages in (from the Batmobile and Batwing, at least) renders it almost unrecognizable as a Batman movie. I was 16 when the movie premiered, and I remember thinking the same thing then ("Why is Batman using machine guns and bombs?"). Also, '89 Batman is the only movie where you see Batman actually being a detective, when he's figuring out the Joker's chemicals.

The Batman in Begins is less kill-crazy, although his non-solution to dealing with Ducard struck me as hollow. "I don't have to save you"? That's killing him, you goof! The Batman I know would have even tried to save the other members of the League of Shadows during the destruction of their temple.

That said, the story structure, the overall caliber of acting (except for Katie Holmes), and the sense of being grounded in reality make Begins a slightly better film. '89 Batman is better looking stylistically, and has a better score (I like Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard, but they can't touch Danny Elfman's score). I'm going to go out on a limb and put Begins above The Dark Knight, too, simply because Batman Begins is a BATMAN movie, while The Dark Knight is a crime film FEATURING Batman.

[Darth Nostril]

I honestly think Batman The Movie worked better as a comedy than Batman Begins worked as a drama.

While Batman The Movie does have some profoundly funny moments, to me it doesn't really work as a comedy. Maybe a dark comedy. Honestly, that whole movie just feels like a fever dream, especially when you try to deconstruct it. The atmosphere is very unsettling in a very subtle manner. Despite how terrible he's been for years, Burton was once the master of building atmosphere.

I think he means the 1966 Batman the Movie.

Robin: "Gosh Batman, the nobility of the almost human porpoise."
Batman: "True, Robin. It was noble of that animal to hurl himself in the path of that final torpedo. He gave his life for ours!"