Batman (1989) Vs Batman Begins (2005)

[Purple]

That sounds like a movie I'd want to watch.

[Batman]

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

[Havok]

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.

Don't look now, but see what you did that there? You think Batman Begins is better. It doesn't mean you aren't allowed to love Batman.

For fucks sake is this how you guys think all the time? This really could go a long way in explaining the general mentality in this country; "I like it the most, so it has to be better!"

bet·ter1
ˈbedər/
adjective

noun
noun: better; plural noun: betters; plural noun: one's betters

1.
the better one; that which is better.
"the Natural History Museum book is by far the better of the two"

And do you know what is not a synonym of any version of 'better'? 'Like'.

like
verb \ˈlīk\

: to enjoy (something) : to get pleasure from (something)

: to regard (something) in a favorable way

: to feel affection for (someone) : to enjoy being with (someone)

You guys do understand that words have meanings yes? If I wanted a which one is my 'favorite' poll or which one do you 'like' more poll, that is what I would have asked in the poll question.

If you are seriously going to whine because you have to answer the question posed in the OP, or it is OMG so impossible, then just don't fucking comment.

[JLTucker]

Begins for a few reasons: No Burton, no Nicholson, and better cinematography.

[Metahive]

Batman Begins shows why you shouldn't aim for "realism" in a comic book movie unless it's a deconstruction (which BB isn't), it draws way too much attention on the truly ridiculous aspects of it. Just look at the villainous plot, polluting the water supply of an entire city with a hallucinogenic substance and then vaporizing it in the most overblown and dramatic way possible, just so everyone in the city goes insane. That sounds like something the Joker would come up with in BtAS, not someone like Ra's Al-Ghul in a "realistic" movie. O yeah, and then there's:

"I'm gonna' be a vigilante dressed in a rubber animal costume!"

Sorry, not going to work. Batman '89 all the way.

[Ted C]

My largest objection to Batman (1989) is that it made the Joker into the person who shot Bruce Wayne's parents, making their connection entirely too personal before they ever even met.

The man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents was basically a nobody -- a generic example of the criminal element in Gotham. That's how it should be, and Batman Begins got that right.

[Metahive]

My largest objection to Batman (1989) is that it made the Joker into the person who shot Bruce Wayne's parents, making their connection entirely too personal before they ever even met.

The man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents was basically a nobody -- a generic example of the criminal element in Gotham. That's how it should be, and Batman Begins got that right.

A nobody? Then they should have left that guy without a face and a name, but not only was he identified, he was even important enough to get offed in broad daylight, Lee Harvey Oswald-style. Even better, Bruce wanted to do the deed himself and was just seconds too late. What kind of message is that? The movie did a really bad job as to why Bruce would develop a no-kill policy, he just suddenly has it to the utter consternation of his teacher.

[Havok]

My largest objection to Batman (1989) is that it made the Joker into the person who shot Bruce Wayne's parents, making their connection entirely too personal before they ever even met.

The man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents was basically a nobody -- a generic example of the criminal element in Gotham. That's how it should be, and Batman Begins got that right.

How? Begins went with the Joe Chill angle, which again, puts a name and face on the act and still impacts him incredibly personally outside of the generic feeling you are alluding to in the original comics. In fact, JUSTICE IS SERVED in Begins. The system works! He is caught and put in jail, and that should have led to no Batman. That is what I find poorly executed in Begins. On top of that, you have Rachel Dawes as a positive example in Bruce's life and of what Bruce should be and shows that an honest person can fight against crime in Gotham through normal channels. It negates the whole idea that you need a symbol of justice to bring Gotham around.

In Batman, you at least have Batman before he finds out who kills his parents. And you don't have any of the other reasons that makes Batman even more illogical and silly than he already is like Begins. It's a mystery at the very least.

[Gandalf]

How? Begins went with the Joe Chill angle, which again, puts a name and face on the act and still impacts him incredibly personally outside of the generic feeling you are alluding to in the original comics. In fact, JUSTICE IS SERVED in Begins. The system works! He is caught and put in jail, and that should have led to no Batman. That is what I find poorly executed in Begins. On top of that, you have Rachel Dawes as a positive example in Bruce's life and of what Bruce should be and shows that an honest person can fight against crime in Gotham through normal channels. It negates the whole idea that you need a symbol of justice to bring Gotham around.

I thought Chill was getting early release from prison because he offered information on Falcone. As such that whole sequence showed that the system didn't work correctly, because Falcone engineered it to get Chill out in the open so he could be shot.

[Metahive]

As far as "deep systemic corruption" goes this is...rather tame all things considered. Also, why the fuck is Chill suddenly important enough to be able to potentially hurt a bigwig crimelord like Falcone? That once again undercuts the whole "Thomas and Martha Wayne were victims of a random crime" point that people misguidedly applaud BB for. I mean, the movie even implies the League of Ass...Shadows has been behind making Gotham into a "hellhole" so as to prepare it for their next big event and that Thomas Wayne was an obstacle in their plot.

Which ironically means R'as is indirectly the murderer of Thomas and Martha Wayne in this continuity, so it's actually not all that different from Batman '89.

[Gaidin]

Chill was someone's cellmate and someone talked to him. Don't remember the details though.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You think Batman Begins is better. It doesn't mean you aren't allowed to love Batman.

No, I said I think Batman Begins is better according to one possible set of judgment criteria, that are notably different from those used by other people in this thread. If I chose to focus on the score composition and sound editing, I may have chosen differently, as other people have in this thread (see the various Zimmer vs. Elfman posts). And I know it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to love Batman. I never said anything that even remotely implies otherwise.

<a bunch of stupid bullshit>

Seriously, dude, this really is not a very difficult concept. There is no firm definition of "better" when it comes to a work of art. Different people will put different weights on different criterion for deciding what's better. Some people go with their gut and choose whichever they enjoy watching more, some people choose to focus on storytelling, some people choose to focus on formal qualities like cinematography and sound editing, etc. Even people that choose the same criterion may choose a different option. Again, see how people that choose to focus on the score suddenly find themselves in a sub-question of whether or not they think Zimmer or Elfman better ... which, again, is a decision that can be made based on a variety of different criterion. Sometimes, it's possible to think that the two works are of equal quality! Oh my god, shock and awe! The complete and utter audacity of being unable to rank two things based on a vague question!

I don't really understand why I have to explain this to you, or how this is the first time in your life you've been in a situation where people have talked like this, because this is literally the conversation that will happen every single fucking time you pose people a question about whether X or Y is better, when there is no firm definition of "better", or even a strong reason why you should have to think one is better than the other.

[Havok]

How? Begins went with the Joe Chill angle, which again, puts a name and face on the act and still impacts him incredibly personally outside of the generic feeling you are alluding to in the original comics. In fact, JUSTICE IS SERVED in Begins. The system works! He is caught and put in jail, and that should have led to no Batman. That is what I find poorly executed in Begins. On top of that, you have Rachel Dawes as a positive example in Bruce's life and of what Bruce should be and shows that an honest person can fight against crime in Gotham through normal channels. It negates the whole idea that you need a symbol of justice to bring Gotham around.

I thought Chill was getting early release from prison because he offered information on Falcone. As such that whole sequence showed that the system didn't work correctly, because Falcone engineered it to get Chill out in the open so he could be shot.

From the time Chill was caught, which was almost right after he killed the Waynes until then, he sat in jail, convicted of his crime for what, over a decade. The system worked. He was caught, went to trial and was found guilty. That he was released in exchange for info on a mob boss is not indicative of a faulty system.

[Gaidin]

A nobody? Then they should have left that guy without a face and a name, but not only was he identified, he was even important enough to get offed in broad daylight, Lee Harvey Oswald-style. Even better, Bruce wanted to do the deed himself and was just seconds too late. What kind of message is that? The movie did a really bad job as to why Bruce would develop a no-kill policy, he just suddenly has it to the utter consternation of his teacher.

I think in Batman Begins it wasn't about the system or anything like that, but Bruce Wayne's introspection about what he almost tried to do that lead to the no-kill philosophy. If Ras Al Ghul had gotten to him first, things might have been different, but that's neither here nor there.

[Havok]

No, in Begins it is not what he tried to do, it's that Rachel slapped him and chastised him for it and he was in love with her. It is Rachel's Rule. There was no introspection to it.
The Batman character in Begins is a pathetic, mentally disturbed, little child seeking revenge and while one could argue that is the Batman character overall in all it's incarnations, Begins shows it and lays it out in all it's flawed and psychotic glory and yet people just ignore it.

Burton had the sense to not show any of that and only connects us to Bruce's childhood through the Joker. So while they are both psychopaths and '89 Batman isn't above killing, the mystery allotted to him lends for at least the possibility that his origins aren't just as sad as Begins Batman.

[Havok]

Begins for a few reasons: No Burton, no Nicholson, and better cinematography.

I don't know why I like you so much.

[Metahive]

I think in Batman Begins it wasn't about the system or anything like that, but Bruce Wayne's introspection about what he almost tried to do that lead to the no-kill philosophy. If Ras Al Ghul had gotten to him first, things might have been different, but that's neither here nor there.

What introspection? He travels the world to get into bar fights and joins an organization that teaches people to be ninjas (read: ASSASSINS!) but when he's finally urged to kill someone he breaks out an afterschool special style speech about how killing people is wrong. It's just too abrupt a change to feel organic. Makes me wonder why R'as only at that moment tried to indoctrinate Bruce. I mean, Bruce was on his way to become a murderer and was only prevented from going through by luck and some bitching by your girlfriend shouldn't undo a grudge that was nurtured over almost a decade.

[Crazedwraith]

I thought Chill was getting early release from prison because he offered information on Falcone. As such that whole sequence showed that the system didn't work correctly, because Falcone engineered it to get Chill out in the open so he could be shot.

From the time Chill was caught, which was almost right after he killed the Waynes until then, he sat in jail, convicted of his crime for what, over a decade. The system worked. He was caught, went to trial and was found guilty. That he was released in exchange for info on a mob boss is not indicative of a faulty system.[/quote]

That he was released in exchange for info was not the indication of the faulty system. It was that Judge Fayen insisted and a very open and public trail to give Falcone the opportunity to murder him that was the corruption inherent in the system. Note how Chill did not take Falcone down? There's the effect of the broken system as the Film presents it.

[TOSDOC]

I'm going to reach waaaaay out on this limb here, but I'm just trying to go into an area that hasn't been mentioned too much yet rather than saying, "Me too." Sorry if it's not too coherent, but I'm trying to be original and it's an aspect of the newer films that I really enjoyed.

I think Batman Begins is better because it sets up the next movie to be a Detective film.

Besides points mentioned (music, being ground in reality, detailed high-tech gear, very human villians versus accidental mutations), I really enjoyed Batman Begins because Bruce still understands he has limitations and surrounds himself with more than just one person who are in a position to help him when the shit hits the fan, rather than being a Marty Stu. The man needs help here. Lucius Fox and Oldman's Gordon are well-fleshed 3-dimensional characters who enrich this universe, and enable Nolan to create a world where Batman's detective skills are eventually portrayed as necessary to the plot, something I think Burton wasn't too interested in ("Alfred, lets go shopping." Here's how you prevent Smilex poisoning. Let's break out the rocket launchers). And the Gordon who lets a man dressed as a bat just waltz into a crime scene and start removing evidence wouldn't be nearly as believable without the groundwork he laid in Batman Begins.

[Metahive]

I ask again, how exactly is BB any more "realistic" than B'89? Sure, they took away R'as immortality (and everything else that would have the guy actually resemble his comics counterpart, go figure) but his plot is way, way goofier, dumber and illogical than what the Joker came up with in B'89 and that says a lot. All BB has is a lot of pretentiousness and fittingly a Gotham that looks brown, grey and generic when compared to the foreboding, stylized gothic city in '89.

[Gaidin]

I think in Batman Begins it wasn't about the system or anything like that, but Bruce Wayne's introspection about what he almost tried to do that lead to the no-kill philosophy. If Ras Al Ghul had gotten to him first, things might have been different, but that's neither here nor there.

What introspection? He travels the world to get into bar fights and joins an organization that teaches people to be ninjas (read: ASSASSINS!) but when he's finally urged to kill someone he breaks out an afterschool special style speech about how killing people is wrong. It's just too abrupt a change to feel organic. Makes me wonder why R'as only at that moment tried to indoctrinate Bruce. I mean, Bruce was on his way to become a murderer and was only prevented from going through by luck and some bitching by your girlfriend shouldn't undo a grudge that was nurtured over almost a decade.

I must have missed the part where he threw the gun in the river and visited Falcone and before doing that. Sorry.

[Havok]

I thought Chill was getting early release from prison because he offered information on Falcone. As such that whole sequence showed that the system didn't work correctly, because Falcone engineered it to get Chill out in the open so he could be shot.

From the time Chill was caught, which was almost right after he killed the Waynes until then, he sat in jail, convicted of his crime for what, over a decade. The system worked. He was caught, went to trial and was found guilty. That he was released in exchange for info on a mob boss is not indicative of a faulty system.

That he was released in exchange for info was not the indication of the faulty system. It was that Judge Fayen insisted and a very open and public trail to give Falcone the opportunity to murder him that was the corruption inherent in the system. Note how Chill did not take Falcone down? There's the effect of the broken system as the Film presents it.

Again, no. Prisoners make information exchanges all the time for reduced and even repealed sentences*. And having one bad judge still isn't indicative of a faulty system in Gotham. What makes Gotham unique and the only way they really can show it without bogging down the movie is when Falcone is shown in the bar in what is sorta public with said judge and all the cops after Chill is killed. It is the brazenness of the act, and like he said, the power he has to do it and have everyone lie about it without even being told or forced to.

And Chill doesn't take anyone down because he is released and killed before he goes to that particular trial. (This is the only thing that really shows that the system is crooked outside of just saying it in the bar scene.)

*The idea that A) a mobster on Falcone's level would even be in a shared cell with some one like Chill is stupid and contrived given the power he is supposed to have in Gotham and over the police and government B) Falcone would essentially snitch on himself and tell someone outside his circle anything, no matter how well protected he feels is ludicrous, ESPECIALLY someone like Chill who isn't a career criminal and shifty and sketchy as fuck C) his own men wouldn't bump him off for talking to anyone about what was apparently incriminating enough to bring him and his family down, is fucking stupid.

[Channel72]

Let's see... which movie has Jack Nicholson vandalizing a museum while playing Prince music out of an 80s boombox?

OBVIOUSLY the superior film.

Batman Begins just has the Scarecrow and Katie Holmes and other boring crap. The only really good Nolan movie was the second one, and that was mostly because of Ledger's acting.