Batman (1989) Vs Batman Begins (2005)

[Havok]

Simple. Which one do you feel is better and why?

[Borgholio]

I'll be honest, I never saw any of the new Batmans. Just not that interested, I guess. But I did like the 89 version. It was campy in a few places but it was the first live-action Batman movie ever...so it was a fun watch after the corniness of the 60's TV series.

[TheFeniX]

It could just be the nostalgia of a young kid, but Michael Keaton's Batman wins it hands down. I like Bale and thought the supporting cast was excellent with Freeman and Neeson as just two examples, but the movie just doesn't work for me like the 89 version. Large plot holes, the whole "I won't kill you, but I'll leave you to die in a fireball," and a few other issues didn't all add up for me. Probably didn't help what with Bale's "I need a cough drop" Batman voice.

Keaton also seemed much more natural as Bruce Wayne. Hard to explain, but he came off like a eccentric billionaire more than the new movie where that translates to "driving expensive cars and boning hot women." Keaton brought a few nuances to the Wayne character I thought made him less a Batman vs Wayne on/off-switch like Bale would do with his performance.

[Vendetta]

Begins was sort of weak on the villain front. Ras al Ghul shouldn't be that throwaway. It was good, but thinking back there isn't really anything that stands out to characterise it.

On the other hand, '89 Batman had Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson, which was alright as far as it went, but it is sort of the same thing as always.

[FaxModem1]

I'm going to go with Batman Begins. While the 89 version has a lot of style, and panache, it has not aged well. Prince soundtrack, anybody?Batman isn't the main character, Vicki Vale is, with Nicholson as the villain. We don't really focus on Batman until act 2, and by then, we get rather used to him being a crazed murderer. who sleeps like a bat for some reason.

In contrast, Batman Begins focuses on Bruce Wayne, shows us his journey, his growing up, what drives him, and feels like a Batman origin story. We also have excellent casting for everybody. The main drawback being, of course, is the voice. However, in the first film, he uses it rather sparingly, so we don't get it as bad as we do in the later films. That, and Liam Neeson was perfect casting as Ras Al Ghul.

[Tribble]

While I agree that Batman Begins is technically a better film, I voted for Batman (1989) because I enjoy watching it a lot more. I've just never been all that interested in watching Batman Begins after viewing it the first couple of times, whereas I'll still happliy watch 89 Batman if I see it playing.

Btw, given that the body is composed of, like, 70% water, shouldn't everyone have died from that microwave emitter?

[Sinewmire]

Batman Begins.

I loved the Burton version when I was a kid, but Batman Begins is a better crafted work, in my opinion.

[Batman]

Presupposes an omnidirectional emitter. Since people (or everything else containing water) didn't spontaneously explode all over the city, and the fact that this would make the device of dubious utility for its intended purpose, I assume it was a directional/adjustable emitter (there are such things as masers afterall).
Still undecided. 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. And it definitely had the better looking costume and Batmobile.

[Starglider]

Batman Begins was frankly boring. Ok the second movie was a lot better, but the first one just dragged, with long intervals of dull depressing moodiness. It was more realistic but actually less believable, because it was essentially asking us to believe that Batman could exist in the real world. Tim Burton's Batman on the other hand was exactly the way comic book adaptations should be done; clearly a dark fantastic reflection of reality, but still with enough grit and internal consistency to take seriously. It has strong pacing, memorable characterisation and is still very entertaining 25 years later. Finally the score... the recent Batmans have all been tense, melodramatic but forgettable action movie music... whereas Danny Elfman's bombastic, pulse-pounding Batman theme is still instantly recognisable and exciting. Yes the movie is a late 80s period piece, but I count that as a positive.

[TheFeniX]

Btw, given that the body is composed of, like, 70% water, shouldn't everyone have died from that microwave emitter?

Even if it didn't for whatever reason, there's still thousands of people stuck in some kind of semi-permanent psychosis which would have left hundreds, if not thousands, dead through violence. Not to mention how Lucius gets his synthesized antidote out fast enough to get things under control PLUS explain to the police why Wayne Enterprises had such an antidote on hand in the first place. Wasting time trying to filter it through other agencies means more dead bodes, so it's unlikely him or Wayne would bother. Or how anyone who boils water, washes dishes, or takes a hot shower risks going crazy for months after the whole debacle..... or before. This doesn't even mention the billions of dollars in damage done by the before-mention crazy people AND all the water pipes exploding. Gotham would be a warzone for months, if not years after the fact, but it's all just kind of swept under the rug. And this isn't stuff I had to go on the Internet to think about. Ask my wife: I could not shut up during pretty much any part once the climax started it's ascent. It was like Michael Bay took over 2/3 the way through the movie.

For a "more realistic" Batman, they sure went with a lot of Tom Clancy levels of absurdness. If Raz's goal was to wreck Gotham enough to make it collapse, I don't see how he didn't accomplish that. Meanwhile, the Joker's antics in 89 Batman would lock things down, but it was mostly localized, so cleaning up after his death and Batman owning most of his crew and scattering the rest, means a more believable recovery for Returns, at least to me.

[FSTargetDrone]

I like Batman (1989) much more than Batman Begins. It's campy, but I prefer it, hands down. If it's on TV, I'll watch it. Same can't be said for the first Nolan film. Likewise, I own Batman on Blu-ray. Not so for Batman Begins. Let's not forget how gratingly awful Katie Holmes was, too.

And wow, the more I see "Batman Begins" here, just from typing it over and over, what a terrible title.

I'll be honest, I never saw any of the new Batmans. Just not that interested, I guess. But I did like the 89 version. It was campy in a few places but it was the first live-action Batman movie ever...so it was a fun watch after the corniness of the 60's TV series.

I'd recommend The Dark Knight, but that's it. Skip the latest one (The Dark Knight Rises). It's another one I have no interest in owning, unlike TDK.

[Purple]

I know this is going to be somewhat controversial but personally I liked Batman and Robin. It was campy, which I liked and had some memorable villains as well as introducing batgirl. I have recently seen one of the two modern movies (don't know which one as I missed the title on TV) and I could literally not bring my self to watch it to the end. It was just gloomy and frankly boring. I eventually tuned back in for the ending to see batman running off with the police chasing him (WTF) and Gordon (I think) narrating something about how he was the hero the city needed but not wanted or something. And I just basically went WTF man? So yeah. Screw those.

[Gaidin]

Two totally different movies. I liked them both. Done.

[FSTargetDrone]

I know this is going to be somewhat controversial but personally I liked Batman and Robin. It was campy, which I liked and had some memorable villains as well as introducing batgirl. I have recently seen one of the two modern movies (don't know which one as I missed the title on TV) and I could literally not bring my self to watch it to the end. It was just gloomy and frankly boring. I eventually tuned back in for the ending to see batman running off with the police chasing him (WTF) and Gordon (I think) narrating something about how he was the hero the city needed but not wanted or something. And I just basically went WTF man? So yeah. Screw those.

That was The Dark Knight (second Nolan Batman movie) and the ending probably seems weird if you haven't seen the whole movie.

[Havok]

Two totally different movies. I liked them both. Done.

Congratulations on answering neither question posed.

[Gaidin]

I think that was the point. Why should I go out of my way to make one better than the other when eh...never really struck me that way due to how unique they were from each other.

[Havok]

How unique? 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...

You know, maybe it's best you don't comment. You obviously aren't observant enough to formulate a proper, lat alone valid opinion on the matter.

[Gaidin]

How unique? 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...

You know, maybe it's best you don't comment. You obviously aren't observant enough to formulate a proper, lat alone valid opinion on the matter.

Not really. I think I'll comment all I damn well please if for no other reason than to aggravate you. You could say the 1989 is about his beginnings in Gotham City, but it's already been noted the first act was more other people looking for him and barely had him. Batman Begins was an actual origin story. And as for how cool the Batmobile is? I couldn't give a shit less. You want to make this about his super power of "Does he have enough prep time" go right ahead and I'll just ignore it. More about the characters and the structure, which, as noted...hilariously different. 1989, characters trying to find Batman, while we as viewers know just as little as they do. Batman's the mystery in 1989. We know more about the bad guys. 2005, Batman trying to save Gotham from itself, and that's knowing what Ras al Ghul's plan was going to be. There's an element of him convincing the non-corrupt police he's the good guy in both, sure, but if you want to try to convince me they're the same, you've got a long way to go, start the hike now.

[Havok]

Don't look now, but you just compared totally UNIQUE plot points from both movies. But I like how you only address two of my points to ironically unmake your original "point".

And you could say 89 was about his beginnings in Gotham, because it fucking is you idiot.

I mean, damn, you should keep commenting, if for no other reason that to give me someone to make fun of.

[Gaidin]

Don't look now, but you just compared totally UNIQUE plot points from both movies. But I like how you only address two of my points to ironically unmake your original "point".

And you could say 89 was about his beginnings in Gotham, because it fucking is you idiot.

I mean, damn, you should keep commenting, if for no other reason that to give me someone to make fun of.

I mean damn, to thematically different movies, stylyishly different movies, different story, everything different. The only thing in common is Batman. And you think I have to like one more than the other. Fuck off.

[Havok]

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.

[Batman]

Except that's exactly what you're asking of course. There is no objective standard for 'this was handled better than this. Some people like one approach, other people like a different one. Hell Purple actually likes Batman & Robin. So yes when you ask people 'which movie was better' you ARE asking them which movie they LIKED better.

[Havok]

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

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?

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.

[Gandalf]

I think Batman works better as a standalone film, but Begins works better as part of a trilogy. So since we're not counting sequels, the 89 film comes out ahead for me.

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.

I love Street Fighter. However, I'm aware that it's terrible as a film.

[Havok]

Gands, you're obviously a genius though.