205 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

Well, The Dark Knight is the best Batman film now, no question. Since then Returns has gone up in my rankings, so it now sits in third place and Batman (1989) fourth place. Bale is my favourite Batman, followed by Keaton.

1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. Batman Returns
4. Batman (1989)
5. Batman Forever
6. Batman and Robin (1997)

[Righty007]

Here's my ranking of the WB Batman films:

1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman (1989)
3. Batman Begins
4. Batman Returns
5. Batman Forever
6. Batman and Robin (1997)

Michael Keaton is still my favorite actor.

[Andrew]

Well, The Dark Knight is the best Batman film now, no question. Since then Returns has gone up in my rankings, so it now sits in third place and Batman (1989) fourth place. Bale is my favourite Batman, followed by Keaton.

1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. Batman Returns
4. Batman (1989)
5. Batman Forever
6. Batman and Robin (1997)

Same here.

[Harmsway]

THE DARK KNIGHT's the best by a mile. As for a whole ranking, I'd rank the theatrical Batman films thusly:

1. THE DARK KNIGHT
2. BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM*
3. BATMAN BEGINS
4. BATMAN RETURNS
5. BATMAN '66
6. BATMAN '89
7. BATMAN FOREVER
8. BATMAN AND ROBIN

And the best Batman? Christian Bale, no question. No-one else, including Michael Keaton, holds a candle to him.

*It's downright criminal that BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM is missing from the voting options.

[Loomis]

Box Office Mojo lists PHANTASM as a part of the Batman franchise:

http://www.boxoffice.../?id=batman.htm

Must confess, I'd been thinking of THE DARK KNIGHT as the second film in the series, but going by Box Office Mojo's list I guess it's actually the seventh. Or is it? Just what is the deal? The Bat series constitutes how many flicks, exactly? Is there someone with a definitive answer? Harmsway?

[Harmsway]

The Bat series constitutes how many flicks, exactly?

It depends on perspective. There's no definitive answer. But the most common answer you'll get is that there have been plenty of different franchises. I see four major ones, if, in addition to the Burton/Schumacher franchise and Nolan franchise you count the 1960s Batman TV series and film as its own franchise and the Animated Series and its spin-off films as another one.

Nolan does not view his Batman films as part of a pre-existing franchise. And I agree. BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT are part of an entirely new Batman franchise, following what came before, but not connected to it.

[Loomis]

I see. Thanks.

[Agent 76]

Favorite Batman film: BATMAN BEGINS

Favorite Batman: MICHAEL KEATON

[jaguar007]

TDK?????
Give me a break!

How can one compare Batman in TDK to Batman on a ladder hanging from the Batcopter with a shark hanging on his leg until Robin hands him the shark repellant Bat Spray! It just does not get any better than that! Batman 1966 is CLASSIC!

[Harmsway]

Favorite Batman film: BATMAN BEGINS

You like BEGINS more than THE DARK KNIGHT?

[agentjamesbond007]

I did enjoy watching BATMAN BEGINS and I am going to watch THE DARK KNIGHT when it comes out for rent on DVD.

That's what I mostly do. Better to sit at home and enjoy a good movie on a flat screen TV.

[Agent 76]

Favorite Batman film: BATMAN BEGINS

You like BEGINS more than THE DARK KNIGHT?

I haven't seen The Dark Knight, but I'm sure that when , it is released in my country, that one will be my favourite.

[Mr. Blofeld]

There are only two words to describe TDK, and they are:

TEH AWESOME!!!

By the way, here's my list:

1. The Dark Knight (2008)
2. Batman (1989)
3. Batman Begins (2005)
4. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)
5. Batman Forever (1995)
6. Batman Returns (1992)
7. Batman: The Movie (1966)
8. Batman & Robin (1997)

[Righty007]

THE DARK KNIGHT's the best by a mile. As for a whole ranking, I'd rank the theatrical Batman films thusly:

1. THE DARK KNIGHT
2. BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM*
3. BATMAN BEGINS
4. BATMAN RETURNS
5. BATMAN '66
6. BATMAN '89
7. BATMAN FOREVER
8. BATMAN AND ROBIN

And the best Batman? Christian Bale, no question. No-one else, including Michael Keaton, holds a candle to him.

*It's downright criminal that BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM is missing from the voting options.

I like Bale but his Wayne can be too snobby at some points. Keaton is the best, IMO.

The poll is for "live action" Batman films. Sorry.

[Harmsway]

I like Bale but his Wayne can be too snobby at some points.

That's the point, isn't it? That he puts on the mask of a jerk to hide the good, decent human being underneath?

Keaton is the best.

I think that, at the end of the day, he's pretty miscast. Keaton's Wayne is pretty terrible. This is not a guy who would dress up like a Bat. This is not a guy who would fight a crusade. Heck, this isn't a guy who could hold up in a fight, period. This is just a confused social oddity, like Tim Burton himself. Nothing about his interpretation of Wayne makes sense.

The only reason he gets a pass is because he works in the suit, when he's totally obscured and all we get are his eyes and the voice. He does a great Batman. He's just not a good Bruce Wayne.

The poll was for "live action" Batman films. Sorry.

I see. Well, BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM is still great. And too often it's forgotten just because it's animated.

[DR76]

You know . . . "THE DARK KNIGHT" could have been superb. It really could have. But I think that Christopher Nolan and his co-writer screwed up the story in the end and it became unecessarily longer than it should have been. I'm not just talking about the running time, but the story itself.

So right now, "BATMAN BEGINS" is still my favorite Batman movie.

Edited by DR76, 20 July 2008 - 03:06 AM.

[freemo]

1. THE DARK KNIGHT
2. BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM
3. BATMAN BEGINS
4. BATMAN '66
5. BATMAN '89
6. BATMAN FOREVER
7. BATMAN RETURNS
8. BATMAN AND ROBIN

I'm with Harmsway on MOTP. Too good not to be included.

[Harmsway]

You know . . . "THE DARK KNIGHT" could have superb. It really could have. But I think that Christopher Nolan and his co-writer screwed up the story in the end and it became unecessarily longer than it should. I'm not just talking about the running time, but the story itself.

So right now, "BATMAN BEGINS" is still my favorite Batman movie.

But BEGINS is so flawed, I don't see how THE DARK KNIGHT can't trounce it. Even if the story is overlong, THE DARK KNIGHT exceeds BEGINS in every other area.

BEGINS has some forgettable characters, a story that devolves into predictable and cliche elements, a lack of general style, iffy dialogue, uninteresting action, and crowded story that shortchanges itself because of how packed it is... I mean, BEGINS is hardly a great film. A watchable film with good moments and some good performances, to be sure, and a good Batman film, but it's not a patch on THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Righty007]

You know . . . "THE DARK KNIGHT" could have superb. It really could have. But I think that Christopher Nolan and his co-writer screwed up the story in the end and it became unecessarily longer than it should. I'm not just talking about the running time, but the story itself.

So right now, "BATMAN BEGINS" is still my favorite Batman movie.

But BEGINS is so flawed, I don't see how THE DARK KNIGHT can't trounce it. Even if the story is overlong.

BEGINS has some forgettable characters, a story that devolves into predictable and cliche elements, a lack of general style, iffy dialogue, uninteresting action, and crowded story that shortchanges itself because of how packed it is... I mean, BEGINS is hardly a great film. A watchable film with good moments and some good performances, to be sure, and a good Batman film, but it's not a patch on THE DARK KNIGHT.

I'm glad you feel the same way about it. I was afraid I was a bad Batman fan for not really liking Batman Begins.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

But BEGINS is so flawed, I don't see how THE DARK KNIGHT can't trounce it. Even if the story is overlong, THE DARK KNIGHT exceeds BEGINS in every other area.

BEGINS has some forgettable characters

So does Dark Knight.

a story that devolves into predictable and cliche elements

In retrospect, I suppose so, but it's not something that really hits me when I watch.

a lack of general style

I disagree

iffy dialogue

A few flat lines, nothing major.

uninteresting action

I think I actually preferred Begins' action scenes. I certainly appreciated the tumbler more than the pod and the Dark Knight's climax with the swat team did very little for me. A bunch of CGI sonar crap followed by quick cuts of him beating up people in the dark. Not too thrilling.

and crowded story that shortchanges itself because of how packed it is...

I feel the same about Dark Knight

A watchable film with good moments and some good performances, to be sure, and a good Batman film, but it's not a patch on THE DARK KNIGHT.

I feel they are in the same league. Both are great films to me, not sure which I prefer yet. I'm probably going to see the Dark Knight again soon, so I'm curious as to what I will feel then.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 20 July 2008 - 03:35 AM.

[DR76]

But BEGINS is so flawed, I don't see how THE DARK KNIGHT can't trounce it. Even if the story is overlong, THE DARK KNIGHT exceeds BEGINS in every other area.

I don't think so. Both movies featured a first-rate cast. Both have a superb villain - Liam Nesson in "BEGINS" and Heath Ledger in "DARK KNIGHT". But I feel that the 2005 movie was better paced and better written in the end.

[Harmsway]

But BEGINS is so flawed, I don't see how THE DARK KNIGHT can't trounce it. Even if the story is overlong, THE DARK KNIGHT exceeds BEGINS in every other area.

BEGINS has some forgettable characters

So does Dark Knight.

Not a one, if you ask me.

a story that devolves into predictable and cliche elements

In retrospect, I suppose so, but it's not something that really hits me when I watch.

It hits me, big time. As soon as they introduce the microwave emitter into the story, the film starts to go downhill in originality. I start to lose interest.

a lack of general style

I disagree

BEGINS is mostly murky, and uninterestingly shot. Gotham feels awkward, often like a set. Both are not the case in THE DARK KNIGHT, which is beautifully shot, and Gotham feels as expansive and genuine a place as ever. Comparing the looks of the films is like comparing GOLDENEYE against CASINO ROYALE.

iffy dialogue

A few flat lines, nothing major.

80% of the dialogue is weak. It's just saved by the actors.

uninteresting action

I think I actually preferred Begins' action scenes.

I'm shocked. They're editted so poorly you can hardly see them, and the tumbler chase is really hurt by going all Tom Mankiewicz on us.

and crowded story that shortchanges itself because of how packed it is... I mean, BEGINS is hardly a great film.

I feel the same about Dark Knight

THE DARK KNIGHT is packed, but I don't feel that any of it is really shortchanged. Not in the way that BEGINS is, where character is sacrificed in the name of a very typical "superhero movie" storyline. Heck, Ra's al Ghul doesn't even really get any development.

[DR76]

But BEGINS is so flawed, I don't see how THE DARK KNIGHT can't trounce it. Even if the story is overlong, THE DARK KNIGHT exceeds BEGINS in every other area.

BEGINS has some forgettable characters

So does Dark Knight.

Not a one, if you ask me.

a story that devolves into predictable and cliche elements

In retrospect, I suppose so, but it's not something that really hits me when I watch.

It hits me, big time. As soon as they introduce the microwave emitter into the story, the film starts to go downhill in originality. I start to lose interest.

a lack of general style

I disagree

BEGINS is mostly murky, and uninterestingly shot. Gotham feels awkward, often like a set. Both are not the case in THE DARK KNIGHT, which is beautifully shot, and Gotham feels as expansive and genuine a place as ever. Comparing the looks of the films is like comparing GOLDENEYE against CASINO ROYALE.

iffy dialogue

A few flat lines, nothing major.

80% of the dialogue is weak. It's just saved by the actors.

uninteresting action

I think I actually preferred Begins' action scenes.

I'm shocked. They're editted so poorly you can hardly see them, and the tumbler chase is really hurt by going all Tom Mankiewicz on us.

and crowded story that shortchanges itself because of how packed it is... I mean, BEGINS is hardly a great film.

I feel the same about Dark Knight

THE DARK KNIGHT is packed, but I don't feel that any of it is really shortchanged. Not in the way that BEGINS is, where character is sacrificed in the name of a very typical "superhero movie" storyline. Heck, Ra's al Ghul doesn't even really get any development.

Neither does the Joker. And to be honest, Ra's al Ghul's motives are a little more interesting to me.

If "BEGINS" is hardly a great film, then I'd have to say the same about "DARK KNIGHT", which suffered more from flawed writing.

Gotham feels as expansive and genuine a place as ever.

Gotham looked and felt like Chicago, Illinois to me. Mind you, Chicago looked lovely. But there was nothing original in the film's look because of this.

Edited by DR76, 20 July 2008 - 03:59 AM.

[Harmsway]

Heck, Ra's al Ghul doesn't even really get any development.

Neither does the Joker.

The Joker gets all the development he needs. And then some. It's as great and rich a representation as the character's ever had.

And to be honest, Ra's al Ghul's motives are a little more interesting to me.

Forgive me, but I'm way thrown off here. Joker's motivations strike me as a thousand times more interesting than Ra's "bad people are bad so we kill them to solve the problem" thing. I mean, it gets the job done, but Ra's motivation doesn't have much to bring to the table. And it's not like he's even given a fully-fledged personality... he's hardly in the film, and when he is, it's more focused on Bruce than it is on him.

Gotham feels as expansive and genuine a place as ever.

Gotham looked and felt like Chicago, Illinois to me.

Better than feeling like a set. But I live in Chicago and recognized a lot of the locations, but I didn't feel it was Chicago. It felt like Gotham.

Mind you, Chicago looked lovely. But there was nothing original in the film's look because of this.

But the look of the films still evolved, and for the better. And that's my point. It felt more like a genuine world. Nevermind that BEGINS' cinematography isn't a patch on the striking visuals of THE DARK KNIGHT, just in general.

[Mister E]

Forgive me, but I'm way thrown off here. Joker's motivations strike me as a thousand times more interesting than Ra's "bad people are bad so we kill them to solve the problem" thing. I mean, it gets the job done, but Ra's motivation doesn't have much to bring to the table. And it's not like he's even given a fully-fledged personality... he's hardly in the film, and when he is, it's more focused on Bruce than it is on him.

I agree. Ra's was a by-the-book vigilante. The Joker knows humanity, how dumb it is, and how to devistate it. He was far more menacing.

But the look of the films still evolved, and for the better. And that's my point. It felt more like a genuine world. Nevermind that BEGINS' cinematography isn't a patch on the striking visuals of THE DARK KNIGHT, just in general.

Eh, I think they could have been a bit more creativity with Gotham City. I am not talking about Burton's sets but something along the lines of Bruce Timm's style, set in the past but with a modern twist.

Oh and voted for TDK and Christian Bale.

Edited by Mister E, 20 July 2008 - 05:11 AM.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

As Nolan has said himself, The Joker gets no development. Not that he needed it. It's just strange to take issue with Begins (which was about Batman anyway) and not with TDK on this issue. As for motivations, I just don't see what is so awe inspiring about the Joker's. He's insane and gets a kick out of breaking down Batman and Gotham. It makes for great watching, but it's hardly deep and thought provoking.

Uninteresting characters for me in TDK were Rachael, Lau, the blackmailing guy, all the mob people and much of the supporting cast. The only real memorable characters where The Joker and Harvey Dent. Batman himself doesn't bring the same excitement he did in Begins and Bruce Wayne doesn't get much to do.

Then we have Rachael. I was glad Holmes was gone, but Gyllenhaal was only marginally better. To be frank she still irritated me much like Holmes did in Begins. I wasn't absorbed by her scenes, as I couldn't help but scrutinize her every delivery and expression.

[Harmsway]

Eh, I think they could have been a bit more creativity with Gotham City. I am not talking about Burton's sets but something along the lines of Bruce Timm's style, set in the past but with a modern twist.

It's a question of vision, not of creativity. Do you want Batman to blatant fantasy or to be more real-world? Nolan's going for the latter, and a Timm-esque Gotham doesn't accomplish that. For what Nolan's trying to accomplish, his Gotham does the trick. That's not to say Nolan's Gotham is superior to Timm's or vice-versa, but that they meet different goals.

[Mister E]

As Nolan has said himself, The Joker gets no development. Not that he needed it. It's just strange to take issue with Begins (which was about Batman anyway) and not with TDK on this issue. As for motivations, I just don't see what is so awe inspiring about the Joker's. He's insane and gets a kick out of breaking down Batman and Gotham. It makes for great watching, but it's hardly deep and thought provoking.

Only in the sense that he is fully formed that beginning of the film. We know what he does but then he goes into why he dose it and that is fairly complex. He dosen't just because he gets a "kick out of it". He dose what he dose because he sees no sense of the opposite side of fence.

[Harmsway]

As Nolan has said himself, The Joker gets no development.

No, Nolan said that he gets no origin, no explanation. There's a difference. The character is indeed fully-realized, and more layers are added the character as he's on screen. We're not looking at a cardboard character here.

As for motivations, I just don't see what is so awe inspiring about the Joker's. He's insane and gets a kick out of breaking down Batman and Gotham. It makes for great watching, but it's hardly deep and thought provoking.

The Joker represents a philosophy. A view of humanity and existence that is decidedly, absolutely nihilistic. That humanity's laboring in an illusion. As he said in the very influential comic THE KILLING JOKE, "Everything anybody ever valued or struggled for...it's all a monstrous, demented gag!" He's a message man. He's the one who's trying to show everyone that nothing means anything. That's richer, and more interesting, than anything Ra's brings to the table.

[Mister E]

It's a question of vision, not of creativity. Do you want Batman to blatant fantasy or to be more real-world? Nolan's going for the latter, and a Timm-esque Gotham doesn't accomplish that. For what Nolan's trying to accomplish, his Gotham does the trick. That's not to say Nolan's Gotham is superior to Timm's or vice-versa, but that they meet different goals.

I bring up Bruce Timm as an example of a style that combines the past with the present. I wasn't nessecarily saying Timm's style was needed in the film. I think you could accomplish bringing the past and the present together in a "realistic" fashion.