52 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

Last summer Batman began and this summer Superman returned. Who's better?

[Harmsway]

Well, I think Batman wins all three categories. He's a more interesting character, even if he's not as iconic.

I think BEGINS to RETURNS is a superior film for a plethora of reasons - namely, that it's better focused, is more distinctive, and coherent than RETURNS. RETURNS has the benefit of having a more cinematic hero, and thus some more visually impressive moments throughout, but overall, I think it fails to add up as a film (especially in the third act, in which the whole film falls apart and unravels).

I also think Christian Bale gave a superior performance. Routh gives a good performance and is a terrific Superman because he does what's basically required, but it's not that demanding. Christian Bale had a really challenging role to work with, and he came away with a very nuanced, excellent portrayal from all aspects. Purely because I think the Batman role is far more difficult and Bale pulled it off in spades, I'm giving it to Bale.

[Righty007]

Batman is the better superhero but Superman wins the other two categories, in my opinion.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I prefer Superman returns but that's because it brought back nostalgic feelings of the first 2 Supes...I'm not a big Batman fan.I prefer Spiderman to either one but Superman has that magical score attached to that red cape of his...

I think Christian Bale was a better actor as Batman because he was asked to do alot more but Batman can be played by just about anyone...Superman requires a very unique individual to pull it off and Brandon Routh was perfect despite a lean script so I say both are great choices and the future looks bright for both properties.

I look forward to both DC heroes returning again...

[Harmsway]

I think Christian Bale was a better actor as Batman because he was asked to do alot more but Batman can be played by just about anyone...

That statement is so remarkably misguided, IMO. You can't cast just anybody as Batman, and if anything, the Batman films have demonstrated that more than ever.

Heck, I think Bale was the only one who got it "right". Keaton was great in the suit, but his Wayne was a dork and an oddball - totally wrong. Kilmer was utterly boring. And Clooney? :::shudders:::

[Tarl_Cabot]

well, Micheal Keaton was successful as Batman despite being woefully inappropriate physically...we just sorta accepted him as Batman, even he's too short and slightly built...and he was good. I liked his Batman but I don't think Tom Cruise or Collin Farrel or some other star could be Superman and win us over the way Keaton did. It just wouldn't work.The fact that Rought is tall, handsome,muscular and he grew up in Iowa to boot makes him an absolute bullseye for Clark Kent/Superman.

I can think of a few actors who could be Batman. Noone working now besides Tom Welling could pull off Supes. Just mho.

[Loomis]

Last summer Batman began and this summer Superman returned. Who's better?

Superman. I haven't seen SUPERMAN RETURNS yet, but I suspect it's a superior film to BATMAN BEGINS, which is pretty good but could have been so much better. I don't think Batman has ever been done justice to onscreen, with the possible exception of the Adam West TV series. I remember really looking forward to Burton's BATMAN and being very disappointed; same story with BATMAN BEGINS.... and the films in between those two make SUPERMAN III look like a classic. The Batman feature films are either too silly by far or outrageously self-important. When you think of the character's potential and what could be done with him.... also, the Batman canon does not - IMO - contain a solid gold classic of wonderful epic fantasy filmmaking of the order of Donner's SUPERMAN.

Oh, yes, and John Williams' theme scores another point for Supes. Where's the good music in Batman (other than a few half-decent Prince tracks)?

[Harmsway]

When you think of the character's potential and what could be done with him....

What would you want to see done with him?

I do think BEGINS could have been slightly better (only by fixing some of the stuff in the third act, but that's it), but as far it goes, it's more consistent than SUPERMAN RETURNS, which is a crowded mess of ideas which never really fully satisfies any of them.

RETURNS is a film riding on nostalgia, which is good for those of us who like Donner's film and have seen it, but it fails miserably at bringing Superman boldly into a new era and making him new to another generation. It's a half-hearted Donner sequel, since it's remarkably different from that film, and it's a half-hearted reboot. It can't make up its mind.

Oh, yes, and John Williams' theme scores another point for Supes. Where's the good music in Batman (other than a few half-decent Prince tracks)?

Danny Elfman's Batman theme is every bit as memorable as Williams' theme for Supes. And Shirley Walker's theme for BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM (the best Batman flick, IMO) is just as great.

I can think of a few actors who could be Batman. Noone working now besides Tom Welling could pull off Supes. Just mho.

Who else would you suggest could take on the cape and cowl, out of my own curiosity? I can't think of a single appropriate choice aside from Bale, but those you think could do it may have never even crossed my mind.

[Harmsway]

I'm amazed Routh is beating Bale. I just can't imagine people thinking that the performance Routh gave was anything all that amazing. Despite being the living incarnation of Superman himself, Routh didn't have to do all that much except look good in the suit and have a modicum of emotional range.

[Loomis]

When you think of the character's potential and what could be done with him....

What would you want to see done with him?

A weak answer, perhaps, but I'd like to see Burton's BATMAN/Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS done properly. What's "properly"? Well, pretty much the same basic stuff, but less of the chest-beating self-importance; more of a sense of fun, more visual "wow" factor, and more interesting and more coherent scripts that aren't so darned serious.

What's "more interesting"? Well, look at the character, look at the potential, and then notice how it always just boils down to "grumpy rich boy dons a dark suit and beats up some baddies who are also ludicrously clothed, and then grumpy rich boy pushes off back to his manor house to brood until the next so-called adventure". Let's see Wayne/Batman being burdened by his money, falling in love, being tempted, being captured, being seriously wounded, making mistakes, saving the world from something truly awesome (like some stolen nukes, a la THUNDERBALL). I imagine that the comics do explore some of these ideas, but we've yet to see them in the films, which are pretty dull and samey. The one thing I really like about BATMAN BEGINS is that our hero is taken out of the States for a bit - there ya go, something new. More, please.

Also, Wayne/Batman sorely needs more charm and humour. Y'know, like Bond. And that's where the West era really scores. If West is the Moore of Batman (horrifying to the purists, but a great entertainer), then everyone else is Dalton (too dark and dour).

I can think of a few actors who could be Batman. Noone working now besides Tom Welling could pull off Supes. Just mho.

Who else would you suggest could take on the cape and cowl, out of my own curiosity? I can't think of a single appropriate choice aside from Bale, but those you think could do it may have never even crossed my mind.

I'm curious to read Tarl's answer, but - and despite what I've just written about Moore-esque charisma and wit - you'll surely agree that Daniel Craig would have made an absolutely blinding choice for BATMAN BEGINS, Harmsway?

Chewing the matter over, I think the screen Batman should either have West-/Moore-style goofy charm, or Craig-in-LAYER-CAKE-type McQueen coolness (or, ideally, both, but it's obviously a tough combination). I don't think any of the Batmen have been cool. Bale's okay, if a bit one-note and dorky, but he's about as cool as Donald Rumsfeld.

[Harmsway]

A weak answer, perhaps, but I'd like to see Burton's BATMAN/Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS done properly. What's "properly"? Well, pretty much the same basic stuff, but less of the chest-beating self-importance; more of a sense of fun, more visual "wow" factor, more interesting and more coherent scripts that aren't so darned serious.

The reason it was serious is one reason I loved it so - that's how the character was from the very beginning in Bob Kane's comics, and was from then onwards. That seriousness made it all the more enjoyable for me to watch. But we can't all be pleased.

And I didn't think Burton's BATMAN feels serious, I just thought it was campy fun.

Also, Wayne/Batman sorely needs more charm and humour. Y'know, like Bond. And that's where the West era really scores. If West is the Moore of Batman (horrifying to the purists, but a great entertainer), then everyone else is Dalton (too dark and dour).

It would be a betrayal of the character to make him just a really nice guy, though. I mean, I hope they bring some more of it out in Wayne's playboy persona (which they started to establish in BEGINS), but the character himself has always been dark and brooding and should remain so.

And frankly, Batman is a fairly humorless character - you might not like that, but that's just who he is to begin with.

Let's see Wayne/Batman being burdened by his money, falling in love, being tempted, being captured, being seriously wounded, making mistakes, saving the world from something truly awesome (like some stolen nukes, a la THUNDERBALL).

I imagine that the comics do explore some of these ideas, but we've yet to see them in the films, which are pretty dull and samey.

Some of the ideas you mentioned are dealt with, though money has never been an issue for Batman/Bruce Wayne. My feeling is that none of those ideas really had a place in an origin film, but are fair game for exploration later on.

However, I wonder what you'll make of BB2. It's sure to be a less conventional superhero film than the one before it, even to the point where Batman is thankfully not given a love interest.

I'm curious to read Tarl's answer, but - and despite what I've just written about Moore-esque charisma and wit - you'll surely agree that Daniel Craig would have made an absolutely blinding choice for BATMAN BEGINS, Harmsway?

Umm... he might work. I can't see it though, and maybe I'll be able to better picture it once I see his take on Bond.

Chewing the matter over, I think the screen Batman should either have West-/Moore-style goofy charm, or Craig-in-LAYER-CAKE-type McQueen coolness (or, ideally, both, but it's obviously a tough combination). I don't think any of the Batmen have been cool. Bale's okay, if a bit one-note and dorky, but he's about as cool as Donald Rumsfeld.

Well, I suppose, but goofy charm is something no Batman film should ever have. Adam West was fun, but it was an illegitimate interpretation of Batman in some ways.

But coolness, ala Steve McQueen, just really hasn't been that big a part of the character. The Bruce Wayne persona could stand to get some more boyish charm, but he's not some suave cool guy. Batman's all about being cool in the suit, not necessarily out of it (though the playboy/businessman facade is a key part of the character).

[Loomis]

Some of the ideas you mentioned are dealt with, though money has never been an issue for Batman/Bruce Wayne. My feeling is that none of those ideas really had a place in an origin film, but are fair game for exploration later on.

Fair point.

However, I wonder what you'll make of BB2. It's sure to be a less conventional superhero film than the one before it, even to the point where Batman is thankfully not given a love interest.

I have a feeling it'll be a much better film than BB, and I'm looking forward to it (although not nearly as much as I am to CASINO ROYALE, ROCKY BALBOA and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, obviously).

Harmsway, I seem to remember from your past posts that you like the two Burtons - where do you stand on FOREVER and & ROBIN? Also, do you consider BB part of the same franchise (in the same way as I presume you view CR as the 21st Bond flick)?

[Number 6]

I voted in favor of Batman in all 3 catagories. sue me; I have a Bats bias...


Christopher Nolan did a sensational job, with last summer's blockbuster at solidifying what I already knew about the Dark Knight...

...that he is AWESOME.

Edited by Number 6, 03 July 2006 - 11:33 PM.

[Harmsway]

Harmsway, I seem to remember from your past posts that you like the two Burtons - where do you stand on FOREVER and & ROBIN? Also, do you consider BB part of the same franchise (in the same way as I presume you view CR as the 21st Bond flick)?

I don't view BATMAN BEGINS as part of the same franchise, because it shares nothing with them, especially continuity. The reason CASINO ROYALE is part of the same franchise is it holds the same hallmarks, gunbarrel logo, the theme, same crew. But calling BATMAN BEGINS part of the same franchise would be like saying NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, if it didn't star Sean Connery and wasn't as similar to the EON films in tone, is part of the same Bond franchise as the rest.

BATMAN FOREVER is okay. It has a central arc for Bruce Wayne that's good, but visually its horrendous with neon lights and garishness. It tramples on its villains (Two-Face, which is the ultimate tragic villain and one of the greatest comic book villains ever created, is nothing but a poor Nicholson clone here, and the Riddler is turned into nothing but a comedic Carrey vehicle), and O'Donnel's Robin is very mediocre. Add into that equation nipples on the batsuit and it's just that much worse. I can enjoy it as a somewhat entertaining film, I suppose, but as a "Batman" film I dislike it. Still, it has its bright spots and there's a good film lost in all the muck.

BATMAN AND ROBIN is one of the worst films I've ever seen - it tries to be fun and camp, but doesn't succeed at it at all (where Adam West's Batman succeeded quite well). It not only takes a crap on the Batman character, it doesn't succeed at being its own kind of film. 'Nuff said.

[Qwerty]

Batman is my favourite of the two.

[Loomis]

Harmsway, I seem to remember from your past posts that you like the two Burtons - where do you stand on FOREVER and & ROBIN? Also, do you consider BB part of the same franchise (in the same way as I presume you view CR as the 21st Bond flick)?

I don't view BATMAN BEGINS as part of the same franchise, because it shares nothing with them, especially continuity. The reason CASINO ROYALE is part of the same franchise is it holds the same hallmarks, gunbarrel logo, the theme, same crew. But calling BATMAN BEGINS part of the same franchise would be like saying NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, if it didn't star Sean Connery and wasn't as similar to the EON films in tone, is part of the same Bond franchise as the rest.

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't you consider BB part of the same franchise given that it's a product of the same studio (as NSNA most definitely wasn't)? One of the producers of BB (Michael Uslan or whoever - can't be bothered to check the IMDb right now) is also credited on 1989's BATMAN. I gather that Warners could just as easily have made BB as BATMAN 5 (the working title of BB for quite a while, as I understand it), but decided in favour of a reboot instead of a straight sequel (after apparently toying with the idea of "elderly Batman", starring Clint Eastwood*). Therefore, in terms of parentage (so to speak), isn't there an argument for viewing BB as an entry in the same series as the films BATMAN - BATMAN & ROBIN? (Note also the title: BATMAN BEGINS [same series, but a reboot, a la CASINO ROYALE], instead of simply BATMAN.) And aren't there various nods and winks to the Burton and Schumacher eras in Nolan's film?

*Which I wish they'd gone for.

[Number 6]

Batman is my favourite of the two.

LOL Well we have something in common if not M. Night films, Q.

I can't wait for the follow-up film in 2008.

Just doodled this the other day...

[Harmsway]

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't you consider BB part of the same franchise given that it's a product of the same studio (as NSNA most definitely wasn't)?

Eh, not really. Technically I could guess you could argue that way, but my logic is that BATMAN BEGINS will never be featured in a DVD set with the other films, whereas CASINO ROYALE will. And for what its worth, by that logic, BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM might as well be considered part of the same franchise as well.

And regarding your note on the title - BATMAN BEGINS instead of just BATMAN, well, they're considering calling BB2 just BATMAN 2.

Therefore, in terms of parentage (so to speak), isn't there an argument for viewing BB as an entry in the same series as the films BATMAN - BATMAN & ROBIN?

If WB viewed it that way, I might say so, but my general standard for deciding such things is whether they'll be packaged together in a DVD set someday.

Also, aren't there various nods and winks to the Burton and Schumacher eras in Nolan's film?

What winks and nods in Nolan's film? I didn't count any.

*Which I wish they'd gone for.

Would have been interesting. They would have been adapting DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, which I don't have a whole lot of love for (it's very... Frank Miller, and I'm no fan of his work and he has nothing but an admitted dislike for the Batman character), but it would have been interesting, to be sure.

[Loomis]

Also, aren't there various nods and winks to the Burton and Schumacher eras in Nolan's film?

What winks and nods in Nolan's film? I didn't count any.

Oh, I dunno. I think it's something I read on the film's IMDb trivia page at one point.

The reason I bring all this up is that I gather that there's a split in Batman fandom as to whether BB should be considered part of the same franchise, with some people trying to fanwank it into the Burton and Schumacher continuity. I imagine that something similar may happen in Bond fandom when CR is released.

What I found really cool about the Eastwood rumour was the plan to CGI his younger face for flashback scenes, but then again CGI ain't exactly perfected yet and it might well have looked dreadful.

And regarding your note on the title - BATMAN BEGINS instead of just BATMAN, well, they're considering calling BB2 just BATMAN 2.

Ah, that won't stop the fanwankers - after all, STAR WARS EPISODE II is considered part of the same series as THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, so I'm sure plenty of people will refer to BB and its sequels as "the prequel trilogy" (no doubt in spite of glaring evidence to the contrary).

Not that - despite possible appearances - I'm actually trying to link BB to the other Batman films; just trying to look at the pros and cons.

With CR, there's certainly a much more solid case for viewing it as BOND 21. You mention things like the gunbarrel and the same crew, and there's also the point that nothing in CR will explicitly contradict the other Bond flicks (other than, obviously, the idea of Bond being a rookie). Whereas BB treats things like the murder of Wayne's parents and the Joker very differently to Burton's film.

[Harmsway]

The reason I bring all this up is that I gather that there's a split in Batman fandom as to whether BB should be considered part of the same franchise, with some people trying to fanwank it into the Burton and Schumacher continuity.

Actually, there's no controversy whatsoever. It's universally recognized as a new franchise, especially because BB2 will be going on to do the Joker in an entirely different fashion and such. It's been remarkably free of any fanwankery (thank god).

What I found really cool about the Eastwood rumour was the plan to CGI his younger face for flashback scenes, but then again CGI ain't exactly perfected yet and it might well have looked dreadful.

They de-aged Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen for a flashback in X-MEN III and it still looked questionable.

[Loomis]

Talking of sequel status, would it be correct to view SUPERMAN RETURNS as the third Supes flick, with SUPERMAN III and THE QUEST FOR PEACE becoming - for the moment - SUPERMANs IV and V?

I find it amazing that three franchises of my childhood that seemed about as dead as could possibly be - Superman, Rocky and the Pink Panther - have all been extended this year.

[Harmsway]

Talking of sequel status, would it be correct to view SUPERMAN RETURNS as the third Supes flick, with SUPERMAN III and THE QUEST FOR PEACE becoming - for the moment - SUPERMANs IV and V?

I suppose. It's technically meant to pretend like III and IV never happened and never will happen.

But, honestly, SUPERMAN RETURNS is only a pseudo-sequel.

I find it amazing that three franchises of my childhood that seemed about as dead as could possibly be - Superman, Rocky and the Pink Panther - have all been extended this year.

It is quite unbelievable.

[Loomis]

The way Hollywood's scrabbling for belated sequels, reboots and prequels it's as though all rights are up within a week. It's ridiculous, although, admittedly, cool that certain franchises are coming back to life. But when it gets to the point that there's a prequel in the works to a remake of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE.... Seriously, it seems that just about any revival of a series you can conceive of is actually happening. RAMBO IV? Check. FRIDAY THE 13TH prequel? Check. HALLOWEEN remake? Check. I seem to recall reading somewhere recently that they're even doing something with the POLICE ACADEMY "property". The only holdouts seem to be CROCODILE DUNDEE 4 and LETHAL WEAPON 5, but I guess it's only a matter of time.

[Harmsway]

You forgot DIE HARD 4.0 (which may or may not be any good - the script is apparently interesting, but the attached director is remarkably disappointing).

Hollywood is dominated by the sequel bug, and honestly, it's somewhat annoying. Very few original projects are coming through the pipeline - and it makes the whole movie schedule somewhat lackluster.

[Loomis]

You forgot DIE HARD 4.0 (which may or may not be any good - the script is apparently interesting, but the attached director is remarkably disappointing).

Yeah, Wiseman makes Brett Ratner look like a truly exciting director.

McTiernan was always the dream choice for DIE HARD 4.0 (BTW, wretched title), but then again, didn't he stop being the McTiernan of PREDATOR, DIE HARD and THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER a very long time ago?

Dunno if you saw the remake of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 - much better than you might expect, and this is coming from a huge fan of Carpenter's original. It contains a couple of sly nods to DIE HARD 2, and I remember thinking the director (whose name escapes me, but I think he's French) would be a terrific choice for the fourth DIE HARD.

[Harmsway]

Dunno if you saw the remake of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 - much better than you might expect, and this is coming from a huge fan of Carpenter's original. It contains a couple of sly nods to DIE HARD 2, and I remember thinking the director (whose name escapes me, but I think he's French) would be a terrific choice for the fourth DIE HARD.

Actually, I saw it and concur with everything you just said. I really dug it (and I too am a fan of the original).

[Tarl_Cabot]

When you think of the character's potential and what could be done with him....

What would you want to see done with him?

A weak answer, perhaps, but I'd like to see Burton's BATMAN/Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS done properly. What's "properly"? Well, pretty much the same basic stuff, but less of the chest-beating self-importance; more of a sense of fun, more visual "wow" factor, and more interesting and more coherent scripts that aren't so darned serious.

What's "more interesting"? Well, look at the character, look at the potential, and then notice how it always just boils down to "grumpy rich boy dons a dark suit and beats up some baddies who are also ludicrously clothed, and then grumpy rich boy pushes off back to his manor house to brood until the next so-called adventure". Let's see Wayne/Batman being burdened by his money, falling in love, being tempted, being captured, being seriously wounded, making mistakes, saving the world from something truly awesome (like some stolen nukes, a la THUNDERBALL). I imagine that the comics do explore some of these ideas, but we've yet to see them in the films, which are pretty dull and samey. The one thing I really like about BATMAN BEGINS is that our hero is taken out of the States for a bit - there ya go, something new. More, please.

Also, Wayne/Batman sorely needs more charm and humour. Y'know, like Bond. And that's where the West era really scores. If West is the Moore of Batman (horrifying to the purists, but a great entertainer), then everyone else is Dalton (too dark and dour).

I can think of a few actors who could be Batman. Noone working now besides Tom Welling could pull off Supes. Just mho.

Who else would you suggest could take on the cape and cowl, out of my own curiosity? I can't think of a single appropriate choice aside from Bale, but those you think could do it may have never even crossed my mind.

I'm curious to read Tarl's answer, but - and despite what I've just written about Moore-esque charisma and wit - you'll surely agree that Daniel Craig would have made an absolutely blinding choice for BATMAN BEGINS, Harmsway?

Potential Batmen:

Collin Farrel
Heath Ledger
Guy Pierce
Mathew Mchonoghay
Josh Hartnett
Eric Bana
Aaron Eckhart
Mark Walberg
James Franco
The guy from Amerian beauty...?
The guy who played The human Torch...?

Ok, I'm not saying they would have been as good or better than Bale but they could have worked in the role as Batman.

[Harmsway]

Potential Batmen:

Collin Farrel
Heath Ledger
Guy Pierce
Mathew Mchonoghay
Josh Hartnett
Eric Bana
Aaron Eckhart
Mark Walberg
James Franco
The guy from Amerian beauty...?
The guy who played The human Torch...?

Ok, I'm not saying they would have been as good or better than Bale but they could have worked in the role as Batman.

Maybe it's just that you're not that familiar with the character, but I don't think one any one of the people you mentioned would have worked. Come on - the guy who played THE HUMAN TORCH!?! They are either entirely inappropriate for the role or inadequate actors for the part (for example, Franco and Wahlberg are two of the worst working actors today, and if they can't handle their own smaller parts in films that are much less demanding, there's no way they can handle a part as demanding as Batman).

[Tarl_Cabot]

"Danny Elfman's Batman theme is every bit as memorable as Williams' theme for Supes."

No way dude. I still get a lil misty eyed when I hear Williams Score...it's just perfect; I own the cd... Batman is nowhere near as good...but it is better than the weak score that accompanies Spiderman.

[Harmsway]

"Danny Elfman's Batman theme is every bit as memorable as Williams' theme for Supes."

No way dude. I still get a lil misty eyed when I hear Williams Score...it's just perfect; I own the cd... Batman is nowhere near as good...but it is better than the weak score that accompanies Spiderman.

BATMAN's score overall is nowhere near the quality of the SUPERMAN score (it lacks the vast variety of great themes throughout), but the main theme from BATMAN is definitely up there with the main theme of SUPERMAN. It's incredibly iconic and memorable and perfectly fits the character, just as the main theme from SUPERMAN does.