Although I do think pirates 3 and spidey 3 were a wee bit too long o_O

But, yeah... basically showing what happens to Harvey Dent on the internet is pretty dumb.

Less is more.

I have been hearing through the pipeline that there will only be two Batman Movies for a while. That it will be like Godfather and Godfather II in respect to seeing two halves of a story. Then, maybe they will do another one in a few years time when everyone is older, dealing with Robin...and Bruce becoming the father figure like his own dad.

As to the people who hate Nolan's novelistic approach to film...get over it. He is one of the few truly literate filmakers working today with big budget storytelling. He is the Anti-Bay!

I Couldn't tell who was talking at the beginning of the Two Face scene. I hope the fight scenes are cut so we can actually see some moves this time. I have to play the Batman Begins game to actually see him fight.

Everything I hear about TDK sounds great. Goyer is not involved as much as he was in BB (the person I blame for the stupid plot points and silly dialog in BB). Jonathan Nolan is co-writing. And most importantly for me, Mann's Heat is a major influence for TDK.

Heat + Batman is an extremely exciting combination, but also a difficult one to achieve. I have faith in Chris Nolan and his brother though, and my expectations are high.

Kiddies will flock like sheep to watch that, and so will everyone else. TDK will not be that popular with the ladies and kiddies as Wall-E.

I hope 2face only appears at the end- and then it nicely flows into part 3. But I like the Joker more, and love the look of this JOker.

I'm not concerned about the running time nor the amount of villains.

Dent. Arthur Dent

Late as in the Late Dent, Arthur Dent. You see, it's kind of a threat...

Anyway, I've got my fingers crossed for the traditional 'much improved second instalment' that we often get from comic book films. Batman Begins, while not totally my cup of tea, was still one of the better adaptations, so hopefully this will be a top notch sequel. It won't be as good as Blade II, obviously, but somewhere around Spider-Man 2 or X-Men 2 would be good.

There can be no debating this.

You mean Elvis' Alien lovechild doesn't work in my local mcdonalds?

pah.

Please visit thread 37120 if you want to witness truth....

THe CoC also approves of this message. It's been very busy handing out approvals today.

It's enlightening.

I love Batman '89 but come one .... I'll be the first to admit that it's plot points are just as ridiculous, if not more so, than Begins and it doesn't hold up all that well now. In terms of the plot the Joker has a fucking parade in the middle of the city for Christ's sakes (with Price music playing in the background .. which goes to my point about holding up today). Like cops in any major city would let that shit happen.

I will cede the point to a certain degree about parts of it being more iconic though. The score rocked and the suite did look much better than it did in Begins (but it's lack of mobility was a real problem during the film, he couldn't turn his freaking head) and some of the production design was certainly more stylistic than what you see in Begins (but with that comes an added dimension of unrealism that Begins with it's production design avoids).

In the end Batman '89 is a less realistic and more stylistic approach to the character. I, for one, am happy that we have both takes. I was just 8 years old when Batman '89 came out and I sat in the theater and soaked up every second of it and loved it. I was 24 when Begins came out and I felt almost the exact same way about that flick. For me each interpretation came out at the perfect point in my life in terms of my age. I dug Batman '89 as an 8 year old and as a 24 year old I loved the more realistic style and production design and tone they went for in Batman Begins and was able to look past the villains plot because the plots are outrageous in most action movies.

Honestly, I was kind of lukewarm on the first batman reboot. It just didn't do anything for me, sort of felt bland to me. And oh god, the fight scenes were awful... Hard to tell what was going on. This new one seems a step in the right direction, probably because they finally have some interesting villains, though i have to say i liked the concept for scarecrow's costume in Begins.

You can not like Begins, that's fine. But then you are just not that big of a Batman fan, as other than B&R, you should find something to enjoy about all the Batman films. Begins has it's downfalls, Katie Holmes, Gordon driving the batmobile & Katie Holmes again, but it's still a solid film. The scarecrows toxin is sick, they should have shown more of it's effects.

While TDK might not be the greatest movie ever, it will be cool. The clips in the trailer and the 6 minute preview with the Joker already make it for me. So, as long as there are more Joker scenes, it's got me already.

Can we PLEASE not turn this into another 89 vs Begins debate?

It's simple really, Begins is better.

@Dannyglovers_blood the 6 min footage is awesome. Men in joker masks zip linning across Gotham roofs to the bank, busting it open, robbing it, joker henchman killing each other one by one, then the Joker himself sticking a grenade in the bank manangers mouth (it sprays gas) and leaving the bank in a school bus that merges into a long line of school buses. You can watch it here: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/bat man/the-6%20minute-dark-knight -bank-heist-trailer-334675.php ?autoplay=true

E
E
Y
O
R
E!!!! !

"I just want to know, are we going to try and love each other?"

PUH-LEEEEZZZEEE!

A nyone who praises Burton's faux goth-camp or Schumacher's neon-fetishism is apologizing for some serious shite that ran the character and franchise into the ground.

And I think the "too much brown" (aka sepia tones) complaint is the most strangest, most juvenile nitpick I've seen in a long time. (It rivals Ringbearer9's bitch-fit over the color CGI fire.) Go watch BLADERUNNER again and try telling me how much you hate sepia tones.

Personally, I found the color palette to be fine. In fact, I hardly noticed the concentration on certain "tones" until it got brought up in Talkback ages ago. So yes, I do find it juvenile. It's nitpicky simply for the sake of. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm certainly not going to tell you what you can/cannot enjoy...

Does Gotham not have a Starbucks?! I ask this because I honestly don't know; I don't read comics anymore.

I had hoped for a good Batman movie since I was a little kid and I'd read an interview in Starlog with Tom Mankiewicz in which he talked about a Batman film that almost saw the light of day following Donner's Superman. Mankiewicz's Batman was going to remove the camp of the old TV series and take Batman back to his gritty, noir/pulp vigilante roots. Wow, just like Miller's Dark Knight.

Back to 1989, Burton and WB announced that their Batman was "directly inspired by Frank Miller's Dark Knight vision of the Batman".

Needless to say, I was pretty excited to see Burton's Batman that summer 19 years ago. I wasn't sure about the casting of Michael Keaton, but I was willing to gamble my 5 bucks.

Words cannot describe how fucking disappointed I was. Burton's Batman owes way more to the TV series than it does to anything Frank Miller did. When we refer to material as "dark" we're usually referring to the material, to the content, the characters, the plot, and their presentation. "Dark" does not refer to a lack of lighting or set design.

Even as a 15 year-old kid, I knew that Burton's Batman was a load of shit. Even as I kid, I knew that Burton's Batman was not really Batman.

The old TV series is great for its own reasons, but for folks who care about Batman as he was originally conceived by Bob Kane and as he was refined and perfected by Frank Miller, Batman Begins was the first proper and actual Batman movie and The Dark Knight will be the second proper Batman movie. We're looking forward to it.

Really? Says who?

Quote: "Black, blue, silver, black, gray --- those are Batman's colors."

Are you talking about his suit in the comics? Because a film shot predominantly in those colors would probably look more like UNDERWORLD that BATMAN...

Second, I disagree...with both of your paragraphs. So there.

S U C K E D A S S

and was a flippant take on the characters, directed by a guy who admitted that he hadn't read the comics, had no interest in comics and didn't respect the medium as an art form.

People who praise Burtons work on Batman, esp. over Nolans, need to pull the dicks out of their eyes.

Also, _DICKBLOOD, are you like the Official AICN Troll now? So fucking sick of you. Go douche your sandy puss, woman.

2.) Bob the goon. He was definately a major necessity. I love his character arc and tragic murder at the end.

3.)Robert Wuhl as Knox. What a fantanstic and funny guy. Loved him.

4.) Joker. Prince. Nuff said.

5.) Alfred lets Vicki Vale into the batcave...awesome reveal!

6.) Joker's super cool ninja henchman is almost as cool as his super cool long gun and his super cool plan to fist-fight Batman.

7.) A black Harvey Dent. Fo sho.

8.) Joker killing batmans parents. Way better than that comic book Joe Chill guy. This makes things much more personal!

Seriously, with it's expanded landscapes and countries, deeper exploring of Batman's mythology, tense plotting, and crappy acting from Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, and Christian Bale... how can ANYONE like Batman Begins?

And all the sepia tones....sheesh!

Did I say that? I don't think I even insinuated it.

But if you're one of those who thinks that BATMAN '89 is anything more than a wet fart that wafts to the tunes of Prince, you might be as tasteless as Underoos Hero.

Ah, so BraneRobot (aka AnimalStructure, Thunderballs, etc.) got banned then, eh? I definitely saw what it was that he posted in the Russert Obit TB = he called out for the death of Keith Olbermann. Completely inappropriate and wrong in every way.

And that is what sarcasm should do! Funny!

Nicholson IS NOT The Joker. Billy Dee IS NOT Dent. Robert Wuhl is like a catheter, i.e. pain in my cock. The Purple One does not, in any way, speak to me of Gotham City.

And for the record, I love the ol' Adam West TV-show Batman. I would take that over the Burton/Schumacher debacle any Bat-day of the week.

For the record, I liked Spiderman 2 a lot more, as well as Batman Returns (despite that it was Burtons return). Maybe I'm a sucker for sequels. It is in this sense that I am hoping for The Dark Knight to trump Batman Begins.

All it does is somewhat spoil the question of 'will they/won't they?' with regard to showing Dent's outcome in this film. I admit trepidation.

But no, I mean a bad one. One like my uncle once described as napalm in his pee-hole.

Now, did you happen to see the manner in which BraneRobot made his ridiculous plee?

Gee. I wonder who it could be.

I just can't figure it out.

DA-DA CHA!

THANK U THANK U I WILL BE HERE ALL NITE FOLKS

Really?

So, you couldn't ask yourself which approach is more effective?

You couldn't look at the differences between each depiction?

I reckon, then, that you certainly wouldn't want to ask yourself which approach you like better, right? Because how could you prefer one over the other? Given the fact that they're both... uhh... different.

To compare them would be... a... a... what'd you say? A stretch?

Wow.

Gotcha.

I' d like to hang out with you on election day.

"Obama and McCain will both approach the presidency differently. Therefore it is a waste of time to try and compare them. Neither is better than the other. We may as well not vote because they are both different. Let's go home now."

And I'll be all like, "Whatever you say, billis3811."

'89 is SO fucking silly it hurts the brain. But since it's classic, you can't really say it SUCKS. And Jack does have a decent take on the Joker. But the re-writing of both of their origins is too stupid for me to even think about. I thought Returns was a bit more solid, although still very fucking silly, but they fucked the Penguin up. He needs to be a squat, high class, arms dealer with connections. Not some creepy, half-bird, circus freak. Just weird. Selina Kyle sucked, but Catwoman was great.

Begins should have been more serious in the last act. There got to be a little too many one liners for my taste and Gordon driving the batmobile was dumb. And, of course, Katie Holmes should be ripped out of the movie. I didn't hate the Scarecrow, but I wish he'd have been played a little less coo-koo until Batman shot him with his own toxin, driving him pyschotic. I didn't care for Maroni at all, they needed someone with more clout to pull off that role. Sepia tones? I guess. I didn't go to fucking film school, I know what sepia looks like, but I guess I don't know what tone Gotham should be. I couldn't give less of a shit.

Portrayal of Bruce Wayne: Keaton, in just a few scenes nails the psychosis of Bruce/Bats, whereas it took Bale half the picture to accomplish. Advantage: Keaton.

Portrayal Batman: No comp here. A tiny Keaton, no matter how much padding cannot compare to Bale. Advantage: Bale

Major Villains: Joker, Ra's and Scarecrow. Lets just dispense with scarecrow because he was a waste of film Jack's joker was over the top, but entertaining. He commanded the screen (for good or ill). He had a plan, coherent or not, and he had style. I also think that Jack made the Joker an extension of himself, that was to good effect. Ra's, was boring, lifeless, and the best thing about Ra's in the comics, was his smokin hot daughter! No daughter, Liam was boring. Advantage: Jack.

Supporting Villains: '89 far more colorful and enetertaining. Advantage: '89

Supporting actors: '89 Alfred and Vicki, beat Caine and Katie. Freeman and Oldman beat Wuhl, Billy Dee et al. Freeman the superior of supporting actors. Advantage: Begins.

Atmosphere: '89 faux gothic ghetto. Begins - faux urban garbage. But if '89 had stuck to a straight Miller interpretation it would have worked, instead it was far too unrealistic and intrusive. Advantage: Begins

Batmobile: '89, works for the atmosphere created. Begins - works for atmosphere created. Advantage: Push

Music: -'89 hands down.

Plot: What there is of a plot is broken down into origin and nutcase villain attack. Origin: Begins devotes half the freakin movie to it, and still does not nail it. The Ra's re-write just feels wrong, but it does do a credible job of explaining Wayne's physical prowess. '89, not so much. Advantage origin: Begins. Villain plot. Both pretty stupid, but can not indict stupid comic book plot in one movie unless you do so in all comic book movies. Still, Ra's speechifying and not finishing the job when Wayne is trapped, was even dumber than Joker wanting to fight Batman. At least Joker had a plan to soften up Batman before they fought. Still just they both were dumb. Advantage: Push

Director: Burton, style over substance. Nolan, substance with plot holes, little style. Still, Nolan made a grittier, and more realistic movie plot holes and all. Advantage: Nolan.

Iconic moments and impact: '89 had a huge anticipatory build-up, and driven by the indelible Elfman score and it's 'newness' '89 had the greater impact.

Entertainment value: Both delivered what was expected, but on the strength of a more realistic approach and better overall vision, Begins gets the nod.

Best Movie: Lets tally it up! Including the Pushes, it is...5 to 5! Another Push!

So, like everything, it comes down to a subjective opinion. If I had to choose, I would say Begins - by a nose.

If not, then I am quite sure you know the meaning of the word stupidity, because it stares you in the face everytime you look in the mirror, and everytime you wipe your shit stained hand across a keyboard.

Have a nice evening!

You will notice I did not Nuke you, so the kidding is accepted.

Have a good evening.

Well, I must say that extremely creative 'Go fuck yourself' was quite inspired. Truly, I am impressed with your range of expression. I wonder what amazing retort you will next come up with. I am on the edge of my seat - toilet that is. And that turd in bowl looks and smells just like you!

That's pretty freaky, Bowie.

...how the hell are you gonna do a Batman and Joker movie but make Joker second tier to Two-Face?...dont get me wrong, 2Face is great, BUT DAMMIT THIS IS THE JOKER...Im sure the movie will be good, but I have a big feelin that this will be terrible and I will be disappointed...I mean, even in Batman Begins, I already felt dread when they said Joker only killed 2 people (I believe)...what the hell? the Joker's death toll should be in the high hundreds...if not, youre just usin a crazy, scarred face Riddler...

DONT DISAPPOINT ME NOLAN! dont make a freakin G-RATED, animated Joker the greatest version of the char ever depicted in TV/movies (and u know the Joker rocked in the cartoons and Mask of Phantasm)...

This is all subjective though.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2Cp-UunC2Gg

Back on topic, Dent seems to say "half" much too fast (but I'm still hanging out for this).

The giveaway? The second capitalisation in the name. No-one else does that.

And Laserhead, the reason they went for the yellow symbol in the Burton film was that the one bit of bright colour made them target the armoured part, and not his face. Reasonably logical for a superhero movie!

I think everyone misses the point of the Burton Batman's Gotham. It's GOTHIC, and nightmarish. The thing was a melodromatic opera, for Christ's sake. You can actually sort of accept a bizarre bat/man (Die Fleidermaus?) in that context. And at least I can appreciate both that movie AND the Nolan one. They're just very different approaches to the character (and BOTH have their flaws). You don't HAVE to hate one because you like the other. That's infantile and simplistic. And boring.

Back to B'89 vs. BB... I love bot movies, but both are flawed as shit.

B'89 had a great villain, but a lacking hero. The characters where not well developed, and the story was kinda forgettable. The cinematography and production design where top-notch, they really made the movie feel unique. The prince music is shit and completely out of place, but the score is awesome.

BB got the Batman character right, and really gave him a good back-story. No good villain though. Cinematography was kinda ugly with all the "brown" coloring, but it served the purpose well. They created a city that felt real and gritty. Score was ok, the Hans Zimmer parts where forgettable as usual, but the JNH stuff was great. Katie Holms was crap and felt out of place. The origin part of the story was great, but when the microwaving shit starts it gets a bit silly. You can't base a movie so much in reality for the 1st hour, and then go completely campy for the 2nd hour with silly plot points and goofy one-liners. But, like I said before on these bords, BB did one thing extremely well, and that is to set up a great foundation for a good sequel.

Both films are good and bad in their own ways, I could continue yapping about the flaws and qualities of both movies for hours, but these where the things that stood out the most for me.

rant over

...also, I really that credits song sung by Tia Carrere...

Laughable.

Go od thing that serving tray was bulletproof, too.

I do that.

And to 5-15-9.... well played! Aces, in fact! Who likes to rock the party? 5-15-9 likes to rock the party.

For sure: "If given a choice between watching this or B89, I'd just turn the TV off". Well said.

"I refuse to say anything about Batman and Robin, because that's not even a film." Indeed.

And yep, Batman Forever is, paradoxically, the best of the first 4 Batman movies. Yet it totally sucks.

How does that work? It's almost like a magic trick. That shouldn't be the case.

Yet that is the case.

It's like a Philip K Dick novel or something.

I can't believe the hate for B89 here. That shit blew up my world when I was 8. It was a cultural touchstone. I still remember all my friends on the block quoting shit from it...

"Where does he get those wonderful toys??" I love Jack Nicholson, I love how he don't give a fuck, and I love his "Fuck Canon" JackJoker. (Never read the comic too too much, so I'm not married to the material.) He's just a manic Jack in a Joker-type getup, which for me works a lot better than the queer HAM-ill version of Joker in the cartoons. (jks, Luke)

DGBD, I heart most of the shit you say but you have lost your nut on this BB thing. I think the origins portion of BB is the best hour or so of "superhero" film making I've ever seen. Bruce Wayne at Ninja Boot = geek heaven for me. Unfortunately, the movie Jumps the Roof when the Batmobile/Picasso Study/Tumbler Nukes its way into our Fridge. Everything after that is shit. Portions of 89 are shit. Portions of my life are shit -- large portions. What was my point? I need to refill my glass. Peace.

In case you don't know paragraphs are made by writing < p > (without the spaces).

BlackCrippler=AnimalStructu re=ThunderBalls=BraneRobot. The giveaway? The second capitalisation and the apalling neo-nazi sentiments.

and to 5-15-9, when I see a post like that I just skip over it, because it's probably written by someone who will not add anything constructive to the debate anyway.

(see what I did there?) It's funny, all of the Brick Text posts I've read have been good if the content was well thought out, researched and honest....OR bad when it was a poorly worded, rambling argument by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

(I added another paragraph break, did you see it?!?!?!?)

Just like the non-brick text posts. For real, chill out.

If a person knows how to use paragraphs on these boards, and uses them wrongly, like putting paragraphs everywhere or paragraphing once in a 300 word post, then that alludes on crappy basic writing skills. Which then again alludes on crappy thinking skills. And I never said that any of these posts are bad, or out of place, but some of them do hut my eyesies.

Besides, you're the one who should chill, I just pointed out that huge blocks of text are ugly and told everyone how to paragraph their posts in case they do not know how. You are taking all this too personal I think.

And yes, Batman Returns is more of a pure Tim Burton film, but that film is also way too self-indulgent. Burton had free reign and the end result is a film that's kinda bat-shit insane (this, of course, bit him in the ass when the film disappointed at the box office). While Batman 89 isn't pure Burton, he is still reeled in just enough so that he can produce a film that satisfied audiences and still retains Burtonesque elements. Schumacher had free reign with Batman & Robin, does that make it better than Batman Forever?

And to those who say Batman Forever is the best of the first 4, what the fuck? Batman Forever is ridiculously BORING. It isn't nearly as satisfying as Burton's first flick, and it isn't nearly bat-shit insane enough to be compared with Returns or Batman & Robin. And the score sucks balls. Batman & Robin was at least hilariously awful; Batman Forever is just bad.

Batman Returns, Batman 89, Batman Forever.

From a Batman fan perspective:

Batman Forever, B89, Batman Returns

once again, I refuse to mention B&R because it isn't a film, let alone a Batman film.