Alas, if only I could live on production design and costumery alone. The film has no soul!
TDK tries to make a point, albeit clumsily and heavyhandedly, but a point it makes.
I'm glad I grew up with TAS.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Batman '89 Vs. The Dark Knight
- Thread starter Masquerade Overture
- Start date
TDK tries to make a point, albeit clumsily and heavyhandedly, but a point it makes.
I'm glad I grew up with TAS.
89. Begins is actually a better Bat film than Dak Knight. The real survey should be 89 vs Begins.
TDK is obviously the better movie but i'd take Batman Returns over both.
one of the best movie aesthetics and score of all time imo.
one of the best movie aesthetics and score of all time imo.
Last edited:
1989 for me.
I like a lot about TDK, but it's a lot of a slog to get through and the middle is pretty boring.
Would take returns over it too tbh. Walken and DeVito are superb
I like a lot about TDK, but it's a lot of a slog to get through and the middle is pretty boring.
Would take returns over it too tbh. Walken and DeVito are superb
89 wins for me. The Dark Knight is not even a Batman movie and the only thing that carry that movie is Heath Ledger.
89 much more fun and had great atmosphere.
89 much more fun and had great atmosphere.
Well, TAS is only the greatest achievement of all mankind.
I'm only half-joking.
You'd take the movie that ends with rocket-powered penguins taking out Gotham over something like TDK? And the aesthetic in the Burton movies is great but also feels comparatively small scale and claustrophobic. Everything looks like it was shot on sound stages. And Devito's Penguin just doesn't work for me. He's supposed to be tragic and sad but he's actually just kind of annoying. TDK has the scope of a proper epic and genuine human drama.
I had to sleep on this one and TDK is slightly above '89. It's entertaining to watch the police, attorneys, mob, and Batman fail to understand Joker. He was truly an agent of chaos and Dent realizing that with a gun to his temple made for some chillingly agreeable speeches regarding the status quo. TDK also made corruption an integral role, versus it being an early point that goes nowhere in '89. A similarly dropped thread being Knox the friendzoned Batman true believer. It was mostly pointless.
TDK characters were also more fleshed out. Nobody would have cared had Gordon (or anyone else) been shot in '89, Alfred was mostly just an archetypal agreeable butler, and the love interest was someone Wayne just met to fuck and seems to barely like - but the plot needs to have her screaming up a stairwell to be saved.
Lastly, I have to say Returns sucks. The scale of Gotham was lost with these shoddy sets. The connection between Kyle and Wayne was laughably convenient and unbelievable. The Penguin was just a less charasmatic joker and trained penguins as the threat was a precurser of the lame villains to come post Burton.
TDK characters were also more fleshed out. Nobody would have cared had Gordon (or anyone else) been shot in '89, Alfred was mostly just an archetypal agreeable butler, and the love interest was someone Wayne just met to fuck and seems to barely like - but the plot needs to have her screaming up a stairwell to be saved.
Lastly, I have to say Returns sucks. The scale of Gotham was lost with these shoddy sets. The connection between Kyle and Wayne was laughably convenient and unbelievable. The Penguin was just a less charasmatic joker and trained penguins as the threat was a precurser of the lame villains to come post Burton.
Last edited:
Im going based on pure enjoyment.
Personally Ledger Joker isn't near my favorite,
Movie is not a great watch after the first few viewing because it feels entirely carried by tension that is no longer there
Least favorite score of the 3 Nolan Batman movies
I disliked the generic aesthetic after Begins
Meanwhile I have watched Batman Returns since I was like 3(now going on 30) and it never loses its specialness to me. Its not just nostalgia or 89 would get the nod.
89 and it's not even close.
Seriously, a monumental fucking gap between it and anything from Nolan's dull universe.
Seriously, a monumental fucking gap between it and anything from Nolan's dull universe.
The Dark Knight is the best movie featuring a superhero and one of the best movies ever made.
'89 is cheesy, campy, and is only really liked by people over 30 with a love for nostalgia.
I don't see how anyone who considers themselves a Batman fan can like '89 over TDK.
'89 is cheesy, campy, and is only really liked by people over 30 with a love for nostalgia.
I don't see how anyone who considers themselves a Batman fan can like '89 over TDK.
I just love excuses to post this gif.
That one moment is better than anything in Nolan's Batman trilogy
89 is an extremely fun, stylish movie with a visual design to Gotham that's rarely matched with these kinds of films. Its clearly NOT meant to be modern NYC, but some other place thats in a strange throwback to noir and art deco stuff of the 20s and 30s. It feels dreamlike, menacing, but not *quite* like it belongs in 1989.
Its basically the third most important character after Nicholson's Joker and Keaton's Batman.
TDK's Gotham...just isnt. Gotham HAS no personality in TDK, its just modern NYC with no mystery. It could be the same NYC that shows up in a thousand other films. It just happens to have Batman in it for this one.
The problem with Batman Returns (besides having a stupid and boring story), is that a lot of it looks like it takes place with the same 20 square metre area.
Batman 1989 (also stupid) is a rougher looking picture, but at least it looks like it takes place in an actual city.
Both films were obviously filmed in a soundstage at pinewood, but Tim Burton's urge to make everything look fake and shitty got the better of him in Returns.
I love how they just point it directly and perfectly focused through the window of Bruce Wayne's "thinkin' hard" salon.
This is just all distracting us from talking about the TAS which, let's face it, is the citizen kane of batman bullshit.
Batman 1989 (also stupid) is a rougher looking picture, but at least it looks like it takes place in an actual city.
Both films were obviously filmed in a soundstage at pinewood, but Tim Burton's urge to make everything look fake and shitty got the better of him in Returns.
I just love excuses to post this gif.
I love how they just point it directly and perfectly focused through the window of Bruce Wayne's "thinkin' hard" salon.
This is just all distracting us from talking about the TAS which, let's face it, is the citizen kane of batman bullshit.
That's bait.
And I'll bite.
I prefer 89 by a fair margin. People are going to have opinions. I definitely would never call either one of the best movies ever made either. That takes guts.
I didn't like Nolan's approach at batman. I also felt like Batman wasn't really a superhero in the dark knight. It was way too long. Harvey dent storyline and acting was horrible. The movie was too long and dragged out.
I like 89 better because the hatred and chemistry between Batman and joker is better, the city is better, prince, the batwing and batmobile are way better. The confrontation at the cathedral is much better than the confrontation at the construction site in tdk.
Opinions are opinions.
Oof you fucking kids. 89 and it's not even close. All of the nolan/goyer scripts are a total fucking mess and the films in general are massively bloated.
Also people should conflate 89 with returns, returns is a lesser film by a significant margin.
This is a good summary. If only for Anton Furst designs alone, the film is much better.
The only point i disagree on is prince, I always find that an odd element lol
Also people should conflate 89 with returns, returns is a lesser film by a significant margin.
This is a good summary. If only for Anton Furst designs alone, the film is much better.
The only point i disagree on is prince, I always find that an odd element lol
one thing I think we all should agree on is that writing in both is laughable at many points of both movies
If you like something better or prefer something more, that's one thing, and I respect that, but to say something is better just because you like it more is something waayyy different.
I like Spider-Man PS4 way more than Red Dead 2 or God of War, but I know that both of those games are better made than Spider-Man.
'89 usually only appeals to a certain type of people so I gotta ask, how old are you? And which movie did you see first?
you missed my point
you made some really bold statements in this post...
I mean really?
You made some definite assumptions. I gave an opinion. I stressed opinion.
You called TDK one of the best movies ever made.
Because it is....
Out of the million movies that exist(it is actually relatively close to that number) Hollywood by far makes the top 1%.
The Dark Knight was in the top 1% in 2008, and was up for Oscar contention, so yes, that makes it one of the best movies ever made.
And if it's an opinion then you can't use the phrase "it is better". That presumes it isn't an opinion, but rather it is fact. If it's an opinion, then just say you like it better.
But forreal, answer my question, how old are you?
I don't get your angle. Definitely antagonizing me.
You are allowed to have the opinion TDK is one of the best movies ever. I just didn't think you were being serious.
I like 89 better. we can coexist. I just responded to your first post because it was fairly tough on people who liked 89 better. You were baiting someone like me who liked 89 with that post.
You are allowed to have the opinion TDK is one of the best movies ever. I just didn't think you were being serious.
I like 89 better. we can coexist. I just responded to your first post because it was fairly tough on people who liked 89 better. You were baiting someone like me who liked 89 with that post.
Only seen TDK once at the cinema, liked it well enough but I haven't felt tempted to go back and watch it again. Same for the other Nolan movies.
Heath Ledger's performance is the only thing I particularly recall about the movie. The actual plot wasn't really memorable or interesting and neither were any of the other characters. Bale is a boring Bruce Wayne and an even duller Batman. The location is just Chicago; there is nothing of Gotham in there. Visually there is just no style, it's completely sterile. And unlike the Burton movies, I don't remember a single note of the score outside of there being a 'droning' sound at some point.
The '89 movie is a visual and aural feast with tremendous style and characters who are actually fun to watch.
Not sure I could ever be bothered to sit through the Nolan movies again but I'll never tire of rewatching the Burton ones.
Heath Ledger's performance is the only thing I particularly recall about the movie. The actual plot wasn't really memorable or interesting and neither were any of the other characters. Bale is a boring Bruce Wayne and an even duller Batman. The location is just Chicago; there is nothing of Gotham in there. Visually there is just no style, it's completely sterile. And unlike the Burton movies, I don't remember a single note of the score outside of there being a 'droning' sound at some point.
The '89 movie is a visual and aural feast with tremendous style and characters who are actually fun to watch.
Not sure I could ever be bothered to sit through the Nolan movies again but I'll never tire of rewatching the Burton ones.
I only asked because people who were born either before or near the time '89 came out, and have seen it first tend to like it better. It's not a drag against you or anything, it's just how it works.
Same reason why people who were born post Nolan era think the Marvel movies are better. It's perspective and nostalgia.
I don't hate '89 btw. I actually like the Burton films. It's a very different vibe from the grounded, hyperrealism of the Nolan films. I actually think there's a better Batman movie out there that can capture the realism of the Nolan films, but not abandon the comic book accuracy of the Burton films.
Absolutely no contest for me. It's The Dark Knight. It took what we'd consider as a standard superhero story and did something more with it. We got a crime noir-esque film . The single greatest thing about this film for me is that it got creative teams thinking about how they could make the best of their stories, as opposed to simply thinking about their superhero story as an adaptation of the comics.
I will never understand people complaining that TDK is not a "Batman movie." So what if Batman isn't featured as much? The entire point is that Bruce has to deal with so much more than simply taking up the cowl. It's the same with people who complained that DD s3 featured less of the hero or his costume when the point is quite simple (lack of details bc of spoilers). At least with TDK, you got themes and motivations to explore that put Batman in an awkward position: 1) wanting to retire by letting Gotham stand on its own two feet through Dent being the white knight, but at the same time, Bruce is addicted to being Batman. 2) The Joker's anarchy corrupting everyone else and putting Bruce in a position of not knowing how to deal with that.
Tbf, most people would say that is not what Bruce Wayne is supposed to be. Yes, he's a loner who never really got over the deaths of his parents, however, the more important part is that Bruce Wayne is multifaceted: he can go from being the billionaire playboy who acts like a dumbass all the way to unbridled rage as Batman. This is what TAS and TDK got right.
I think you are being way too simplistic to reduce someone's preferences to perspective and nostalgia. Sometimes people prefer one film over another due to flaws (or lack thereof) presented, whether it is in the script or production as a whole. I'll give you an example, I love the TDKT for its serious and gritty tone as well as characterizations, but I hate everything that Zack Snyder created after with MoS, BvS, and JL, primarily because I think the tone is inconsistent between the films, the writing is pure unadulterated garbage, and the acting leaves much to be desired.
I will never understand people complaining that TDK is not a "Batman movie." So what if Batman isn't featured as much? The entire point is that Bruce has to deal with so much more than simply taking up the cowl. It's the same with people who complained that DD s3 featured less of the hero or his costume when the point is quite simple (lack of details bc of spoilers). At least with TDK, you got themes and motivations to explore that put Batman in an awkward position: 1) wanting to retire by letting Gotham stand on its own two feet through Dent being the white knight, but at the same time, Bruce is addicted to being Batman. 2) The Joker's anarchy corrupting everyone else and putting Bruce in a position of not knowing how to deal with that.
Tbf, most people would say that is not what Bruce Wayne is supposed to be. Yes, he's a loner who never really got over the deaths of his parents, however, the more important part is that Bruce Wayne is multifaceted: he can go from being the billionaire playboy who acts like a dumbass all the way to unbridled rage as Batman. This is what TAS and TDK got right.
I think you are being way too simplistic to reduce someone's preferences to perspective and nostalgia. Sometimes people prefer one film over another due to flaws (or lack thereof) presented, whether it is in the script or production as a whole. I'll give you an example, I love the TDKT for its serious and gritty tone as well as characterizations, but I hate everything that Zack Snyder created after with MoS, BvS, and JL, primarily because I think the tone is inconsistent between the films, the writing is pure unadulterated garbage, and the acting leaves much to be desired.
Last edited:
You lean too heavily on the "nostalgia" argument.
Batman 89 was the first Batman film i saw (excluding the 60s one) but i prefer it not because of "nostalgia" but because those two films are attempting to do two completely different things and i prefer Burton's approach to Nolan's.
Nolan grounds Batman in realism as much as possible which really doesn't work that well for a guy that runs around dressed like a bat to try to punch away Gotham's crime problems.
Ledger is really the only thing that works well (though honorable mention to oldman's Jim Gordon) in TDK and he completely carries that film. Bale makes an awful Batman, and the transformation of two face at the conclusion is flat out bad.
89 isnt perfect by a long shot, but the suspension of disbelief is easier to pull off. 89 KNOWS its a fantasy film in a fantasy setting that allows ridiculous shit and doesn't hold back. TDK wants you to think all of it is somehow deep and realistic, and this doesn't hold up.
And despite my age, some (but not all) of the MCU films from Avengers going forward are ALSO better films than 89 and TDK.
Winter Soldier, Ragnarok, GOTG, Black Panther, and Infinity War are just on a different tier as comic book films.
Most of it is nostalgia, and people just don't like to admit it, so they try to come up with complex arguments on why a movie is objectively better rather than them just liking it more.
'89 is the one you identify with most. It's the one you saw first and probably liked a lot.
But to call TDK bad is just..... what?? I understand if you don't like something, but people have to stop calling something bad just because they didn't enjoy it when objectively it happens to be the most praised thing in its category of all time.
'89 is cool for its time, but it hasn't aged well at all. The set design is outdated, the effects are outdated, the fight choreography is outdated and bland, and the costume designs are outdated too. If two men in both costumes walked up to me, I'd be infinitely more suspicious of the man in the Bale costume than I would be of someone in the Keaton costume.
The only Marvel movie that I would put in the same category of TDK would be The Winter Soldier. Everything from the character development, to the themes and stakes, and overall experience is the only thing comparable in the MCU to TDK.
This is all coming from a guy who works in film and has watched nearly every movie there is out there.
It's a good movie, but not a good *Batman* film and isn't really what I would call a good superhero "genre" film either. 89 and the MCU stuff gets things I mentioned right that Nolan doesn't address or doesn't care to. Batman is not a realistic premise and the more you try to ground it the less it works.
And to your "nostalgia" claim, it falls apart when you consider that Superman II is the first Superman film I saw, but I prefer "Man of Steel" as a film (though neither are perfect and MoS has serious issues).
Likewise the Raimi Spider-Man was the first one I saw, but Homecoming is CLEARLY superior to it. Xmen (2000) was the first X-film, but Logan and Deadpool blow it out of the water.
It's not what's "first" but what's better. Smart viewers can make decisions about what's good and what isn't without being led around by the nose by nostalgia.
This sounds like personal complaints that it's not your preference, rather than being "objectively bad." The "set design" being outdated is also nonsense- gotham of 89 is intentionally retro and THAT asethetic definitely holds up. The "effects" are also practical and almost without exception still hold up- we're not talking about late 90s CGI here.
That speaks to your specific preference for gritty, realistic crime thrillers, but this is NOT a common approach for superhero films- it won't work for most of them and BARELY works for Nolan's Batman. Audiences seem to disagree with you here if box office gross and ticket sales is anything to go by- these are at a very basic level fantastic films that should be fun and encourage suspension of disbelief. Audiences are resonating more with these films than they are what Nolan and Snyder tried to do with the DC properties.
And even if we ignore that, the MCU films are the current standard for the genre going forward and have been since Avengers blew up. NO ONE is attempting to ape Nolan's approach for films within the genre anymore and there is a very, very good reason for this. Without Ledger carrying that movie it's decent but unremarkable- much like TDKR.
Last edited:
Dark Knight falls apart HARD once Two Face comes into play. It's dope otherwise.
'89 way more rewatchable though
'89 way more rewatchable though
There's alot I don't like about Burton's movies, but when I think about live action Batman I think about '89 or Batman Returns.
/keatonbatman1989-56ab23053df78cf772b4cf6a.jpg)
Bale has no presence as Batman.
People can post that gif of Bale screaming "SWEAR IT TO MEEE!" all they want. It's still really dumb.
Bale has no presence as Batman.
People can post that gif of Bale screaming "SWEAR IT TO MEEE!" all they want. It's still really dumb.
There's alot I don't like about Burton's movies, but when I think about live action Batman I think about '89 or Batman Returns.
Bale has no presence as Batman.
To say nothing of the massive, cliff-like dropoff between Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman vs. Anne Hathaway.
I don't know ANYONE that attempts to defend THAT casting decision.
Both are great, it's Dark Knight for me but there is no wrong answer here.
However, whenever I think of a Batman theme song it's batman 89, which was also used TAS(which is one of the greatest animated series ever made).
However, whenever I think of a Batman theme song it's batman 89, which was also used TAS(which is one of the greatest animated series ever made).
