The Gilroy 07.16.08: There Can Only Be One
Posted by Ben Quick on 07.16.2008
Batman vs. Batman Begins
I want to start off by asking you a favor. If you're not planning on going to see The Dark Knight please say so in the comments section at the bottom. Is there really anybody who's not going to see that movie? Well, it's pretty simple. The movie that everyone has been waiting to see for three years is finally here. In just two days the sequel to one of the best movies of this decade will be in full view for all of us to see. With all due respect to Iron Man and Indiana Jones, The Dark Knight will be the biggest movie of the year. All of which got me to thinking, this was how it was for Michael Keaton's first round as the caped crusader. Back in 1989 Tim Burton's Batman was the biggest movie around. Then, 16 years later, we saw the reinvention of the Batman character with Batman Begins. Both movies set the film world on fire and left the audiences that saw them wanting more. So which film is the better of the two? As the title says, there can only be one...
Batman
This is the Batman most of us grew up with. Forget the cheesy 60's version, Val Kilmer or George Clooney. In my youth, Michael Keaton was Batman. Not only was Michael Keaton Batman, but Jack Nicholson was The Joker. This was the film that defined what Batman was to most of us. Sure, there had been earlier sources for the character of Batman, but this film setup what we now expect from that character. When you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a dark, witty and action packed movie. You expect to be entertained at a level that not many other movies can match. Batman isn't solely for nerds or special effects seekers. Batman is a movie that just about everyone can enjoy. It's a story that is so cool that it can overcome the geeky superhero cliché. Those expectations owe greatly to this film.
Every time I hear some random actor say "I'm Batman!" I always think of Michael Keaton. No matter how well it might be done, I remember the original, at least my original. Behind all the nostalgia, does lay a flawed film though. Tim Burton does fail to completely thread the needle when trying to turn a comic book into a movie. He tries to hug the middle, and as a result leaves the reality of the film muddled somewhere in between a comic book movie and an action flick. In the end, this is an entertaining movie. It's not quite a Back to the Future or The Princess Bride in that your nostalgia holds true to reality. When you watch this Batman today it's not as cool to you as it once was. Still, it's a film I feel a need to check back on every once and awhile. There's a compliment buried in that.
Batman Begins
I didn't want to go see this movie. After Batman Forever and Batman and Robin I was Batman-ed out. I thought the idea of how Batman got his start would be horribly bad ala The Next Karate Kid. Well, one night a friend of mine called and asked me to join him and some of our other friends in going to see this movie. Since I had nothing better to do, I went. Two hours later I remember I had two comments. 1. I was begging for someone to jump out somewhere in the movie and say "You ever dance with a devil in the pale moonlight?" 2. So, when's the sequel coming out? For the first time since I was about ten, I was excited about Batman. When the movies were good, Batman was always something you looked forward to. The character is just too cool.
Spiderman can shoot webs and Superman can be his bi-curious self, but Batman is the superhero in black. Christopher Nolan brought back what had originally made Batman so cool. He made him kickass again. I know that sounds kind of juvenile, but that's what was lost with Kilmer and Clooney. As the charactor of Alfred says in the new flick, Batman is the out cause. He doesn't have super powers, but you always know he'll be the last man standing. It's that fundamental quality of the character that Batman Begins ran with. The film is built on the somewhat cheesy "hero moments" that all great action movies must have, but it also shows the value of character development. You follow Bruce Wayne from a punk kid to becoming The Dark Knight. The end payoff is so much grander than a simple popcorn flick.
Winner - Batman Begins
When it comes to Batman it will now always be tough to compete with the Christian Bale version. This new era of Batman is built on a complete foundation. It's not throwing a guy in the suit and letting him trade witticisms with Jack Nicholson. The new Batman is based on emotion and character development. The new Batman's action is thought-out and done with grace. The new Batman isn't only a character when he's out of the suit. The new Batman is the new and improved Batman. The new Batman is the best Batman.
________________________
As much as I'm looking forward to seeing The Dark Knight, I'm getting a little apprehensive. The Dark Knight looks like it should top Batman Begins. Still, Batman Begins was an awesome movie. It reinvented a franchise and paved the way for many other franchises to try and do the same. The Dark Knight is not only the most anticipated movie of 2008, but it's also the most hyped. There's no middle ground when it comes to hype. You either surpass it or you disappoint. That's going to be the trick for this movie. People have to walk out of the theater saying "That was awesome!" and not "It was pretty good." Oh well, we get a chance to find out in just two days.
Posted By: Captain Patterson (Guest) on July 15, 2008 at 11:17 PM
i actaully liked all the actors who played batman. however what bale has done that sets him apart from the rest, he plays batman and bruce wayne as two separate distinct characters.
Posted By: rey (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 12:05 AM
and then some.
Posted By: furey (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I won't be seeing it in theatres. i haven't been to the theatre in about 8 years now. This movie won't get me to go either.
On top of that, I found Batman Begins to be a good but overrated movie. Batman with Micheal Keaton was a superior film.
Posted By: Volourn (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I saw it today it is easily one of the best movies I have ever seen. Well and truly lives up to the hype.
Posted By: hackett98 (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 01:40 AM
Get a life and stopping jerking it on your computer screen
Posted By: Yo Mama (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 01:44 AM
Loved both movies, but Batman Begins was better.
Posted By: Peter (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 01:46 AM
i'd go with batman begins.... the old one is terrible, jack nicholas is a bad actor.
Posted By: toto (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 05:00 AM
Christopher Nolan doesn't disappoint, the movie will be awesome just like everything he has directed.
Posted By: kevnb (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 07:35 AM
I'd say that as Batman, both are equal, but as Bruce Wayne, Bale's got it all over Keaton. Bale looked like someone who trained like a demon in order to fight crime, and you got the feeling that if a group of thugs messed with him as Bruce Wayne, he'd still kick their asses (like the prison scene at the beginning of Batman Begins for example). Keaton looked like he'd be out like a light after taking one punch.
However, when all is said and done, there's something about Keaton's Batman costume that just looks awesome. I know Bale's Batman costume had everything given a background (what the cape does, where the suit comes from, even the gauntlets) but Keaton's Batman suit looks more, I don't know, iconic.
Posted By: Zing Wong (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 08:09 AM
I for one am just happy that we finally have a sequel with the same person playing Batman
Posted By: TheOne (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 09:54 AM
toto says: "jack nicholas is a bad actor."
Yes, but he was a kick-ass golfer...
Posted By: PatBattle (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Batman '89 is more than just a film like Nolan'n two masterpieces... '89 was a cultural phenomenon. It was a violent joy ride brilliantly marketed towards the youth of the day(definitive preamble to everything you see marketed to todays youth)... It was literally EVERYWHERE that summer. Shirts,pins,cards,mtv,fast food, ect. ect... And it also pretty much help launch a renewed interest in comic books that lasted well into the early 90s. The biggest comic book boom ever that will never be repeated. Nolan's films are well executed character studies and Burton's '89 movie was a perfectly executed, heavily studio mandated, marketing platform that worked extremely well from that stand point.
Posted By: I equal ratings (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM
When you think about it, the Batman franchise has some of the worst casting choices in movie history.
I mean, looking back, i really find myself unimpressed with all of their choices; Michael Keaton was the first Batman to most of us so we tend to "grandfather" him in as the best when in reallity, he didn't do that good of a job at capturing the essence of the dark knight. He was witty, even comical at points, but if you really think about the mythology behind Batman, he's not meant to be either of those things, he's a billionaire playboy by day, and a vigilante at night.
But that's enough of Keaton, cuz no matter how you look at it, he played the part right for the time and he played it how the director felt it should be played.
But then there's Clooney: believable as a billionaire playboy, but not as the dark knight, then thers kilmer, who was somewhat believable as the dark knight, but couldn't pull of bruce wayne if his life depended on it.
Don't even get me started on the choice of Chris O'Donnel for Robin, but i might just be ranting on that because i don't like Robin as a charactor. Then theres always the villians.
Lets get the big one out of the way,
Jack Nicholson was horrible at portraying the Joker, granted he did it exactly as burton wanted him to, which was right for the time, much like Keaton, but overall he did not fit the dark, and sadistic charactor the Joker was meant to be.
Then theres Mr. Freeze. I wish I could have been there for that decision...."Who could we have play freeze, we need someone who's foriegn, pretty scrawny, believable as a genius scientist who kinda perfects cold fusion......I got it....Arnold however the hell you speel his last name."
i don't know if it's crazier that some guy came up wqith that casting choice, or that others agreed with him. I'm pretty sure that it was more of a "our movie sucks, let's throw some big name actors at our idiot fans and they won't notice"
The list goes on and on, but all in all it's just someone's opinion, i'm sure that there's aome retards out there that think Clooney was the best Batman, or even Kilmer.........and to those people i have one thing to say, IDIOTS
Posted By: Red Cloud (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Considering that Bob FRIGGIN Kane wanted Nicholson to be the Joker I'd say that it was pretty damn good casting. I myself always thought James Woods would be the perfect joker. Heath almost does a James Woods impression in most scenes in TDK. With James you would only need to provide some clown makeup and the dialog.
Posted By: I equal ratings (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I definetly think Batman Begins with the superior film. It balanced a back story with good character development and enough action to satisfy anyones taste. Now, if they can only get Billy Dee Williams in the next one...it'll be perfect!
Posted By: Kevin (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 11:45 AM
There's only one true Batman, my commenting comrades, and that is the 60s version. The rest are impudent, imprudently-chosen imposters. I've run it through the Bat-Casting Choice Computer to be sure and it confirmed my findings. To the batmobile Robin!
Posted By: Adam West (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I will not be going to see the new Batman as I don't think that Batman Begins was particularly good. My issues with Batman Begins are the following:
1. A microwave-emitter powerful enough to vaporize water in pipes would have vaporized the people fighting next to it.
2. The Bat-tank driving on the rooftops was ludicrous.
3. Christian Bale, when doing an American accent, sounds like Charlie Sheen.
The 1989 Batman has unbelievable elements as well, but Burton made it cartoony enough to make those forgivable.
Posted By: Eric von Erich (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM
i'm just glad this fruit ledger apparently offed himself because of the grief that playing the character of the joker called him. One less hollywood fruitcake makes the world a better place for all of us. to quote the original joker, the great jack nicholson, "i'm glad you're dead! hahahah!"
Posted By: Joe Mastronardo (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 01:14 PM
"The Bat-tank driving on the rooftops was ludicrous."
-- Had you never seen an action flick before Begins..?
...Okay, Bale does sound a little like Charlie Sheen, point granted. Luckily for everyone, Bale's a far better actor.
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 02:03 PM
I like where you're coming from Rey (2nd comment) but I think there's more to it than that. Bale was the only one to properly grasp all THREE characters, Batman, public Bruce Wayne and private Bruce Wayne. That was one of the biggest problems of the earlier movies, where Bruce Wayne made little to no effort to hide the fact that he was a brooding, borderline psychotic crime-fighter.
Kilmer's was particularly awful, as his Wayne was dark and brooding and his Batman cracked jokes and shitty puns. Actually, that's probably more of a complaint about the script rather than the actors, but nonetheless.
Bale's Wayne, when he's swimming with the models in Begins, was the first time in any Batman movie that there was an effort to make Bruce Wayne seem like such a putzy rich jerk that he couldn't possibly be Batman, which is exactly the point of public Bruce Wayne.
Posted By: Hawkeye (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 02:26 PM
Hey i am not going to see the dark knight i am going to stay home and watch the premiere of slipknot's new single music video PSYCHOSOCIAL
Posted By: nice guy (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 04:32 PM
I prefer Batman 89 over Begins. I felt begins was like a Cliff Notes version of Batman. They got all the main points right, but I didn't feel the passion. The villains also sucked.
But I can't wait for Dark Knight.
Posted By: JLAJRC (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 04:58 PM
The only thing I liked about Batman Forever was Drew Barrymores character Sugar.
Posted By: what (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 05:11 PM
I loved Batman and Batman Begins at different stages of my life. I watched the original Batman again and was frankly disappointed, it stayed in my memory as a lot better than it actually was. Begins is still feaking awesome and I could watch it every other month easily. Chris Nolan produces hit after hit after hit and for the writer to say he wasn't sure of going to see it is a disservice to Nolan. Nolan doesn't make bad films. From what I've seen and heard of The Dark Knight, this is definitely a trip to the cinema twice. Not done that since LOTR Fellowship of the ring.
Posted By: gileo (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 05:24 PM
Frank Miller's Batman = John Voight
Posted By: The Future (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 06:33 PM
This may come under some fire, but I'm a huge fan of Kevin Conroy from Batman : TAS. Sure we never seen him and alot of the greatness of the cartoon was from the animation, but I think COnroy managed to capture, as Hawkeye pointed out, all the aspects to the character that is Batman and Bruce Wayne. He managed to do this through inflection in his voice and manged to create the aura of two distinct personalities, much like what we have seen both in print and on sceen with Bale in the role.
I think that while the series revamp is a good thing, it seems to me that some of the moody feel and character develpoment that went into "Begins" and now "Dark Knight" were touched upon in the first couple of seasons of the cartoon franchise before it was given a facelift by WB and it lost much of the flavour that we were able to get from the show from its stories that were Batman vs. Crime on the street and organized crime, while still mixing it with the great rogues gallery Batman has to draw upon.
To sum it up, I think that it might be unfair to a part of the batman world like TAS, to not be included in discussions about who gave the est batman or joker (Mark Hamill was a fine Joker at that) or where the best incarnation of the world of Batman came from. I think there are some elements of The Animated Series that go overlooked.
Posted By: JC (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 07:50 PM
I loved both films but I will give the edge to Batman Begins.
Posted By: marrow (Registered) on July 16, 2008 at 08:39 PM
I saw the dark knight yesterday (came out on wed in australia). It was FUCKIN AWESOME!!!
I'm from Perth (same as heath ledger) and even though I can't stand the guy (he was an unbelievable douche in real life) he was AMAZING as the joker and deserves an oscar nod (not only posthumously, but deserved it anyway).
Boom!
Posted By: evansams (Registered) on July 16, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I like batman 89' better then begins.
I'm still not a fan of the new batsuits and batmobile and can't get pass the terrible mispronounciation of Ra's Al Ghoul's name.
Nicholson was a terrible joker and Ledger will own the role.
Posted By: chamelio salamander (Guest) on July 16, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
