batman begins or dark knight?

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by GP Legend

Excuse me? It's seems to be the other way around. I constantly hear people tell me how Katie Holmes is better. Well, not me. I actually preferred Maggie over Katie.

I like them both in the role, but I really get irritated when studios recast characters for sequels. In my opinion, they should've waited until Katie was available, or placed all of Rachel's scenes at the end of the schedule, so Katie could've done them after filming "Mad Money". Unlike some, I actually think both of them are attractive women as well.

I don't see what's so special about Katie Holmes.

Besides the fact she was one of the main stars on "Dawson's Creek", and is currently married to Tom Cruise?

[42041]

Dark Knight. Maybe it's because I'm not familiar with much comic book lore, but I just don't dig BB that much... not bad, but not remarkable. I don't like Bale as Batman and it doesn't have another strong character to balance things out, the story is familiar, the villain and his whole scheme is kind of lame, the blu-ray is horribly soft, etc.

[Zombienietzsche]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I believe his voice was amped up in post.

I wouldn't doubt that could occur and regardless of cause it is a distraction and sounds grating.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

The Dark Knight is 1000x better, but for completely different reasons. They are both enjoyable though.

I liked Katie Holmes as Rachel better than Maggie.

You sir are absolutely correct...although I think they could have picked a better choice for Rachel besides Maggie or Katie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

You sir are absolutely correct...although I think they could have picked a better choice for Rachel besides Maggie or Katie.

I would have gone with Kate Beckinsale, but then again I am extremely biased.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Batman Begins, all the way. TDK is a really good film, but it's too long and too slow.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Sonny Chiba

Burton's movies are much more Batman to me than Batman Begins. Batman isn't only a character, it's also an atmosphere and the world of Gotham City. Nolan's Gotham City is Chicago. It should be referred to as such, becuase it certainly is not gothic in anyway imaginable.

And I find Burton's take on the character brillaint. Giving Nolan brownie points for being more "true" to the comic version is also kind of nonsense imo, because the jackoff Bruce Wayne is Batman Begins is nothing like the one from the comic imo. They're both takes on the same character with tweaks added. No take on the same character will be the same, this especially goes for the comic in droves.

I will also note that Nolan's films would not exist without Tim Burton. Burton's impact on the maturity and the dakenss of the entire franchise was profound. If that didn't occurr, the comic would be vastly different and people would still only connect Adam West with Batman in the pop culture at large.

Burton's Batman isn't Batman. He is just Michael Keaton in Tim Burton movie playing a weirdo billionaire with homicidal impulses. I like Michael Keaton. I think he did the best he could with the material. The problem for me is that the movie is cheesy, dated, and more of a cartoon. Everything looks like it was shot on a Hollywood sound stage. I don't care about comic book accuracy. I never really read any of the comics. I feel that the world Nolan created is far more interesting than Burton's. It's like a heightened version of our own. Ledger's Joker makes Nicholson's take look like, well, a clown. He wasn't scary or threatening to me in the least. Jack's Joker was easily the best thing about that movie but Nolan's interpretation of the character took it to a whole other level.

I will say that I do hope Bale tones down "the voice" for the third movie.

[mlittle3]

I don't get why everything thinks Dark Knight is slow. I found the whole movie intense. As did the audience I saw it with at all three showings at the theater. There is something interesting happening in nearly every scene. Not every movie needs non-stop action to keep you awake. Nolan always put character first.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I would have gone with Kate Beckinsale, but then again I am extremely biased.

I like that. Or Maybe Rachel McAdams.

[nelly_platinum]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Burton's Batman isn't Batman. He is just Michael Keaton in Tim Burton movie playing a weirdo billionaire with homicidal impulses. I like Michael Keaton. I think he did the best he could with the material. The problem for me is that the movie is cheesy, dated, and more of a cartoon. Everything looks like it was shot on a Hollywood sound stage. I don't care about comic book accuracy. I never really read any of the comics. I feel that the world Nolan created is far more interesting than Burton's. It's like a heightened version of our own. Ledger's Joker makes Nicholson's take look like, well, a clown. He wasn't scary or threatening to me in the least. Jack's Joker was easily the best thing about that movie but Nolan's interpretation of the character took it to a whole other level.

I will say that I do hope Bale tones down "the voice" for the third movie.

i dont wanna bash your opinion,ive been a batman fan since i could remember,i grew up watching tim burtons vision and loved them,and can tell you this i think nolans vision is preffered because of the time we live in,movies in the 80s had more of a cheesy" effect if you will,as movies of today can be created with a more serious tone like with what they have done with BB and TDK,batman and batman returns are good in their own rights just because what they did was never done before when the movies came out

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by nelly_platinum

i dont wanna bash your opinion,ive been a batman fan since i could remember,i grew up watching tim burtons vision and loved them,and can tell you this i think nolans vision is preffered because of the time we live in,movies in the 80s had more of a cheesy" effect if you will,as movies of today can be created with a more serious tone like with what they have done with BB and TDK,batman and batman returns are good in their own rights just because what they did was never done before when the movies came out

I have nothing against 80's movies per se.

I love Aliens and Empire Strikes Back....both products of that era.

I think that Burton deserves credit for establishing the character as a force at the Box Office. I also really like his/Michelle's take on Catwoman. I just don't think his movies hold up well today compared to BB and TDK. I understand that some people prefer the more comic-bookish interpretation of the character. I personally prefer the more serious approach because I think what makes Batman interesting for me is the psychology of the character.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

The problem for me is that the movie is cheesy, dated, and more of a cartoon.

It's not near as bad as "Batman & Robin", which was more WB's fault than Schumacher's. Of the original four films, the first and "Forever" are my faves. Both of them presented a "middle ground" approach, not too dark or light.

Everything looks like it was shot on a Hollywood sound stage.

Well, it pretty much was, except they filmed it at Pinewood Studios in England. Most of the Gotham exteriors were built on the back lot.

I don't care about comic book accuracy. I never really read any of the comics.

Well, I'd say that puts you with about 70% of the people who've ever seen a comic-based movie.

I feel that the world Nolan created is far more interesting than Burton's. It's like a heightened version of our own.

Well, that's largely due to creative choices made by both directors. Burton almost seemed like he wanted Gotham to be in a world of its own, while Nolan took a more grounded approach.

Ledger's Joker makes Nicholson's take look like, well, a clown. He wasn't scary or threatening to me in the least. Jack's Joker was easily the best thing about that movie but Nolan's interpretation of the character took it to a whole other level.

Both interpretations are largely sourced from the same material, being "The Killing Joke" graphic novel and the Joker's first few 1940s appearances. The biggest differences resulted from merely adapting the character to fit the directors' varied tones.

[GP Legend]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Besides the fact she was one of the main stars on "Dawson's Creek", and is currently married to Tom Cruise?

She's still nothing special to me. She is not even attractive to me at all. They should have casted someone else entirely.

[nelly_platinum]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

I have nothing against 80's movies per se.

I love Aliens and Empire Strikes Back....both products of that era.

I think that Burton deserves credit for establishing the character as a force at the Box Office. I also really like his/Michelle's take on Catwoman. I just don't think his movies hold up well today compared to BB and TDK. I understand that some people prefer the more comic-bookish interpretation of the character. I personally prefer the more serious approach because I think what makes Batman interesting for me is the psychology of the character.

I completly agree with you that they dont hold up today

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I

Well, I'd say that puts you with about 70% of the people who've ever seen a comic-based movie.

Both interpretations are largely sourced from the same material, being "The Killing Joke" graphic novel and the Joker's first few 1940s appearances. The biggest differences resulted from merely adapting the character to fit the directors' varied tones.

I actually have read Killing Joke, Long Halloween, and Arkham Asylum. I never really got into the weekly or monthly comics. I did however love the animated series from the early 90's. That and Nolan's interpretation are my favorite takes on the Joker.

[Icemouth]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Burton's Batman isn't Batman. He is just Michael Keaton in Tim Burton movie playing a weirdo billionaire with homicidal impulses. I like Michael Keaton. I think he did the best he could with the material. The problem for me is that the movie is cheesy, dated, and more of a cartoon. Everything looks like it was shot on a Hollywood sound stage. I don't care about comic book accuracy. I never really read any of the comics. I feel that the world Nolan created is far more interesting than Burton's. It's like a heightened version of our own. Ledger's Joker makes Nicholson's take look like, well, a clown. He wasn't scary or threatening to me in the least. Jack's Joker was easily the best thing about that movie but Nolan's interpretation of the character took it to a whole other level.

I will say that I do hope Bale tones down "the voice" for the third movie.

Kind of like how Nolans Joker wasn't anything like Joker? Like, at all?

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Icemouth

Kind of like how Nolans Joker wasn't anything like Joker? Like, at all?

I disagree. Also, Nolan's take is far more interesting. One of the greatest villains in cinema history. Nothing wrong with improving something. If you want a silly, comic-book version of the Joker, there is always those 70's comics or the old, campy tv show with Adam West.

Nolan's refuses to include Robin. Do you know why? He is a terrible character on screen. You could argue that Batman from "Batman and Robin" is more true to that era of the comics but that still doesn't make it good. Nolan's take is essentially a punk rock version of Hamill's Joker but with a darker edge. Most people seem to love it, as do I.

[Sonny Chiba]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

I disagree. Also, Nolan's take is far more interesting. One of the greatest villains in cinema history. Nothing wrong with improving something. If you want a silly, comic-book version of the Joker, there is always those 70's comics or the old, campy tv show with Adam West.

Nolan's refuses to include Robin. Do you know why? He is a terrible character on screen. You could argue that Batman from "Batman and Robin" is more true to that era of the comics but that still doesn't make it good. Nolan's take is essentially a punk rock version of Hamill's Joker but with a darker edge. Most people seem to love it, as do I.

You know there's a word for people that completely contradict themselves. It starts with an h.

Burton's Batman has some mental illness, but honestly do you seriously believe that a person that dresses up like a bat to fight crime is a completely normal person? Burton's take added to the character. It made him less campy, more threatening, and more realistic. Burton's take also fundamentally changed the comic and that darker tone it helped produce lead to Nolan being able to make the film he did. It's a bit dumb to praise Nolan and then talk trash about Burton. Without Burton's input into the world of Batman, there would certainly be no Dark Knight movie.

But yeah, I agree that Nolan's Joker is fundamentally a different character, so arguing about accuracy here is a bit preposterous. Burton's take on the Joker is a lot closer to the comics for sure.

I also like the idea of someone saying "this isn't Batman" and then admitting he doesn't read the comics in the next sentence. If your main exposure to Batman is the films, then judge them on their own merits instead of some pretense of being a hardcore fan of the comic version or something.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Sonny Chiba

You know there's a word for people that completely contradict themselves. It starts with an h.

Burton's Batman has some mental illness, but honestly do you seriously believe that a person that dresses up like a bat to fight crime is a completely normal person? Burton's take added to the character. It made him less campy, more threatening, and more realistic. Burton's take also fundamentally changed the comic and that darker tone it helped produce lead to Nolan being able to make the film he did. It's a bit dumb to praise Nolan and then talk trash about Burton. Without Burton's input into the world of Batman, there would certainly be no Dark Knight movie.

But yeah, I agree that Nolan's Joker is fundamentally a different character, so arguing about accuracy here is a bit preposterous. Burton's take on the Joker is a lot closer to the comics for sure.

I also like the idea of someone saying "this isn't Batman" and then admitting he doesn't read the comics in the next sentence. If your main exposure to Batman is the films, then judge them on their own merits instead of some pretense of being a hardcore fan of the comic version or something.

I'm a fan of the character. Period.

I have read a few of the graphic novels. One doesn't need to have read all the comics to get the essence of who Batman is. Do you think Nolan or Burton spent all their time reading the comics? Of course they didn't. Burton has even admitted he didn't really like them. I fail to see the contradiction in what I said. Burton's Batman is a weirdo murderer who kills the bad guys. He isn't really a hero at all. Nor is he Bruce Wayne. He is simply Michael Keaton acting out Burton's creative masturbation (Back when he has such a thing). And yes, Batman (While he clearly has issues) is a heroic character. I think Nolan's vision is more true to the essence of who Batman should be, you don't. Oh well. Nolan's Joker is altogether more effective than Burton's in my opinion. Some people like the campy, silly Joker, some prefer the darker, anarchistic one from the Nolan film.

And where is Burton today? Making crappy movies with terrible scripts. I would argue even his visual style has become well, boring. I really liked some of his earlier work (BeetleJuice, Edward Scissorhands, Nightmare before Christmas) -but he has lost whatever talent he once had. He clearly only makes movies for the money these days.

[Ite]

Dark Knight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batman Begins.