Hot toys Batman Begins Toyfair exclusive Damage Report!

[Rex Mason]

I think people who comment on how the Burton films are dated need to realize that the "Michael Mann" style of directing Nolan employed in TDK will be dated in a few years as well. As will hairstyles, clothing choices, etc.

Classics can be dated and still be important films, and let's face it, there would be no Nolan movies without the Burton films.

 

[Khev]

That's why I said that the 1989 Batman is dated in terms of "tone and scope," not hair or clothing. This is a contrast to Richard Donner's Superman for example, which has aged better and plays more like a period film today than a dated 70's flick.

 

[IrishJedi]

I don't think the tone of '89 Batman is dated at all. The look/scope, probably, but not the tone which I find a nice balance between dark, fantastical, and fun/goofy. You know, kinda like a comic book.

In that film Burton manages to capture some moments that are quintessential Bob Kane Batman, which is timeless like Superman.

By comparison, Batman Returns is all around dated. It's now really just another 90's Tim Burton movie much more than a Batman movie.

 

[intothevoid]

Hahahah I love how people throw around opinions like facts

To me 89 is a nice to have, I may yet cancel it

 

[Rex Mason]

That's why I said that the 1989 Batman is dated in terms of "tone and scope," not hair or clothing. This is a contrast to Richard Donner's Superman for example, which has aged better and plays more like a period film today than a dated 70's flick.

I don't know how scope can be dated. And tone either, for that matter. They're both just stylistic choices, and could emerge from any time period.

Look at Batman: The Brave and the Bold cartoon. Its style is similar to the 1960s, but it comes off as perfectly fresh and new and relatable to today's youth.

 

[DFanatic]

Alright, just canceled mine. These problems made me realize that I was buying this figure mostly because of the HS. I'm a Marvel guy too... there are way too many figures coming out from the franchises that I love.

It's probably for the best... it will help me pick up Keaton and the Batmobile (depending on price).

 

[lerath666]

I really just hope this isn't repeated for the 1989 Batman next year...

survey says!

You'd better count on it .

 

[thenammagazine]

That's why I said that the 1989 Batman is dated in terms of "tone and scope," not hair or clothing. This is a contrast to Richard Donner's Superman for example, which has aged better and plays more like a period film today than a dated 70's flick.

Completely disagree. Burton's Batman has a timelessness to it because he didn't stamp it with any firm timestamp. While some of the styles are arguably 80's, the only thing that really dates it is the Prince soundtrack. If you look at the wardrobes, the cars, the buildings, etc., it's timeless.

Donner's Superman, on the other hand, is strictly 70's, from wardrobes, to sets, etc.

 

[IrishJedi]

Yeah, I like how a lot of the costumes, sets, etc. in '89 Batman look like they could be from a 40's noir film yet there are contemporary and hi-tech elements as well.

 

[Gipetto0812]

Completely disagree. Burton's Batman has a timelessness to it because he didn't stamp it with any firm timestamp. While some of the styles are arguably 80's, the only thing that really dates it is the Prince soundtrack. If you look at the wardrobes, the cars, the buildings, etc., it's timeless.

Donner's Superman, on the other hand, is strictly 70's, from wardrobes, to sets, etc.

Yeah, I like how a lot of the costumes, sets, etc. in '89 Batman look like they could be from a 40's noir film yet there are contemporary and hi-tech elements as well.

 

[FLOSI]

Completely disagree. Burton's Batman has a timelessness to it because he didn't stamp it with any firm timestamp. While some of the styles are arguably 80's, the only thing that really dates it is the Prince soundtrack. If you look at the wardrobes, the cars, the buildings, etc., it's timeless.

Donner's Superman, on the other hand, is strictly 70's, from wardrobes, to sets, etc.

 

[devilof76]

The things that lend themselves to removing '89 from a specific period of history are what kill the film for me. It all looks fake. Batman Begins has a broader sense of history to it without dispensing with realism. I don't care when a movie is set, so long as the overall effect is to facillitate the suspension of my disbelief. In that respect, '89 is no different than Returns for me, and neither hold up. The fantasy devices used in both are dated to the era in which they were considered innovative. Nothing in Begins or TDK will lose their effectiveness because they will always be convincing, hence I expect both films to work as well in 20 years as they do now.

 

[thenammagazine]

Pay your bills, son!

The things that lend themselves to removing '89 from a specific period of history are what kill the film for me. It all looks fake. Batman Begins has a broader sense of history to it without dispensing with realism. I don't care when a movie is set, so long as the overall effect is to facillitate the suspension of my disbelief. In that respect, '89 is no different than Returns for me, and neither hold up. The fantasy devices used in both are dated to the era in which they were considered innovative. Nothing in Begins or TDK will lose their effectiveness because they will always be convincing, hence I expect both films to work as well in 20 years as they do now.

Well there's your problem right there. You went to a comic book movie expecting realism.

 

[Rex Mason]

The things that lend themselves to removing '89 from a specific period of history are what kill the film for me. It all looks fake. Batman Begins has a broader sense of history to it without dispensing with realism. I don't care when a movie is set, so long as the overall effect is to facillitate the suspension of my disbelief. In that respect, '89 is no different than Returns for me, and neither hold up. The fantasy devices used in both are dated to the era in which they were considered innovative. Nothing in Begins or TDK will lose their effectiveness because they will always be convincing, hence I expect both films to work as well in 20 years as they do now.

Those are the elements that make the first two Batman movies great. Nolan was so determined to take the fantasy touches away from the character (especially in TDK), that he put Batman in Chicago and missed the mark as far as Gotham City goes. Gotham should be a beautifully dark place - a mix of art deco and Gothic architecture that should be equal parts frightening and fascinating. So say this concept is dated is to ignore nearly every quality Batman comic ever created.

Now I agree that there should be many different interpretations of the Caped Crusader and that Nolan's version is easily as valid as Burton's, but no movie exists in a vacuum, and each will be dated in the future in its own way.

 

[Deak Starkiller]

MMM, it's dated.

 

[IrishJedi]

Schumacher's Batman is more like a cartoon, everything is very highly exaggerated in style.

Fixed.

The Gotham of the 1989 film really isn't too cartoonish or exaggerated (certainly not to the extent the other Batman films of that era were, especially Forever and Batman & Robin). It was gothic noir, which is perfect for Gotham City. The only thing it may lack, looking back, is scope and scale since it was shot entirely indoors in sound stages (then again, compared to Batman Returns the Gotham in '89 seems about the size of a planet. ).

Anton Furst's designs were amazing & timeless, and remain so to this day.

 

[Rex Mason]

IMO Nolan didnt miss the mark with Gotham, he made it his own. He made it a real city. He wanted it to look like an actual city in the United States. He wanted everything to look like the real world. I wouldn't call it "miss the mark". Its just his own interpretation, his own story.

Burton's Batman is more like a cartoon, everything is very highly exaggerated in style.

Neither is wrong, just completely different movies. And both really great. And I really don't like to compare them. Two completely different takes on Batman. Some prefer the highly stylized Burton, others like myself like the realism of Nolan. No one is wrong, it just what you prefer.

I agree that both are valid movies, but to me, the character of Gotham should be compelling and complex. Even in Batman Begins, Nolan was aware of this.

There can be many different version of Batman, just like there can be many versions of Gotham. However the Gotham in TDK is lifeless and limp, and it should never be that.

 

[Rex Mason]

MMM, it's dated.

Yeah, but I think only the hairstyles, computer screens, and special effects date the movie. The cars, Gotham City itself, and the clothing look fairly timeless. It's a lot like Batman: The Animated Series that way.

 

[devilof76]

Well there's your problem right there. You went to a comic book movie expecting realism.

If I wanted it to be like a comic book, I'd just read a comic book.

Those are the elements that make the first two Batman movies great. Nolan was so determined to take the fantasy touches away from the character (especially in TDK), that he put Batman in Chicago and missed the mark as far as Gotham City goes. Gotham should be a beautifully dark place - a mix of art deco and Gothic architecture that should be equal parts frightening and fascinating. So say this concept is dated is to ignore nearly every quality Batman comic ever created.

I thought he achieved it in Begins, but I agree that Chicago makes a terrible Gotham. Too much of TDK took place during the day, which destroyed the effect he managed to create with Begins.

However, nothing is going to convince me that Burton's Gotham is more genuine. It looks like an avante garde set pulled from George Orwell. I don't like it.

 

[Rex Mason]

I wouldn't argue Burton's city is more genuine. I'd just say it's a whole hell of a lot more fun.