Who do you think was the best Bat?

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
NO.
You see, they should do with the Batman movies what Bruce Timm did with the animated series.He took the source material and adapted it to the version of Batman he wanted to create.BTAS was a version of Batman and had it's own completely different continuity.Mr. Timm took the BASICS of BATMAN from the source material and then modified it.So much so that the series ended up being called the definitive Batman.
I'm not talking about the film being teh exact copy of the comics.The film should be an ADAPTATION OF BATMAN. bURTON BUTCHERED THE very basics, the core of batman.I cannot understand how that can be acceptable to any bat-fan.

Look, the core of the story is true to the comic.... The only difference was that they made Joker the killer of his parents and Batman the one resposible for the creation of the Joker. They had to do something to show that the Joker was Batmans arch enemy. In the comics he killed RobbinII and paralized Batgirl. They couldn't do all that in one movie so they made it so that he killed his parents. It is not a perfect solution but if they did not do that then Joker would have been nothing more than just another nut guy to Batman, and the Joker is much more than that.

As for him killing the Joker, I don't remeber him setting out to kill him, he was just tring to prevent him from escaping and tied him to one of the Gargoil statues (which broke off, and eventually pulled him to his death).

As for the other changes they are minor and are no greater than what you get from other comic book adaptations. Remeber Superman (they killed off the Kents), Spiderman/Spawn/Blade/Daredevil/X-Men..... the list goes on...

All in all it was a descent movie...

Movies and series are two completely different things. In a movie you have only 1 and 1/2 hours to tell your story (not like now where films are over 2 hours long), while in a series you can take your time telling a story since you don't have to do it all at once and can spread it out. Besides when you are doing animation there are very few restraints to what you can do when compared to life action.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Burton diddnt screw up Batman. Infact he gave us the greatest comic movie (batman). No one will be able to give us a better batman than Keaton. I know Bale is a very good actor,but he wont be able to pul it off with the cool slickness keaton had.

Batman 1989 was more true to the comics than comic book movies as of late.

More true than Spiderman 1 and 2.

More to the comics than DareDevil.

And of couse more true than X Men 2(Even though X-Men 1 is about even with Batman 89 on true to the comics.) Batman is about 88 percent true to the comics.

Actually, I'd consider Spider-Man to be possibly the most loyal comic movie.

I can forgo the organic webbing because the character and code of ethics he adopts remains the same. Spidey's essense in the movies is the same in the comics.

Batman however, kills people with bombs, and has machine guns of all things on his vehicles - something which strays completely from the character of Batman.

Spidey's character remains in its purest form in the movies wehn comparred to others.

But, getting back on topic - I'd still say Keaton's bat is the best. He looks the best in the suit. He doesn't much look like Bruce Wayne, but he looked the best in the suit. And he had that brooding, dark, gloomy side to him that Kilmer and Clooney could only dream of.

Originally posted by Lenord

Movies and series are two completely different things. In a movie you have only 1 and 1/2 hours to tell your story (not like now where films are over 2 hours long), while in a series you can take your time telling a story since you don't have to do it all at once and can spread it out. Besides when you are doing animation there are very few restraints to what you can do when compared to life action.

Okay fine than.Compare...Mask of the Phantasm with Batman.Again that animated movie outdid this version of Batman.And that was a short film, mind you.way shorter than this but after watching MOTP, you get a taste of what Batman truely is.It had Joker also perfectly weaved in the story!And the Joker was the best one I have ever seen till now.The scene in Arthur's office when a silhoutted Joker flashes across screen is FAR more chilling than a fat old guy having difficulty to laugh on screen.
The Batman love interest to blurs up the line between good and evil is far more interesting than a dumb, cowardly blond with no sense of make up whatso ever screaming of screen and supposedly is loved by THE Batman.
C'mon guys get real.

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
You are so ridiculously wrong about Spider-Man thats its funny 😱 😆

actually Im right on target. 😛 By the way,I should point out that even Batmans creator Bob Kane said he thought Kilmer was the best Batman.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Okay fine than.Compare...Mask of the Phantasm with Batman.Again that animated movie outdid this version of Batman.And that was a short film, mind you.way shorter than this but after watching MOTP, you get a taste of what Batman truely is.It had Joker also perfectly weaved in the story!And the Joker was the best one I have ever seen till now.The scene in Arthur's office when a silhoutted Joker flashes across screen is FAR more chilling than a fat old guy having difficulty to laugh on screen.
The Batman love interest to blurs up the line between good and evil is far more interesting than a dumb, cowardly blond with no sense of make up whatso ever screaming of screen and supposedly is loved by THE Batman.
C'mon guys get real.

Again you are missing the point.... true the title is a cartoon movie but it stands on the back of the serice that came before it. What this means is that altho this is a stand alone title a lot of the ground work was done in the serice so the creaters don't feel that they have to tie up every thing together. You have to remeber that when you make a life action movie based on a comic you can not assume that the people watching the movie have read the comics, so you have to tell a lot of story in a short time, however this cartoon movie came on the back of the success of the series so most people who watch it already know about Batman...

Also the creators of the cartoon movie had a lot of opportunities to learn from thier mistakes when they were creating the series, while the movie was a first outing for Tim Burten in the world of Batman... And this is not considering all the limitations of life action compared to cartoons.

myself on my 5th birthday counts?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
actually Im right on target.

Don't think so 😉

Originally posted by Lenord
Again you are missing the point.... true the title is a cartoon movie but it stands on the back of the serice that came before it. What this means is that altho this is a stand alone title a lot of the ground work was done in the serice so the creaters don't feel that they have to tie up every thing together. You have to remeber that when you make a life action movie based on a comic you can not assume that the people watching the movie have read the comics, so you have to tell a lot of story in a short time, however this cartoon movie came on the back of the success of the series so most people who watch it already know about Batman...

Also the creators of the cartoon movie had a lot of opportunities to learn from thier mistakes when they were creating the series, while the movie was a first outing for Tim Burten in the world of Batman... And this is not considering all the limitations of life action compared to cartoons.

Okay, I still don't see your point. MOTP was based on the animated series, just as Batman was based on the comic book series.BOTH have been based on a series!
And like I said before, in the other thread, I hadn't seen a SINGLE BTAS episode, when I watched MOTP.My knowledge of Batman beforehand was merely rudimentary.That didn't hinder my enyoment during the film.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Okay, I still don't see your point. MOTP was based on the animated series, just as Batman was based on the comic book series.BOTH have been based on a series!
And like I said before, in the other thread, I hadn't seen a SINGLE BTAS episode, when I watched MOTP.My knowledge of Batman beforehand was merely rudimentary.That didn't hinder my enyoment during the film.

I find it hard to belive that this was your introduction to Batman. Look the point I was tring to make is that when Batman came out it was a life action movie that was meant to appeale to a broad audience not just to Comic/Batman fans. For that reason they had to introduce Batman/Joker to people who might never have heard of them (remeber this was during a time when comic books weren't as mainstream as today, not to mention the fact that comic book movies were very rear). Now I don't care who you are, when you have to condence 10-20 years of Batman/Joker story into a one and a half hour movie you have to sacrifice a lot of things. Now the cartoon does not have to face these difficult because they have had a whole serise to tell all the stories it needs to tell and these movie is just another storie to add to the collection so they can afford to take the time and concentrate on the story.

Think of it these way, the movie was a one shot comic book where you try to tell the origin of Batman/Joker and tell thier story, while the cartoon is just another issue (maybe a double size) that adds to the story of a long running title.

Originally posted by Lenord
Think of it these way, the movie was a one shot comic book where you try to tell the origin of Batman/Joker and tell thier story, while the cartoon is just another issue (maybe a double size) that adds to the story of a long running title.

I'm don't think I buy this. If the movie is a one-shot comic as you describe it, then MotP was also a one-shot comic telling the origin of Batman/Phantasm (in fact, introducing the Phantasm). MotP introduced the hero (telling his origin story in full; whether they had to or not, they did), introduced a new villain, and made their relationship to each other very clear--all in a much shorter time than Burton had to work with.

WHO THE HELL VOTED GEORGE CLOONEY?
show up!
*loads the shotgun, and sharp the blade*

greg remember in motp they didnt tell the origin of the joker.........

But they did give out their own version of his life before he was the joker!

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Okay, I still don't see your point. MOTP was based on the animated series, just as Batman was based on the comic book series.BOTH have been based on a series!
And like I said before, in the other thread, I hadn't seen a SINGLE BTAS episode, when I watched MOTP.My knowledge of Batman beforehand was merely rudimentary.That didn't hinder my enyoment during the film.

no... BATMAN was based on a series... MOTP was a CONTINUATION of a series.... BIG difference. MOTP is pretty much just a really cool episode of the series, but on steriods, whereas BATMAN was a recreation of the series as a whole.

But they keep a few things the same in the movies, of the making of the Joker, As he feel in to a vat to become the Joker.

And who knows the Joker is so nuts, not even he knows who he was before he took his swim.

It was a cool movie

Originally posted by Kontraz
no... BATMAN was based on a series... MOTP was a CONTINUATION of a series.... BIG difference. MOTP is pretty much just a really cool episode of the series, but on steriods, whereas BATMAN was a recreation of the series as a whole.

No.although a topic of endless debate, MOTP was NOT in continuation with BTAS.It was more of a stand alone story...as the events of it were neve even mentioned in following episodes.Which is sad coz Andrea was a great character!They SHOULD have brought her into the show!

If that was so, Than how come in a later show, Artuer Reeves came back in a later show, scared up by the Joker's toxin?? Forgot which show it was.