"The Dark Knight" (2008) vs. "Batman" (1989) - which do you think is better?

[Initech]

Me - my vote goes to The Dark Knight easily. Not only was Heath Ledger's Joker a villain that won't be topped for years but I was just revisiting the 1989 Batman and it was like not even the same movie. Both movies had a lot of the same elements (the Joker's media presence, his large and readily available sums of cash, his weirdness and eccentric tendencies), but what made the movie for me was the backdrop - in the '89 Batman the movie took place in this weird retro 1950's / 1980's version of Gotham, which made it look cartoonish and cheesy almost. The Dark Knight took Gotham and made it a real place with real people and real technology inhabiting it, which added to the movies' realism and overall darkness.

[Budgies Revenge]

1. I don't think I could pick a "better"

But without the 1989 Batman, I don't think you could have had The Dark Knight. Up until 89 Batman--besides the comics---there was only campy tv Batman.

[harmonicon]

2. Yep.

The 80's Batman wins by a country mile. Without that, we never would have had the newer ones. Besides that, Tim Burton (ugh... and that producer he worked with on that and a number of other things who I can't remember the name of) is not only a great director, but a true artist. Nolan may be remembered in decades to come, but Burton will be celebrated for a time beyond decades.

[RiffRandell]

3. I agree with you.

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I felt the first one was cheesy and somewhat boring.

Last night I finally watched The Dark Knight Rises and thought it was the best one.

Heath was great as the Joker, but Bane really scared me. I can't believe that was Tom Hardy--- he was huge!

The entire cast was amazing and so was the ending. Wow.

[Orrex]

4. The Dark Knight is a better film and a superior portrayal of the Batman universe

Even before Burton's atrocity hit the screen, I wondered what all the fuss was about. It looked totally lame from the first previews, and it never got better than that. And it certainly hasn't aged well. The secondary casting was incredibly weak, while the special effects even at the time were unimpressive.

The film fails in neary every regard, aside from a few strong moments here and there. The one thing that consistently draws praise is Burton's art direction/set design, but this utterly baffles me because (as you note) it looks cartoonish. And what was up with the actual cartoon rendition of the Joker's fatal plunge at the end?

I suppose that one can argue that Burton intentionally created a cartoonish world as an homage to the comic book Gotham City itself, but even if that were true, it would simply be annoying, rather than redeeming. In any case, it puts the 1989 film much closer to the 1966 Batman in terms of tone and atmosphere.

Here's another point worth mentioning: Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker was exactly like what everybody expected Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker to look like. Ledger's performance was remarkable both in terms of the handling of the character and the surprising take on the decades-old character.