Why is the Batman (1989 Keaton) movie so bad?
 

The dvd looks like a VHS copy.

You can see these white specks or spots that appear occasionally on the screen.



Was dvd technology that bad in 1997?

Re: Why is the Batman (1989 Keaton) movie so bad?
 

I think the answer is pretty much yes. (Or maybe more properly put, it's so much better now). Batman usually gets mentioned as a title in need of a new transfer. I don't know if it was considered a good transfer at the time, but it now certainly is regarded as sub par.

As an example of how things were back then, I always think of Criterion's The Seven Samurai, which was their first or second DVD.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcom...m/7samurai.jpg

This link shows some screen caps of the Criterion vs. the more recent Toho Japanese release. The Criterion shows among other problems compression artifacting that would be unacceptable on a new DVD, but at the time ('97 or '98) it was probably state of the art.

Oh you mean the DVD itself. Probably an early rush to issue big name titles on DVD without much invested in clean up. Next year we're supposed to see the long awaited special edition of the movie so I imagine it will look fantastic.

As bad as the current one may look I gotta say it beats my VHS which last time I checked was actually bending at the top of the screen and has a white tracking line through the first 30 minutes.

chubby Joker dancing to Prince songs
complete lack of character arc
kim basinger
Batman kills people
the suit


ohh this is about the DVD...whoops...I had it...it was ok...Elfman's wonderful score (only good thing about the movie) sounded awesomein 5.1

DVD mastering technology has come a log way since the first releases in 1997. Take a look at some of the early reviews praising the picture quality of the `97 release of Blade Runner DC, and compare those reviews with recent complaints of the very same transfer.

BTW, you should make your thread titles more specific; it looks as if you don't like the actual movie as opposed to the transfer. :)

These movies are way overdue for a SE release, hopefully they'll happen soon.

As a comic book movie fan, I'd like to own the Batman films, but not until they come out in a brand spanky new anamorphic transfers. And yes, I'll even get the 3rd and 4th ones.

Batman kills people is a bad thing? Sometimes I just don't understand...

Nicholson's perfomance is probably the best interpretation of a villain in a film based on a comic book.

Batman is Batman. He has no character arc: only those around him do. Are you going to say next that TAS sucks because there is no arc there, either?

There'll be a new SE to coincide with the forthcoming Christian Bale feature.

I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to take cheapshots at the movie itself. Congrats on your predictability.

I'd rank Max Von Sydow as Ming in Flash Gordon head and shoulders above ANY big screen comic villain.

I think he is alluding to the fact that the comic book Batman never kills,so him killing people in the movie is bad.(Although i dont remember him killing anyone).

Jack himself has said this was probably his favorite performance, most proud of.

Joker is amazing
The suit is money

The movie is very good imo.

He did throw one of Joker's henchmen down the bell tower (when the goon looks down the shaft, Batman grabs him with his feet, and throws him down the bell tower).

For a second I thought you were dissing my favorite comic film...

Yeah, I haven't seen the DVD, but I heard the quality licks. There's been rumors of a Special Edition soon. And with the new movie out in the summer or whatever, I imagine they will do SE's of all 4 current films, which I'd be even tho Part 4 is total total CRAP.

Hey at least it was anamorphic with 5.1 sound. Plus it was one of the first DVD releases, so why are you bickering?

The scene where he remote-controls the Batmobile also has a bunch of thugs being machine gunned down, as I recall.

Actually the batmobile drops the bomb that makes axis chemicals blow up, including the henchmen surrounding the car.

damn...now i want to watch it again :) such a great movie.

I would love to buy the movie, but I am waiting for an updated version of the DVD. Cannot waste my movie on such an inferior DVD.

Very true. The machine guns were used to cut a hole in a door for the Batmobile to escape. While I don't think that it is so outrageous that Batman might kill someone, Batman using a gun as a weapon is something that absolutely warrants complaints.

Update thread title for clarity ;)

:crap: it amzes me that people click on threads talking about movies they could care less about

I'd upgrade all 4 DVDs yeah even 3 and 4 are good movies :)

Well way way back in the comic batman did use a gun. I want this SE pretty damn bad. Some parts of the movie sucked but it was pretty good. First movie was good 2nd was ok 3rd was good last was just bad.

Here is a pretty good batman site for the comic.

http://www.rasalghul.co.uk/index.php

I was turing to find the cover with him hold a gun across his chest could not find it. It has covers for all batman comics on that site.

Hopefully I didn't jinx a SE when I traded in my copy today at blockbuster ;) Seriously though I'm fairly certain WB will release a two disc SE to coincide with the new movie next summer.

Jack has Joker is perfect in theory...but in reality it doesn't work. Jack was too old and too chubby and he dances to Prince songs for 5 minutes. ugh! If Jack had played Joker 10-15 years earlier, it would have been perfect, but it was too late in 89.

I highly recommend you actually read some Batman comics.

Ah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah! God, that was the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you for bringing some laughter into my life.

Oh, wait. You were serious.

In that case - are you out of your F'ing MIND? Nicholson wasnt playing the Joker, he was playing Nicholson being Nicholson being insane. Joker should be totaly off the way apeshit fucking NUTS - and yet still scare the crap out of you with his homicidal nature. When trying to attack the Batman, given his choice of weapons - a foot long salami or a knife, Joker would probably go for the salami for the laugh. Meanwhile, Nicholson was way too much in control to be the Joker.

If you want a good Joker, there is only one choice hands down: Mark Hamill.

I haven't seen anybody mention that back in '97 (whoa -- flashbacks man!) DVD was just coming out. In addition to the technology (which was mentioned) was the fact that studios were still reticent about a new format and weren't about to start throwing all their might into an unproven technology.

So I guess that brings up the question: What was the first DVD that did have a load of extras and cleaned up picture and sound?

In 1938. For all of about five minutes. And that was about it. It's been pretty well established that Batman (a) doesn't use guns, and (b) doesn't kill.

Yes I am a great big Nerd.

Anyway, I was never the biggest fan of the 1989 Batman film: weak plot, limp sense of storytelling, not enough Batman and too much Joker.

That having been said, I love its look, feel, soundtrack (Elfman, not prince), and some of its dark humor.

However I will say that Nicholson's performance as the Joker -- while, IMHO, extremely enjoyable -- set the standard for over-the-top scenery-chewing one-liner spouting villains for over a decade. And not in a good way. TURNIPS!

That was his interpretation of the character. I didn't say he was the best literal translation. His interpretation worked for the film, and I think it was the best I've ever seen.

Hamill is excellent as the Joker on the Animated Series. However, you seem to have a great disregard for context. If you were to have exploding presents, baby dolls with Joker faces emitting poisonous gas, and the Joker escaping from Batman on a pogo stick on live action film, you would get a Schumacher picture.

To get this thread back on track, another reason the 'Batman' DVD is bad, from what I understand, is that a shot or a line or something got cut out of the widescreen side (though not the fullscreen side).

I never owned it, so I don't remember the details.

Wasn't Batman's first appearance on Detective Comics #27 in 1939?

That would be correct.

Superman in Action Comics was in 38, Batman was 39.

Nicholson should have gotten an Oscar nom for this and as I recall talk was heavy that he might at the time.

I stand corrected. As someone else has noted, I was thinking of Supes's premiere year. Yet everything about the gun usage remains spot-on. Don't believe me? Then I must break you...

Then that interpertation is WRONG. Thats like saying, you know in my remake of Star Wars, I think that Vader should get in touch with his feelings, making him a more sympathetic character. He should hand a flower to Obi-wan instead of killing him.

That doesnt mean that a character should be locked in stone forever - look at any number of Bonds, and all of the actors have stayed true to what the core of the character is. Jack and Tim could have done this - but no. They opt for the wrong outlook on Joker, and the film suffers for it.

I totaly disagree. I think that in the hands of a skilled director, that the fine line between camp and getting the character wrong could be straddled. Pity the movie wound up in the hands of a hack like Burton.

Camp... getting the character wrong... straddling...

Well, you should be happy Schumacher got all that in...

So funny, so true. Brilliant post!

Mark Hamill IS the Joker! There are no others! I don't care if its just his voice, he captures the Joker completely. And I think he could even pull it off in a live action film if given the chance.