Totally disagree. Elfman's score is superb, and really drives the movie. It's probably his most memorable score, period. Batman really isn't a theme is typical at a sporting event, no, but so what? I've heard it at some games by school bands.

she didn't find out at the cave. she knew back at her apartment after the Joker run in. she looked at her tray with the bullet mark, and Bruce had disappeared, remembered her conversation with Bruce before the Joker showed up, and that Batman must be fucking super rich to have all his toys, someone like Bruce, and put it all together. She's not so dumb after all.

another point I'll add is that I'm sure Alfred didn't just tell her "oh, by the way, Master Wayne is Batman, would you like to go to his cave?" the conversation was from Vicky was more "Alfred, I know Bruce is Batman, take me to him."

No need to dignify that pathetic John Williams fanboy rant about how Superman has a better score with a response. It will fall on deaf ears. Personally, that Superman theme is one of the cheesiest things I've ever heard, but that's for another thread.

I don't know of any time where I looked at a movie years later and thought of it differently, because a movie like Batman is one I've watched so often over the years that there was never a large time gap when watching it to give it any kind of distance.

Since they do pay whenever music is used I'm sure SUPERMAN theme pays for a Ferrari for the composer and BATMAN doesn't pay for gas. The SUPERMAN theme is so good they used it for SUPERMAN RETURNS. And has had a few cd releases, while BATMAN sold only the cd that had Prince music only.

I saw Batman on the big screen in a production design class about two years before Begins came out, and I remember walking out feeling so empty. I had seen it before, but not in the theaters. It's important to remember that this was Burton's first big budget film, and first action film. He's just getting his feet wet, and afterwards he went on to do Edward Scissorhands, one of his best films.

While the film certainly has some great visuals, they don't work in the service of the story. The Gotham City he created, where each building is a massive, looming edifiice of a different architectural design, is both claustrophobic and unrealistic. Have you ever seen a city that looks like a production designer's wet dream? No. It just doesn't fit. Add in the massive plot holes already mentioned, plus Batman's brief screen time (really, how often does he show up in the batsuit?) and you have a movie that could have been great, but wasn't.

Now, Batman Returns, on the other hand, was much more assured and entertaining. While still not the best vision of Batman, it shows how much Burton had learned, and how much better he had gotten as a director.

As for the scores, I don't even see why there's an argument. Both are great. But, to be fair, Superman is pretty much a great score from beginning to end, while Batman is mostly a great theme. Batman Returns has a much more rich and varied score, with interesting touches and themes for each character that also display Danny Elfman's growth compositionally.

And, of course, Begins trumps it all, and The Dark Knight is set to put even that to shame.

obviously you're a fan of the film... and more power to you...

but what i posted is entirely accurate... and this 'explanation' is painfully thin, and doesn't come close to covering that gaping hole in the plot...

spend a full third of a movie focused on the mystery identity of a winged freak, another ~third having the reporter get closer to discovering it, more than half a movie developing this aspect of the plot, and then absolutely no payoff, no resolution, not even an acknowledgement?...

come on...

if you like the film that's one thing... trying to explain away that failure of the film and director?... that's like having a movie about the 'Titanic' where they forget to have the boat sink...

just to 'summify'

you're saying that your opinion is:

Batman Returns is a better film than Batman...?

well it wasn't the concern to have this big scene where she's shocked about his identity. she was suspicious the whole time.

and no, it's not me explaining. you see it in subtleties throughout the movie. how did Batman know she was at the art gallery? why was she looking at his mask when they were riding to the bat cave? no, the movie didn't beat us over the head, and I'm glad for that. I'm sorry you missed all this or that you consider it a flaw. btw, I was 8 when I figured all of this out.

The Batman score is brilliant, along with most of Elfman's work.

I always thought Batman '89 was overrated, and didn't understand all the fuss when I saw it in the summer of 1989. I remember being so hyped, as many of my friends saw it before me and said how good it was, and it was kinda the way I felt after The Phantom Menace, "Is that it?"

The movie isn't that bad, as it is entertaining, but it was never a great movie to me, and I squarely blame Tim Burton for the approach he took to the movie. His style is either a love em or hate em director, and you can't have those guys doing franchise movie that are suppose to have broad appeal. Burton's movies are not for everyone, but if you 'get' his style, you probably like most of them, if you don't, you probably hate most of them.

As for the Superman & Batman score, they are both awesome, and I have to say the best part of Batman '89 are the first 3 minutes where the heavy drums accompanied by Elfmans score really get the viewer into it the same a way a Star Wars movie does with its opening. But the movie is all downhill after that.

I watched Batman Returns on HBO a few weeks ago for the first time in about 15 years, and ironically that, IMO, is the better movie of the two now, and that one I think turned off alot of people with its dark tone in 1992. Batman '89 was too much a parody, and the movie is the type of movie I will watch on TBS when it is on, but I will never buy it on DVD or BluRay.

I can't believe there's even a debate about the Batman theme. It's fantastic.

As for Supermallet's post, I think i'd agree that Burton did a better job as far as an action movie goes with Returns, doing everything better from the action and the set pieces, but I don't think it's a better movie then the first. I'd also agree with him about how Superman had a better score, but Batman just had a great theme.

Still holds up. Obviously doesn't have the same type of impact as then, but it's still a great Burton film. But I've watched it countless times since its release; if you've gone away from it for many years I can see how it's lost something. Hell it's been almost 20 years (which is scary).

I think it was perfect for the age I was when it came out, and Begins is perfect for the age I am now. And it really opened up the flood gates for the comic book film, so I give it a lot of slack.

While I thought (when it first came out) that it was an improvement on the TV show, I had been reading the comics for a while before the movie came out, especially Frank Miller's work, and I knew Batman the movie could have been more, so much more. I was never pleased with the casting choices (I still see it as Mr. Mom playing Batman, even after all this time), but it was a fun movie for what it was. And if we didn't get it when we got it, it would not have paved the road for Batman Begins, so I am satisfied for what it was at the time.

As for Tim Burton's work on it...I like him as a director, but I like it when he handles his own stuff, his own creations. He admitted he never read the comics, so he really had no motivation behind this movie than perhaps a fast cash grab. Batman perhaps ranks as my least favorite of the Burton movies.

didn't mean to touch a nerve man... you're approaching zealotry over this...

your lame attempts at casting aspersions aside... yes it's very much you , and you alone, trying to explain away a massive hole in the plot with painfully thin assertions... i see now you're set in your ways and i would guess will continue to do so...

pretty much everyone, besides you i guess, noticed this... people that actually paid attention to the movie anyway... including many critics... it stuck out at me like a sore thumb when i saw it, the first time i saw it i thought i must have missed an earlier scene or something... on later viewings i realized, no, i hadn't missed anything...
Roger Ebert review...

lemme guess... Ebert is not able to 'figure it out' either right?... like an 8 year old could?...

I remember catching some of "Batman" on TV a year or so ago and thinking about how it wasn't as good as I remember.

But I'm probably unfit to discuss this since I've grown to dislike Tim Burton's "style" in his movies.

definitely doesnt hold up for me either

-NiCK

Trust me, you didn't touch a nerve. Quit deflecting. It's not so much zealotry as it's a movie that I've seen many, many times. I know it by heart practically, so yeah, I think I know what I'm talking about.

By explaining I'm only pointing out the things in the movie that you seemed to have missed. Subtle hints. I'm not giving excuses. Watch the movie again if you don't believe me. How am I casting aspersions?

You say I'm set in my way, but I could say the same thing about you. You have discounted every point I've made.

Notice earlier in this thread that I don't think it's as good as the Batman Begins, not even close.

But if what you're saying is true, then explain Alfred's actions.

Are you saying Alfred just went ahead and said to Vicky "would you like to see Bruce? I'll take you to the Batcave, oops, I mean living room. Crap! I guess I let the cat out of the bag. I'm so gonna get fired."?

That's not what happened. Notice that Bruce is surprised that's she's there at the batcave, though not too much. She doesn't, because she already knew before she got there.

My pointing this out is by no means a justification that this is a masterpiece.

Ebert's a smart guy, my favorite critic by far, but he isn't infallible. Believe it or not, he misses things sometimes.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wUPBgYeanZ0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wUPBgYeanZ0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Huh? Sorry, I don't listen much to unreasonable and rabid John Williams fanboys like yourself. Not worth the trouble.

Batman definitely doesn't hold up for me, but Superman is even worse, I tried to watch Superman for the first time in about 5 years, boy it didn't remember it being so brutally corny. I had to stop in the middle of it and even decided to sell it.

Yes, absolutely. Batman was Burton's attempt at a summer blockbuster. It's very embryonic and rough around the edges. It has massive plot holes and, as you can see from the myriad of posts in this thread, feels very dated.

Batman Returns, on the other hand, is a much more confident work from Burton. In fact, I'd say that Batman Returns is one of Burton's best three films, along with Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd. It's still not the world's best vision of Batman, but it's a fantastic homage to German Expressionism, and as a study of the outsider, Burton's favorite subject, it's got three fantastic theatrical outsiders for him to work on. Also, Bo Welch's production design is much more consistent than Anton Furst's, giving the world a more unified (if still outlandish) feel. And I'll take Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman over Jack Nicholson as The Joker any day.

interesting

i'm not gonna argue with you... i respect your opinion.. .but i disagree vigorously.

the original (to me) is a far superior film in every way. i disagree that it's dated... on the contrary i feel that it's timeless and will stand as a classic forever. most of the 'plot holes' are debatable.

to put BReturns over Edward Scissorhands is madness in my estimation, but then again we all have our own opinions.

still at least you have specific examples of why you like B.R. so, i would still share a muffin with you.

cheers!

Was an awesome movie. Still is.

The only 'downside' would be that Batman Begins is so fucking savory that the original Batman can only live in it's shadow.

I agree. Batman Returns didn't work for me. I actually prefer Batman Forever to Batman Returns. Catwoman is fantastic but the Penguin kills it for me. The whole running for mayor thing is ridiculous. I like the dynamic between Batman and Catwoman. I liked that Keaton seemed more confident and comfortable in the role but DeVito and the whole Penguin running for the mayor, biting that guys nose, WTF? Are there any cops at all in Gotham City? At least the first film focused on Harvey Dent trying to clean up the city.

It's not Burton's worst film but everything he's done with Johnny Depp is better than Batman Returns.

Doesn't Bruce complain about Alfred telling Vicki his secret in Batman Returns?

I still like Batman and Batman Returns. I feel more like their a product of their time and Begins is a Batman for a different time we live in. I still think it is an enjoyable film. What doesn't hold up is Forever. I enjoyed it in the theaters but now it's barely watchable.

Superman (78) is still good, but the sequels don't hold up.

I think it's too easy to pick on Batman 89 now that TDK is going to be the definitive Batman film.