Overlord Theophany wrote:
You and I were looking for two completely different things in a Batman movie, and it's fairly obvious why we have differences of opinion. I can understand your point of view, but you're flat-out wrong if you think the old movies in any way compare to the new.
They don't compare. Like I said, Nolan and Burton tackled the franchise in two very different ways. Nolan's movies are more realistic* and gritty. Burton's movies are more cartoony. I just happen to prefer Burton's version of the Batman universe to Nolan's version. I feel that Burton did a much better job of delivering a superhero movie than Nolan. Nolan's movies lack the atmosphere.
Which is also why I don't think the new James Bond movies come even close to being better James Bond movies than the old ones. Sure, better movies in general, but they lack the James Bond atmosphere that makes James Bond movies so entertaining to watch. James Bond, to me, will always be the British gentleman who throws around punches while drinking his Martini and sexing up any nearby ladies. Daniel Craig's Bond reminds me more of Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne than Ian Fleming's James Bond.
So, yeah, new Batman and Bond movies are better movies, but not better Batman and Bond movies. In my opinion, of course.
* The problem with Nolan's realistic Batman universe is that unrealistic things, like Two-Face, stand out so much. The Dark Knight was excellent up until Aaron Eckhart turned his head and revealed that the guys in charge of the Two-Face design had gone a little overboard. Harvey's condition in The Dark Knight was simply not realistic, and it completely clashed with the otherwise believable universe Nolan had built up. You'd expect sh*t like that in Burton's Batman movies, where helicopter umbrellas and high-powered hand buzzers were the norm. Edited, Oct 18th 2012 1:02pm by Mazra