Unlike most of you here, the only Batman films I have ever seen are the Chris Nolan Batman's, The Dark Knight Trilogy. That's it. Should I leave it this way or should I watch the other Batman movies?? Most people I talk to say that they all suck...

So basically the only way I have ever seen or can see Batman now is the way Chris Nolan saw him... one of the reasons why when some here complain about the differences between the comic books and the films, it never matters to me, cuz this is the only way I know Batman.

Is it best for me to keep it this way?? I've become so in love with this trilogy that I just can't imagine a Batman film being any other way, one of the reasons why I never wanted to go back and watch any of the older movies before. I've just only wanted this Batman in my head and no other, for some reason I can't really explain to you guys, I don't know why. To me it's just Christian Bale is Batman. That's it and I never wanted to see anyone else behind the cowl and I never wanted to have any other version in my head while watching this one.

But now that this trilogy is over I was just thinking if I should give the other one's a try...

Do you guys like the previous Batman films before Nolan's? Are they worth watching? Or would it be best for me if I just left them alone and let Nolan's Batman be the only Batman I know? It's such a simple question and you guys will probably laugh at me but for some reason I just can't bring myself to watch them for this one silly reason!!

But I was in the store today and I came across this: http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Picture-An ... +anthology

I almost bought it but I didn't know if it was worth my money or not and I really just can't decide if I want to see any other Batman besides this one!!

What do you guys think?

Also how would you rate the other Batman's compared to these ones??

If you're a Batman fan then yes. If you're a Nolan fan then no.

If you're a fan of film in general, especially comic-book movies, then also yes.

IMO the other films are intolerably campy and comedic, but you should watch them anyway if only because it might enhance your appreciation for the Dark Knight Trilogy.

The other films don't really live up to Nolan's. But you should watch the animated films. They are incredibly well written and well done.

Personally I like the original 89 Batman. Burton didn't go too overboard with his style for it and it has a good performance by Nicholson as Joker (nothing like Ledgers but it's good on it's own). Batman Returns is where Burton went too Burton-y for me. I could honestly watch Batman Forever before watching Returns. Not a joke. Returns turned Catwoman into some silly supernatural gothic slut that I utterly hate. Nothing against Pfeiffer, I think she would have done great under better direction and characterization, but Burton fucked that up big time IMO.

It really does depend on if you are a Batman fan. Like, if you are really interested in Batman now, you definitely should give past adaptations a chance, be it film, TV or graphic novels.

Batman doesn't hold up all that well. A lot of the stuff with Batman that's supposed to come off menacing or dark comes off campy. It also drags a bit. Nicholson is praised as a great Joker but he's really just playing himself in makeup. It isn't a bad movie, per say, but it's no timeless classic. Still worth a watch.

Batman Returns is fun only because Burton just spread his Burton-ness on thick with it. It's very obviously a Burton movie. It's so ridiculous and over-the-top. I dig it for that reason. It doesn't exactly fit as a sequel to Batman, neither visually nor tonally, but it's one of those flicks you have to see to believe. Not exactly a "so bad it's good" movie, but one of those bizarre results of a very... ahem... unique director who just did whatever the fuck he wanted.

Batman Forever is a very light-hearted/comic-booky Batman flick. Carrey and Jones ham it up as Riddler/Two-Face and they make it watchable. It's too bright and neon for my taste (Gotham city is actually more carnival-like than a circus Bruce attends in the flick), but it's certainly worth a viewing.

Batman & Robin is as terrible as you've heard. But you've gotta give it a watch. It's just that bad. Sooooooooooooooooooo bad.

Also, Batman: The Movie from 1966 is also totally worth a watch. As is the Adam West TV show it spawned from. Really campy, but really fun.

Oh, and give the 1940s serial a watch someday too. It's interesting simply from a perspective of film history. Batman has come a long way.

But if you want something that takes the Bruce Wayne story as seriously as Nolan did, check out the Animated Series from the 90s. It's very different from Nolan's vision, but it's fantastic. And if you dig that, Batman Beyond is brilliant as well.

The only ones I recommend are Burton's. Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992). Those two are among the best superhero movies of all time imo.

I can't stand Batman Forever (1995) and I've never watched Batman and Robin (1997).

Jim Carrey makes Batman Forever the ultimate dumb fun.

RIFA wrote:If you're a Batman fan then yes. If you're a Nolan fan then no.

If you're a fan of film in general, especially comic-book movies, then also yes.

Well I am a fan of Nolan's Batman!

But, let's put it this way, the only Batman I have ever been exposed to is The Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Batman: Arkham City (favorite games EVER), and some cartoon Batman show I used to watch on occasion when I was younger, I have no idea what it was though. So does that count as being a Batman fan? If you're asking me if I have ever read the comics, then the answer is no.

I am a huge Nolan fan though, without a doubt my favorite filmmaker ever, actually the only one I follow closely.

I am a fan of film in general, I love movies. I have a huge collection so I might need this set just to make it bigger.

I do like comic book movies! Iron Man, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, etc. but none can even come close to The Dark Knight trilogy, in my opinion. But yeah, I do.

So I can answer all your questions and I get both a yes and a no.

Cilogy wrote:IMO the other films are intolerably campy and comedic, but you should watch them anyway if only because it might enhance your appreciation for the Dark Knight Trilogy.

LOL so much so that it is worth $140???

akv1984 wrote:The other films don't really live up to Nolan's. But you should watch the animated films. They are incredibly well written and well done.

Hmm... which ones are those?

ComptonTerry wrote:Personally I like the original 89 Batman. Burton didn't go too overboard with his style for it and it has a good performance by Nicholson as Joker (nothing like Ledgers but it's good on it's own). Batman Returns is where Burton went too Burton-y for me. I could honestly watch Batman Forever before watching Returns. Not a joke. Returns turned Catwoman into some silly supernatural gothic slut that I utterly hate. Nothing against Pfeiffer, I think she would have done great under better direction and characterization, but Burton fucked that up big time IMO.

Interesting. So obviously nothing like Anne Hathaway?

Nelson wrote: Oh, and give the 1940s serial a watch someday too. It's interesting simply from a perspective of film history. Batman has come a long way.

Watching it now. How have I never even heard of this before!?