Batman (1989) vs. Superman (1978)

These are two defining movies that shaped the superhero genre into what it is today.

Superman- for its groundbreaking special effects, passion, charm, wit, and John Williams.

Batman- for its visionary art production, dark tone, haunting villain, and Danny Elfman.

Both have their silly moments yet both are cornerstones of comic book cinema.

But which is the better film?

Ouch.


Ok... pros and cons of both.


Batman:
Pro - Keaton setting a standard on how Batman should be played on screen. people expected Beetlejuice... and as far as they were concerned with Batman, people had only ever seen Adam West. Keaton blew everyone away.
Pro - Dark tone with a comic undertone to the aesthetic, that filled a totally different set of standards for comicbook movies
Pro - Some of the special effects haven't aged. The vehicles especially, and choreography within the action scenes is absolutely what a Batman/comicbook movie should be
Pro - Perfectly scored, Elfman was the perfect choice
Con - Joker's origin and his connection to the Wayne murder
Con - Some of the special effects have aged, particularly the miniature work


Superman:
Pro - Christopher Reeve setting a standard as well on how Superman should be played. I mean, the guy didn't just change his voice, he changed his gait, stance... he played 2 completely separate characters
Pro - An origins story, simply made, but affective... and a lead-up to the fact that part 2 would have proper super-villains
Pro - The practical effects still hold up. The force-perspective background shots at Jonathan Kent's funeral are amazing.
Pro - The stage sets and actual locations. Donner was able to carry a tone throughout the movie from stage to location, that felt organic. And the Fortress Of Solitude has never been bettered
Con - The almost musical number in the middle of the film
Con - The Superman costume has aged (I mean, silk and spandex doesn't hold well after 40 years)
Con - Some of the blue-screen flying scenes have aged too
Con - A lack of danger. Luthor wasn't exactly a Mastervillain. He was basically going to sink the West Coast, and make new beach front property. Ok, Lois Lane dies during his master plan, but... well... Donner had a dodgy Deus Ex Machina for that


For me...


I hate to say it with the iconic turn of acting from Reeve... it's Batman for me.

__________________

Superman is a lot better for me. I am not the biggest fan of the original Batman, mostly cause I feel the origin story is not handled well, and I felt that the twist in that origin story, felt very tacked on for me.

I also feel that The Joker, even though he had a lot fun, was not really given a lot of compelling things to do. The movie also has these subplots that don't really pay off such as this parade that Harvey Dent is so obsessed with putting on. I also feel that Vicky Vale is just not near as interesting as a love interest as the chemistry with Lois Lane. So I feel that Superman is a tighter, more focused movie.

Christopher Reeve is still the best Superman to this day in my opinion.

Possibly unpopular opinion: Reeve is the only good thing in Superman ‘78.

This thread was supposed to be made by captainsteel xd

I would agree to some extent. For me, he wasn't the only good thing, but the only great thing other than the score.

I have yet to see a properly menacing Lex Luthor on screen yet. Hackman was okay. Otis was a joke. Kidder had some decent moments as Lois but it wasn't the best. Effects were good. The plot was typical 70s-80s action plot. But Reeve was great.

I vividly remember the Superman movie when I was little and I never got the praise. Nothing ever looked right to me and it felt like a standard movie with a Spandexed man inserted. At a young age, I kept thinking this just doesn't work. The world just did not feel right or believable.



As silly as 89 is, it worked. The sets, the costumes, Prince... Good or bad, it all felt right. Hackman is the only good thing about Superman.

Nah, Reeve was and still is the best thing about Superman: The Movie... and still the best Superman actor.

Batman for me. I'm not a big fan of Superman in general.

__________________

I have voted Batman 1989 just because, Something special happened in 1989

I find that "Batman" loses steam toward the middle while "Superman" is actually a little dull at the beginning and picks up steam at the middle. I actually appreciate more now the depiction of Lex Luthor as a villain who's not deadly serious and has a goal other than conquering/destroying the world. I admit it's not very faithful to the comics. Neither movie's ending is very satisfying, though. Both had great music and special effects (for their time) and both leads did a great job of making their characters seem like real people.

Does anybody else share my opinion that Steven Spielberg would've created a fantastic Superman movie if given a chance?

Superman is the better film for me, Christopher Reeve did a great job, and I personally liked the humor and romance in this film better than the darkness of Batman. To be honest, I 'm not the biggest fan of superhero films, but I 'd rewatch Superman(s) but not Batman.

Neither one has aged very well, but I'd have to say Batman due to the combined charisma of Jack and Michael Keaton.

As Saunch correctly stated, Chris Reeve was the only good thing about Superman I.

The Gene Hackman sequences in Superman: The Movie were bloated and dull. Jack Nicholson was way too over the top in Batman (1989), and many of his sequences were also bloated and dull. "So much to do & so little time." This really could've been cut down quite a lot and gotten on with, already. The sequence in the Art Museum, again, just went on for too damn long. I love the museum set, it's incredibly gorgeous. But I really start getting bored with all the paint splashes and so on. Can we just get on with it, please? Eating the clock does not entertain me. I appreciate a brisk pace to a film. Also, the Batman costumes have just been looking pretty bad, actually, since Batman Returns.

Henry Cavill's supersuit is an eyesore. The costumes just keep getting worse. I actually prefer the simplicity and bold coloration of Christopher Reeve's outfit with the undies outside. But my vote, finally, has to go to Batman. The art direction is excellent and the musical cues are very pleasing and atmospheric. Most of all, I love the cast. Kim Bassinger and Michael Keaton have one of the most awkward onscreen romances committed to celluloid, but they're both such a joy to watch, as actors, that I welcome the scenes with them. Jerry Hall is also quite wonderful, if woefully underused.

Batman, had I seen Superman in theatres then maybe it would've been a tough choice, 8 year old me was in awe of this movie from start to finish

What about Superman 2 (1980) vs. Batman Returns (1992), which is the better sequel?

Superman for me.

I saw both I and II in theaters as a kid and was completely mesmerized. I refuse to try and rate a comic book movie as an adult because adults are angry, bitter, jaded and spiteful beings (I'm not exepmt). I never really liked Batman to begin with, but if I'm going to champion the 1989 film, it would be about Elfman's score, Burton's sets and mood, and of course Keaton...but as a general superhero? Superman, of course. He's well mannered, generally happy, can whoop Batman's ass (but wouldn't because he's a gentleman).

Of course since those 2 films the whole universe has been perverted and ridiculed so...whatever. Zero interest in comic book movies..but, I won't forget what drew me to Superman and the intricate stuff is a secret that I don't divulge on the internet to strangers.

I could go on for days on this topic!

But one Con I'll add to Batman was Gotham City. I didn't like it - it didn't look real. It looked too fantastical for what should have been the first more realistic take on Batman. I always said it looked like a dark version of Emerald City. Then it got even more outrageous in the sequels, especially where it basically consisted of sky-scraper-sized statues in Batman and Robin. The more realistic Gotham in Batman Begins was a big improvement.

Conversely, using actual shots of NYC (standing in for Metropolis) was a Pro for Superman!

This is an easy one for me. Superman

I love the movie Superman. Christopher Reeve was the perfect choice for both Clark Kent and Superman. Gene Hackman was great as Lex Luthor. The movie was fun and entertaining. It's one of my all-time favorite superhero movies.

I thought Batman would have been a great movie if they just cut out all the scenes with Batman and The Joker. Bruce Wayne was a great character, and I would have loved to see a whole movie with him, but I hated all the Batman stuff. Jack Nicholson was ridiculous as The Joker. He wasn't scary at all. He was just goofy.