Superman: The Movie vs Batman '89 vs Spider-Man 1

The Batman

The Dark Knight
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
25,154
Reaction score
3,232
Points
103
Three groundbreaking CBM's starring the three most iconic superheroes of all time. Which character had the better film?

For me:

Hero: Superman >>> Batman = Spider-Man
Villain: Spider-Man > Batman > Superman
Love Interest: Superman >>> Spider-Man > Batman
Supporting Cast: Superman > Spider-Man > Batman
Score: Superman = Batman >>> Spider-Man
Effects: Spider-Man > Batman > Superman
Costume: Superman = Spider-Man > Batman
Story: Superman > Spider-Man >>>> Batman

Overall, STM.
 
It's a tie between Spider-Man and Batman '89 for me. Not that I don't have much respect for Superman: The Movie but the other two I'm more fond of. I'm not sure which one I'd go for yet.
 
Between those 3 its tough for me. They're all products of their time , and they each set a new standard following their release.

They're sort of the three stools of the foundation of the Cbm genre of today imo.

I'd give it a tie between the three of them.
 
This is actually really tough. Lol.

all three are tremendously impactful. I can only go with what I rewatch the most out of the three. And that’s gotta be B89, then SM and then SM78.
 
I voted for Superman. It set the standard for superhero movies for decades, and is still the model for origin stories. Christopher Reeve delivers one of the absolute best performances of a superhero and defined the character for a generation. Not that Keaton and Maguire were bad, but Reeve is just on another plane.

Spider-Man is one of those movies that pretty much copy the story from Superman, and I think Superman is the superior film in pretty much every way save the action and maybe the villain (I like Hackman's Lex better than most, especially in the first film).

Batman is different in that it is more of a Joker movie than the usual superhero origin formula. This both makes it more unique, and hurts when it comes to the portrayal of the hero. I've never been fully satisfied with how Batman was used in the Burton films, and although he is better here than in Returns it is still nowhere near Reeve's Superman. Batman is a cool action movie and looks by far the best of the three films (although Superman has the better costume), but lacks the heart and emotion of Superman (or Spider-Man for that matter).
 
I actually don't know if I agree with the usual criticism that Batman '89 is more of a Joker movie. I was even watching it just last night and thinking that the criticism doesn't really hold water. No, Batman in costume doesn't feature for a lot of the early portions of the film... But Bruce Wayne, once he appears, does actually share a more than comparable amount of screen-time.

I think the reason some people tend to write off '89 as a Joker film, is because the Joker is inevitably a vehicle for very fun, very extreme, very 'out there' performances, and the actor starring opposite feels similarly obligated to be equally as understated, earnest and subdued in the Bruce Wayne/Batman role. Thus, the latter role, for some, doesn't tend to make as much of an impact on remain as firmly embedded in people's minds as the Joker role.

People don't like to acknowledge it as much, but Bale suffers much the same indignity in TDK. People never talk about Batman first when it comes to The Dark Knight. It's the Joker first and Batman (or even Two-Face) a very distant second. And that's despite Bale having far more screen-time than Ledger, and not just a comparable amount such is the case with Keaton and Nicholson. You'll also notice that Batman doesn't feature for a lot of the early parts of The Dark Knight Rises, either. And yet people rarely call that a Bane movie. It's just the popularity of the Joker character imo. That's the issue.

On the subject of '89, it's actually pretty clever, the way they hold back on Batman in the first film. It's very cleverly structured imo. They hold back in order to preserve the mystery and intrigue surrounding Bruce Wayne and how he came to be so troubled, and then once the Joker is introduced and established as a huge threat to the city, they finally inject Batman's origin into the mix and retroactively tie the two together as mortal enemies, thus providing a surprisingly intimate and emotional core to their struggle, while simultaneously serving as a great twist/shock reveal. If you prioritise it as a comic book adaptation first and a film second, then yeah, I can see that not being as satisfying an approach for some fans. But I love it. I voted '89.
 
Spider-man without question. It has far fewer flaws. It's one of those CBMs that can accurately be praised without adding "for its time, that is."
 
I actually don't know if I agree with the usual criticism that Batman '89 is more of a Joker movie. I was even watching it just last night and thinking that the criticism doesn't really hold water. No, Batman in costume doesn't feature for a lot of the early portions of the film... But Bruce Wayne, once he appears, does actually share a more than comparable amount of screen-time.

I think the reason some people tend to write off '89 as a Joker film, is because the Joker is inevitably a vehicle for very fun, very extreme, very 'out there' performances, and the actor starring opposite feels similarly obligated to be equally as understated, earnest and subdued in the Bruce Wayne/Batman role. Thus, the latter role, for some, doesn't tend to make as much of an impact on remain as firmly embedded in people's minds as the Joker role.

People don't like to acknowledge it as much, but Bale suffers much the same indignity in TDK. People never talk about Batman first when it comes to The Dark Knight. It's the Joker first and Batman (or even Two-Face) a very distant second. And that's despite Bale having far more screen-time than Ledger, and not just a comparable amount such is the case with Keaton and Nicholson. You'll also notice that Batman doesn't feature for a lot of the early parts of The Dark Knight Rises, either. And yet people rarely call that a Bane movie. It's just the popularity of the Joker character imo. That's the issue.

On the subject of '89, it's actually pretty clever, the way they hold back on Batman in the first film. It's very cleverly structured imo. They hold back in order to preserve the mystery and intrigue surrounding Bruce Wayne and how he came to be so troubled, and then once the Joker is introduced and established as a huge threat to the city, they finally inject Batman's origin into the mix and retroactively tie the two together as mortal enemies, thus providing a surprisingly intimate and emotional core to their struggle, while simultaneously serving as a great twist/shock reveal. If you prioritise it as a comic book adaptation first and a film second, then yeah, I can see that not being as satisfying an approach for some fans. But I love it. I voted '89.

I can't agree. Yes, Joker is flamboyant, popular, and a scene-stealer type of character so he is often the most memorable thing about these films, but that's not what I'm talking about here. The narrative around Batman 89 centers around the Joker. It is his story, his origin, and the movie is really all about him and his actions. We don't really get to explore Batman as a character. He has a forced romance with Vicky Vale and brief revenge plot about Joker killing his parents that is such an afterthought it feels like it was added in reshoots, but aside from that Bruce Wayne is basically just this enigmatic cypher that shows up for action scenes when he is needed.

This isn't the case in TDK. TDK at its core is about the relationship between Batman, Gordon, and Dent and their efforts to clean up Gotham. It is about their characters, their actions and reactions, and the fallout of all of this. Joker is the fly in the ointment. The devil that is around to mess things up. But the movie isn't about the Joker the same way Batman 1989 is. We don't follow him and get inside his head. He's as much a force of nature as he is a character. An agent of chaos. There is a reason Nolan chose to make the true climax of the film not Batman fighting Joker, but a standoff between the actual three main characters in a bombed out building.

Note that TDK is far from the only movie like this. Ask anyone who the main character of Silence of the Lambs is and most people will answer Hannibal Lecter. That's not even remotely true. He's just the most popular and well known character.
 
...People don't like to acknowledge that Joker overshadowed Batman in TDK? People acknowledge it all the time. It's one of the go to criticisms or remarks about the movie. People say stuff like "Take Joker out of TDK, and it wouldn't be considered a great movie." all the time. TDK is often referred to as a "Joker Film".

Also, much like how TDK actually revolves around Batman, Dent, and Gordon, TDKR is Bruce's story. That's why no one calls TDKR a "Bane Movie". But even then, Bane is clearly the most beloved, iconic character/performance from that film.

To bring back to what this thread is about, what Kahran said is a big reason why I prefer the stories of STM and SM1 over B89. Those movies are actually about the hero. B89 Batman is cool, but the movie never really feels like it's about him.
 
I've gotten into this debate too many times involving the "take joker out and so and so" thing. It's honestly a weird argument because hes as essential to the plot as Vader is in Empire or the T1000 in T2. If you take him out, there's no movie, so that argument can't be made at all.

Anyway, I gotta go with Spider-Man (2002). There's something about that movie that is just so damn amazing and holds up so well. Superman (1978) does too of course, but Spider-Man was pretty much by Superman (1978) experience in 2002.
 
I can't agree. Yes, Joker is flamboyant, popular, and a scene-stealer type of character so he is often the most memorable thing about these films, but that's not what I'm talking about here. The narrative around Batman 89 centers around the Joker. It is his story, his origin, and the movie is really all about him and his actions. We don't really get to explore Batman as a character. He has a forced romance with Vicky Vale and brief revenge plot about Joker killing his parents that is such an afterthought it feels like it was added in reshoots, but aside from that Bruce Wayne is basically just this enigmatic cypher that shows up for action scenes when he is needed.

This isn't the case in TDK. TDK at its core is about the relationship between Batman, Gordon, and Dent and their efforts to clean up Gotham. It is about their characters, their actions and reactions, and the fallout of all of this. Joker is the fly in the ointment. The devil that is around to mess things up. But the movie isn't about the Joker the same way Batman 1989 is. We don't follow him and get inside his head. He's as much a force of nature as he is a character. An agent of chaos. There is a reason Nolan chose to make the true climax of the film not Batman fighting Joker, but a standoff between the actual three main characters in a bombed out building.

Note that TDK is far from the only movie like this. Ask anyone who the main character of Silence of the Lambs is and most people will answer Hannibal Lecter. That's not even remotely true. He's just the most popular and well known character.

Batman '89 is not an especially deep movie on any level. We don't learn a truly substantial amount about any one particular character, let alone the Joker. When do we get inside the Joker's head? We really don't. We get into his head about as much as we get into Batman's. That is, enough to propel the movie along to its climax, and no more. Are you really sure you're not just talking about a misperception of Bruce Wayne's screentime here? Because I don't see how the Joker's origin being shown first automatically constitutes a level of introspection or motivation that Bruce's character isn't also subjected to when his origin is later revealed.

Take Batman out of the picture and you don't HIS origin, consequentially you don't get the Joker's origin, you don't get his story*, you don't get the twist reveal that their stories are intertwined practically through destiny, and you don't get the resolution to that story. At worst (or best, depending on whether or not you like the approach), it's their movie.

* This is another point that bemuses me. It felt charitable to being using that word. What story? The Joker doesn't have a story or an arc. The whole film itself is virtually plotless! Things just happen because there's no reasonable point to be made about why most of this stuff shouldn't happen, and we go along with it and enjoy it because it's still being masterfully propped up by everything else, i.e., music, atmosphere, set design, acting, direction, etc. The story is consciously a secondary consideration where '89 is concerned.
 
...People don't like to acknowledge that Joker overshadowed Batman in TDK? People acknowledge it all the time. It's one of the go to criticisms or remarks about the movie. People say stuff like "Take Joker out of TDK, and it wouldn't be considered a great movie." all the time. TDK is often referred to as a "Joker Film".

I've often taken issue that that assertion. Ledger's performance was legendary (I still contend the best DC character in live-action), but I scoff at the idea that Bale didn't hold his own. Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and Morgan Freeman each had scene-stealing moments. Not to mention that Lau's capture in Hong Kong didn't contain Joker, but it was universally praised by fans of the movie, particularly comic book readers.

So I'd argue that point all day. TDK was certainly enhanced by Joker, but it was the rare comic book movie that fired on all cylinders.
 
Superman is best in most ways, definitely in terms of the hero, the romantic chemistry and overall. I'm overall not very fond of the other two.

Spider-Man did have the best villain but Luthor was good.

Keaton as Batman was really good but underused and his love story was at best so-so. Spider-Man tried way too hard with the love story.

Though Otis and Tessmacher take away a little, their comic relief stills fits in a lot better than most of that in Batman or Spider-Man.
 
I voted for Superman. It set the standard for superhero movies for decades, and is still the model for origin stories. Christopher Reeve delivers one of the absolute best performances of a superhero and defined the character for a generation. Not that Keaton and Maguire were bad, but Reeve is just on another plane.

Spider-Man is one of those movies that pretty much copy the story from Superman, and I think Superman is the superior film in pretty much every way save the action and maybe the villain (I like Hackman's Lex better than most, especially in the first film).

Batman is different in that it is more of a Joker movie than the usual superhero origin formula. This both makes it more unique, and hurts when it comes to the portrayal of the hero. I've never been fully satisfied with how Batman was used in the Burton films, and although he is better here than in Returns it is still nowhere near Reeve's Superman. Batman is a cool action movie and looks by far the best of the three films (although Superman has the better costume), but lacks the heart and emotion of Superman (or Spider-Man for that matter).
:applaud:applaud:applaud

Ditto !
 
All three of these are really good films, but man there is just something special about Batman 89. Maybe its because to me its the most unique of the three films visually and tonally and actually I grew up way more with Batman 89 than I did the other two even though I know many people grew up with Spider-Man and Superman: The Movie.
 
Picking between B89 and STM is really tough.

I love Buron's Batmobile, music, costume, Joker, dialogue, etc

But Superman the movie is why I became a superhero fan. Those opening credits still give me the chills.

I think I'll give it to Supes for being such a great launching point for the genre.
 
Three groundbreaking CBM's starring the three most iconic superheroes of all time. Which character had the better film?

I voted Spider-Man though I think any could be chosen here. They all have great strengths and similar weaknesses.

Hero: Superman > Spider-Man > Batman
Villain: Batman > Spider-Man > Superman
Love Interest: Superman > Spider-Man > Batman
Supporting Cast: Spider-Man > Superman > Batman
Score: Spider-Man > Superman > Batman
Effects: Spider-Man > Batman > Superman
Costume: Batman > Spider-Man > Superman
Story: Spider-Man > Batman > Superman
 
He was freaking evil. The whole "Hackensack, New Jersey" thing...chills.

Superman:
"Is that how a warped brain like yours gets its kicks? By planning the death of innocent people?"

Lex Luthor:
"No, by causing the death of innocent people."

And he says it completely deadpan. Behind that charming exterior, he's a complete sociopath.
 
I love Hackman as Lex in Superman. His first monologue to Superman using a high frequency is a fantastic sequence with some really chilling dialogue.

I voted Spider-Man as it holds the most emotional value to me. I was a wee lad when it came out, so it introduced me to the character I love so dearly. This is a great poll because all 3 of these films are great for a variety reasons, while each aging in their own ways.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,582
Messages
21,767,004
Members
45,603
Latest member
Blacktopolis24
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"