or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Batman (1989) comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Batman (1989) comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 91
Looks like the upper end of "typical Warner".

Here's a shot from the 2005 DVD by the way:
post #32 of 91
Man, the BD is KILLING the DVD. Look at the edge enhancement on Kim Basinger on the DVD. That...is...the...suck. And look at the skin tone difference. The first is yellow and blech, the second is very lifelike, like I could reach through the screen and grab Kim Basinger and save her from the life sucking vampire she would soon marry, Alec "Little Pig" Baldwin.

P.S. Is this going to be sold stand alone? Cause it's the only old Batman worth owning...
post #33 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

P.S. Is this going to be sold stand alone? Cause it's the only old Batman worth owning...

It's slated for a May 19 release
post #34 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

Man, the BD is KILLING the DVD. Look at the edge enhancement on Kim Basinger on the DVD. That...is...the...suck. And look at the skin tone difference. The first is yellow and blech, the second is very lifelike, like I could reach through the screen and grab Kim Basinger and save her from the life sucking vampire she would soon marry, Alec "Little Pig" Baldwin...

I remember that I was very disappointed in the picture quality of Batman on DVD. It was unusually poor, even for a standard DVD, and that was surprising for Warner, whose transfers are usually of especially high quality. In am so glad that they released it on BD!
post #35 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Anonymous View Post

Your months-long devotion to a losing argument is strange and baffling.

I like it, he's almost like a dopey cartoon character. He's almost like some kind of simple computer program that automatically responds to any Xylon thread with the same canned message.

Anyway, I'm kind of disappointed by this BD release.... I think it could've been much better, could've been worse - could've been better as well. This just sort of continues the tradition of treatment this movie has always been given. So-so DVD releases (the old DVD version is especially bad,) so-so BD release.

They can't all be winners, though.
post #36 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post


Batman does not offer the same value to me because the sequels are vastly inferior (as a movie) and I am being forced to buy the discs I don't want or willing to pay for. Why not just charge us $19.99 each disc that we want?

Batman Returns is fabulous but thats because i liked that they went darker on it and i like Michelle Pfeiffer in the catsuit.

Now the third movie is passable but the fourth is simply atrocious unless you enjoy the sixties show in which case the campness of the fourth one might appeal to you.I think Keaton was a better Batman than Christian Bale ( yah its a controversial view but it's my opinion )
post #37 of 91
X, if you get a chance could you possibly throw the bs-hi, cinemax, and sky hd versions into the mix?
post #38 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Batman Returns is fabulous but thats because i liked that they went darker on it and i like Michelle Pfeiffer in the catsuit. Now the third movie is passable but the fourth is simply atrocious unless you enjoy the sixties show in which case the campness of the fourth one might appeal to you.I think Keaton was a better Batman than Christian Bale ( yah its a controversial view but it's my opinion )

fully agreed, foxy. pfeiffer rocked and while i normally like bale as an actor, as batman he is ridiculous with that gargle voice and dull as watching golf on tv as bruce wayne imho...
post #39 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

fully agreed, foxy. pfeiffer rocked and while i normally like bale as an actor, as batman he is ridiculous with that gargle voice and dull as watching golf on tv as bruce wayne imho...

I dunno, I really like Bale as Bruce/Batman for the stage of life his character is supposed to be in. It's obvious he's playing a younger version of the character than Keaton was meant to be playing. They're both also very much products of the style of universe they're being placed in.

I really like Batman Returns though, and I sort of find it ironic that at the time it didn't do as well as expected (and got heat from those that had made endorsement deals - McDonalds, etc.) because of how dark and "disturbing" it was, when nowadays it's pretty damn tame and would probably have made a killing with the right marketing.

I agree about Pfeiffer too, I loved her Catwoman, and with a few tweaks to the character's origin and style I could almost see her version transplanted right into the Nolan Bat-verse.
post #40 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teiresias View Post

I dunno, I really like Bale as Bruce/Batman for the stage of life his character is supposed to be in. It's obvious he's playing a younger version of the character than Keaton was meant to be playing. They're both also very much products of the style of universe they're being placed in.

Agreed - I enjoyed both Jokers and both Batmans from DK and Batman respectively, one was a clearly more comic-centric effort (Batman) and one was an attempt to transcend the comic to reality (DK). Kind of like Wyatt Earp and Tombstone - I love both Doc Hollidays, the movies were different in tone, but Quaid and Kilmer both nailed their man.

Quote:


I really like Batman Returns though, and I sort of find it ironic that at the time it didn't do as well as expected (and got heat from those that had made endorsement deals - McDonalds, etc.) because of how dark and "disturbing" it was, when nowadays it's pretty damn tame and would probably have made a killing with the right marketing.

I just remember thinking it just wasn't that good.

Quote:


I agree about Pfeiffer too, I loved her Catwoman, and with a few tweaks to the character's origin and style I could almost see her version transplanted right into the Nolan Bat-verse.

MP as Catwoman? Hell yes, I'd watch Pfeiffer lick herself clean any day of the week...

MEC2
post #41 of 91
This was recovered from a spec-ops temporal enforcement mission:

original


original + noise


enhanced original

LL
LL
LL
post #42 of 91
Mr. Hanky, I don't remember that shot from Dark Knight or is it a deleted scene?

;}~

Best Regards
KvE


PS Good to see the consistency they used even on the test shots with the Imax enhancements.
||||||||
post #43 of 91
Jack Nicholsen was originally scheduled to reprise his role in these test shots.
post #44 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teiresias View Post

I dunno, I really like Bale as Bruce/Batman for the stage of life his character is supposed to be in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc

this above spoof is all I have to say about Bale in TDK. While I think he can do great work, in TDK, (just IMHO) his Batman growl was ridiculous and as Wayne he just did brooding 101 Heathcliff style. Nothing remotely interesting or impressive about his acting. Keaton played a far more dimensional and interesting character IMHO. Also Ledger just totally stole the film from Bale too. That doesn't help.

But yes, Pfeiffer as CW in ANY universe works in my book...

post #45 of 91
I agree- the growly voice was ridiculous. I can understand using a slight voice affectation to distinguish between the 2 characters, but this was so overdone, I cannot imagine anyone taking that seriously.
post #46 of 91
"Are you talking "bat", cause I can't understand you..."


post #47 of 91
Jon Hamm looks just like the Bruce Wayne from the comics, with the hair and the chin. If he bulked up a bit he could do the role no problem. That would be my pick.

I think they should do ADR for anyone that is in the suit though and let Conroy do the voice. I wouldn't mind.
post #48 of 91
Thread Starter 


post #49 of 91
Thread Starter 


post #50 of 91
The Sky HD transfer looked better than the BRD to me
post #51 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc

this above spoof is all I have to say about Bale in TDK. While I think he can do great work, in TDK, (just IMHO) his Batman growl was ridiculous and as Wayne he just did brooding 101 Heathcliff style. Nothing remotely interesting or impressive about his acting. Keaton played a far more dimensional and interesting character IMHO. Also Ledger just totally stole the film from Bale too. That doesn't help.

But yes, Pfeiffer as CW in ANY universe works in my book...


I liked both actors. The only problem I had with Keaton is when he went into his Beetlegeuss character right before he gets shot by the Joker.
post #52 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

The first DVD release of this movie is the only one I have so this is the one I used. Whenever I can get the newer DVDs then I will post it or some of you can help and post them if you have it.

Actually, I thought the PQ of the DVD version that I have had for several years was rather poor! Rather disappointing, since Warner normally puts out only the best quality DVD's and Blu-ray, better than most other studios. So I was especially glad to get the Blu-ray which is vastly superior.
post #53 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

The Sky HD transfer looked better than the BRD to me

Ah, yes. You're the chap that couldn't see any grain in the transfer either...
post #54 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I agree- the growly voice was ridiculous. I can understand using a slight voice affectation to distinguish between the 2 characters, but this was so overdone, I cannot imagine anyone taking that seriously.

I thought the deal with that was to hide his "real" Bruce Wayne voice from those that might have heard it before.
Batdude has to keep his identity secret afterall...
post #55 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonS View Post

Actually, I thought the PQ of the DVD version that I have had for several years was rather poor!

Horrible is the word I would use.
This BD is a big jump up.

Quote:


Rather disappointing, since Warner normally puts out only the best quality DVD's and Blu-ray, better than most other studios.

WB is easily the worst BD studio.
Do a search and you will notice this forum supports that view.

Batman 1 is very soft in places, and sometimes downright wretched.
The TruHD track is generally flat as a pancake.

Yes, it leaves the DVD in the dust, but that isn't saying much either.
IMO, a ground-up restoration wouldn't be a bad thing.
post #56 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Horrible is the word I would use.
This BD is a big jump up.


WB is easily the worst BD studio.
Do a search and you will notice this forum supports that view.

Batman 1 is very soft in places, and sometimes downright wretched.
The TruHD track is generally flat as a pancake.

Yes, it leaves the DVD in the dust, but that isn't saying much either.
IMO, a ground-up restoration wouldn't be a bad thing.


I am gald people are finally on my side about this, I got shouted down in the Batman thread when I said it looked bad (mostly by people using shots and not the actual disc)
post #57 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I thought the deal with that was to hide his "real" Bruce Wayne voice from those that might have heard it before.
Batdude has to keep his identity secret afterall...

All that Bat-technology, and he couldn't come up with a harmonizer?

[uses harmonizer voice] Mmmmmh, were you in da Nang?
post #58 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

All that Bat-technology, and he couldn't come up with a harmonizer?

[uses harmonizer voice] Mmmmmh, were you in da Nang?

exactly. I understand the concept but it plays out terribly.
post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

All that Bat-technology, and he couldn't come up with a harmonizer?

[uses harmonizer voice] Mmmmmh, were you in da Nang?

LOL!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

exactly. I understand the concept but it plays out terribly.

Of course it would...you're a musician!



And I am stone-deaf (so says the wife).
post #60 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Horrible is the word I would use.
This BD is a big jump up.


WB is easily the worst BD studio.
Do a search and you will notice this forum supports that view.

Batman 1 is very soft in places, and sometimes downright wretched.
The TruHD track is generally flat as a pancake.

Yes, it leaves the DVD in the dust, but that isn't saying much either.
IMO, a ground-up restoration wouldn't be a bad thing.

You can't retain what isn't there. It will never look overly sharp, because it simply wasn't shot that way. The sound design of the film is limited as well, a TrueHD track isn't going to change that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Batman (1989) comparison *PIX*