Batman (1989) - Any UK Blu-Ray reviews?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by johnSM, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. Simon Young

    Simon Young Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    I realise that. My point is that when the DVD format was ratified, the majority of people in PAL land owned TVs which could not handle NTSC in any shape or form. Therefore, it would have made no sense to make the DVD format NTSC only. However, nowadays anyone buying a Blu-ray in PAL land will own a new TV which is fully capable of handling NTSC, so the actual need for PAL content on Blu-ray is diminished. I'm guessing that the handful of European/Australian BDs containing PAL extras only do so because it was cheap and convenient for the studio to re-use them from the PAL DVD release. There would be no point in converting them to 480i/480p, as they're not catering for the NTSC market.
     
  2. Ed St. Clair

    Ed St. Clair Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the update!
     
  3. Nicholas Martin

    Nicholas Martin Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Saw a bit of it on HDNet last night and immediately turned it off.

    That had to be upconverted DVD with excessive DNR, because there was NO detail in the image at all. I seriously doubt the Blu-ray will resemble that broadcast at all. It looked as though I turned the sharpness on my TV to -10 or something, making it too soft.

    As for the sound, I could care less about a lossless track with this particular film, because I've never liked the artificial 5.1 mix anyway.
    The mix on the original 1997 DVD was the same as the 2005 Dolby and DTS versions, and a TrueHD version won't make it any better.

    Of course that applies ONLY to this one film, not Returns or Forever. With those latter films, I'd expect the results to be VERY impressive as the DVDs already sound fantastic as is.
     
  4. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,529
    Likes Received:
    171
    I caught Batman (89) on some HD cable channel last year (it may have been TBS - can't remember) and I thought it looked pretty good. The way this movie was filmed and given the source, it's never going to look like eye candy - something some reviewers at other sites are going to miss.
     
  5. Nicholas Martin

    Nicholas Martin Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    What I was basically saying is that the Blu-ray WILL look great, superior to the HD broadcast in every possible way, but the sound format won't make the sound mix better than it is.
     
  6. Tim Glover

    Tim Glover Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1999
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Monroe, LA
    Real Name:
    Tim Glover
    My copy arrived today from amazon.UK but didn't have time to play it yet. I plan on a Batman viewing tomorrow. I haven't seen this film in it's entirety since watching the very first dvd issue back in 1997. [​IMG]

    Should be fun...
     
  7. coldstone

    coldstone Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    i bought this blu ray yesterday and eagerly slipped it into my playstation 3, running HDMI to a 46 inch sony bravia.

    viewing random scenes i could tell that this was the clearest and cleanest version of batman id ever seen.
    however i then slipped in my batman DVD from 2005 and I really couldnt tell many significant differences between upscaled DVD and the blu ray.

    All the dark scenes, which make up most of the film look nearly identical. the only scenes where you can really notice picture quality improvement are the brighter scenes such as the bruce wayne function, bruce visiting vicki's apartment, and a few of the scenes with jack napier and carl grissom.

    its hard to explain, you dont really see any more detail in the blu ray version over the upscaled DVD but the picture just looks more fuller. colours are slightly more vibrant also, with eye reflections slightly more pronounced. Im actually now thinking the DVD version was really good to begin with, or the ps3 is a really good upscaling player?
    In the beginning when the actors names are on the screen the text doesnt really look HD. i like to look at text as good test to the sharpness of the film. if you turn on the subtitles then that is how sharp it should be.

    All in all it's a very slight improvement over upscaled DVD.

    sorry i dont have a good audio system so i cant comment on the audio.

    i will still recommend getting the blu ray though for the very slight picture improvement, but not at full price...wait for a price drop.


    p.s i have 2 ps3's, i ran dvd and blu ray version simultaneously and switched TV inputs to compare.
     
  8. Nicholas Martin

    Nicholas Martin Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'll likely NOT buy this simply because I don't watch these films often enough on DVD as it is, but I love the extras they have.

    I sampled this film on my PS3 upscaled and like you, I found the DVD image quality to be just fine. I'll take your word for it regarding the BD being a minor improvement over the DVD version, and stick with the DVD only.
     
  9. Tim Glover

    Tim Glover Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1999
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Monroe, LA
    Real Name:
    Tim Glover
    Not the greatest Blu-ray in the world for sure....the audio though is even worse. I realize it's from 1989 but I actually had to check to see if both of my subs were even on. VERY weak LFE and just felt extremely dated. The Superman films from the late 70s and 1980 sound much fuller compared.

    I no longer have the original dvd to compare but the sound design was lacking.

    I know I'm sounding negative but man this film has NOT held up well after seeing the Batman world that Nolan has made.

    Funny how time and another adaption can change our views.
     
  10. Nicholas Martin

    Nicholas Martin Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    The mix on the Blu-ray is more than likely the same as both DVD versions, so lossless won't make it better. The fake surround mix isn't much different than what Dolby Pro Logic decoding does.

    As for the film itself, while I am so in love with the Nolan films that I don't even care if I ever see these four films again, the nostalgic feel they create is too strong to ignore them.

    I was 7 years old, turning 8 three months after Batman was released in June of 1989, so that whole phenomenon was the greatest thing since sliced bread to me...Batman was my Star Wars in that sense.
     
  11. Larry Sutliff

    Larry Sutliff Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    10

    I agree 100%, Tim. In all honesty, I never really loved BATMAN '89. I remember feeling disappointed when I saw it on opening night in June of '89. The movie lacks any real suspense or plot. At the time, I was at least happy that audiences got a chance to see a more serious take on the Batman, but I knew the film was far from definitive. Of the original four, I actually much prefer BATMAN RETURNS, which is a far more interesting piece of filmmaking(even though it takes enormous liberties with the Batman legend).

    BATMAN BEGINS was the movie I wanted to see in 1989. And TDK even more so.

    Also agree on the BD transfer. The picture is very flat, the sound mix is only adequate.
     

Share This Page