The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 3

[Ponyboy]

Originally Posted by The Joker

The Police didn't have the dirt on them to nail them. It wasn't about power. Harvey Dent was a D.A. not man power. Isn't that what Dent's approach was about, targeting the businesses suspected for fronting for Grissom. Napier said to Grissom Dent was sniffing around their front companies. That's why he was panicking about the Axis connection. "If he ties us in with Axis Chemicals we're dead and buried. We should move immediately". Getting the evidence to nail them.

I don't see why it wouldn't.

But the streets were not cleared. It was teeming with people. Since the Police showed up after the event (typical movie cliche of the Cops showing up late), they were obviously not leaving it for Batman to handle. Which would be rather stupid anyway since Batman had not won their favor by this point. They were still dubious about him.

Just because it's in a fictional world doesn't mean that all logic ceases. If we're in a world where a D.A. can nail the crime, where corrupt Cops can exist, then the Mayor, Police Commissioner, and the crime tackling D.A. taking steps to nail the biggest threat to the City after he's publicly handed himself to them on a plate is not an unreasonable expectation. The press managed to be there to snap photos. The Police should have been there, too, waiting for Joker.

The movie has plot holes. That's just one of them.

The Mayor said it at the beginning of the film. "Our streets are overrun, our public officials are helpless, etc.." I'm talking about man-power here. Maybe they simply didn't have the men. I don't know. I think the state of the police force is made clear through the actions of someone like Eckhart... remember what he said? Shoot to kill, know what I mean? And nobody batted an eye. I think the film tried to at least make some effort to show you the police force was not a force of "good." But I think you're not going to accept that these could be valid points and/or possibilities as to why they acted (or didn't) act towards the end of the film. And that's all good and fine too. I hope it doesn't detract from your enjoyment of the movie. At this point I'm picking it apart far too much, even for myself.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

The Mayor said it at the beginning of the film. "Our streets are overrun, our public officials are helpless, etc.." I'm talking about man-power here. Maybe they simply didn't have the men. I don't know.

The streets being overrun and the public officials being helpless, and he said the source of that was Grissom, the crime lord they could not touch because they had no dirt on him. He was like Carmine Falcone in Burton's Batman. It wasn't about Police man power, they had plenty of Cops, they just can't arrest anyone unless they have the dirt on them. That's what Dent was trying to do targeting their business and sniffing around their front companies etc.

I think the state of the police force is made clear through the actions of someone like Eckhart... remember what he said? Shoot to kill, know what I mean? And nobody batted an eye. I think the film tried to at least make some effort to show you the police force was not a force of "good."

Eckhart was obviously known to be a suspected corrupt Cop since Gordon was less than pleased when he was told Eckhart was in charge of the Axis raid, and said to him "I'm in charge here not Carl Grissom" when he confronted him at the Axis raid. Then he instructed the other Cops to not open fire on Napier because he obviously knew what Eckhart had told them to do.

But I think you're not going to accept that these could be valid points and/or possibilities as to why they acted (or didn't) act towards the end of the film. And that's all good and fine too. I hope it doesn't detract from your enjoyment of the movie. At this point I'm picking it apart far too much, even for myself.

I do enjoy it immensely, plot holes and all. I just don't disregard the flaws of the movie as though they don't exist. It's no secret there was script problems and re-writes with this movie, some even Sam Hamm himself doesn't approve of.

[Ponyboy]

Yep. Got all that. SOOooo... ... do we make out now or what?

[Ponyboy]

What I meant to say was... Yay! Uhh... how about that uhh... how about that Batman. Heh. *looks around*

[mikey1974]

didn't want to start any problems/arguments on here! LOL!

was just trying to make the point that if you look CLOSE enough, every movie, including the Bat-Films (all of them) will have what could be considered plotholes. that's why you're better off just going along for the ride and enjoying yourself,and not worrying about such things.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by mikey1974

didn't want to start any problems/arguments on here! LOL!

was just trying to make the point that if you look CLOSE enough, every movie, including the Bat-Films (all of them) will have what could be considered plotholes. that's why you're better off just going along for the ride and enjoying yourself,and not worrying about such things.

"If you really complain about the scratches in the paint you'll really miss the point of this car"

[CConn]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

"If you really complain about the scratches in the paint you'll really miss the point of this car"

If the car is an F1 racer, you are.

[TruerToTheCore]

Batman 89 is more like an Alfa Romeo 8C. Cool to look at, horrible to drive.

[CConn]

So then the paint isn't scratched? You kinda messed up your own analogy...

Anyhow, my point is, different types of movies (like different types of cars) serve different functions. In B89's case, plotting takes a backseat to the other visual, thematic, and character-driven aspects of the film. Sometimes, to really explore and fully flesh out those alternative aspects of a film, plotting HAS to take a backseat as to not distract the viewer from or overpower the rest of the film.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by CConn

So then the paint isn't scratched? You kinda messed up your own analogy...

The scratches are there, you just don't notice them from the distance.

Anyhow, my point is, different types of movies (like different types of cars) serve different functions. In B89's case, plotting takes a backseat to the other visual, thematic, and character-driven aspects of the film. Sometimes, to really explore and fully flesh out those alternative aspects of a film, plotting HAS to take a backseat as to not distract the viewer from or overpower the rest of the film.

Well, we all live in our own reality. When I look at the movie I see something that lacks nuts and bolts, is close to falling apart. And I certainly do not see the great "character-driven aspects" and themes. The best thing are the visuals and the music.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

The scratches are there, you just don't notice them from the distance.

I don't disagree. Plotting is the great flaw of the movie.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Well, we all live in our own reality. When I look at the movie I see something that lacks nuts and bolts, is close to falling apart. And I certainly do not see the great "character-driven aspects" and themes. The best thing are the visuals and the music.

The character moments are illustrated in a very subtle and (strangely) realistic.

The one example I always like to give is how Bruce reacts after he comes back from Joker's city hall shooting. Both Keaton and Gough expressed a great deal of emotional subtext 100% through their performances rather than any singular line of dialogue.

On one hand, you have Alfred, ungodly afraid and concerned for Bruce's safety, trying (I assume) for the 80 millionth time to quietly dissuade him from fighting crime. But, at the same time, he knows exactly how stubborn Bruce is, and rather say anything overt, he has to let his feelings show through offhanded comments ("Im relieved your home, sir") and his pushing the subject of Vicki.

Again, that quiet but extremely effective subplot of the movie with Alfred constantly trying to spur Bruce and Vicki's relationship on because he hopes that will lead Bruce away from Batman and away from the dark isolation he's in, is a very powerful plot line in the film. And I think through the writing, and Gough's performance, it takes on a very natural and organic progression.

I'm not trying to get into the one Burton v. Nolan argument, but, for instance, whenever Nolan addressed Alfred's personal storyline in his movies, he hit you over the head with it. You knew EXACTLY when Alfred was sad or mad or glad thanks due long streams of dialogue to express his opinions and emotions.

But people really aren't like that. Especially if they're dealing with a problem (Bruce's depression and obsession) that has been going on for countless years. Rather, they take that more quiet and demure approach. Almost like an abused family member; constantly trapped by their loved one's illness and failing, and constantly trying to escape without ever giving it true voice.

As for Bruce's side of that scene, it's all about his reactions. Both to the Joker's recent events and Alfred's bringing up of Vicki. You can very clearly tell throughout the entire scene that Bruce's focus - his obsession - is entirely directed at the Joker. It's nearly as if he's not even in the room mentally or emotionally as Alfred talks to him.

Moreover, when he replies to Alfred, he immediately ignores any and all reference of Vicki. And through the expressions, through his eyes, you can just feel that he doesn't really have a single good reason in the world for pushing Vicki away - all he can do is focus on his obsession and anxiety with the Joker.

This - from my own personal experience with people who struggle with childhood trauma, anxiety, and obsession - is an extremely realistic response to Alfred's efforts to escape the pit of depression he's fallen into. Despite the obvious logic and wisdom in Alfred's words, Bruce's psyche can't escape that cycle of mental illness and trauma that he's fallen into. Everything else becomes diminished and ultimately inconsequential compared to his singular obsession.

It's that type of character progression in B89 that I love - it's wholly organic and extremely believable - and even relatable. Now, I'll freely admit, it's perhaps due to the weaknesses of the scripting that Keaton and Gough had to give though performances, and express so much of their character's progression through their own expressions and acting, but nevertheless, what actually carried over onto the screen was pretty incredible, and had a level of subtle complexity that I rarely see in film - and I watch A LOT of films.

And I think that's part of the reason I enjoy B89 as much as I do; having seen a lot of American, European, and Asian films, I've noticed that American filmmakers heavily rely on scripting and plotting when making their films - everything else seems to almost take a backseat to getting the story to make sense, and perfectly progress from point A to point B.

Whereas, European filmmakers are a bit more comfortable with shifting focus away from scripting, and more into subtextual expression and investigation of its characters. Their movies' scripts can often be nonsensical, surreal, and downright non-existing in favor of effectively delivering the emotional or intellectual resonance that they wish to achieve.

And that's kind of what I see from B89. Rather than the story being paramount, a ton of focus is given to other - equally important aspects of film. There's the lighting that nods to Todd Browning's Dracula, there's the architecture that lends itself from Gothic works, there's their cinematography and shot selection that is inspired by silent German expressionism...

You're right. Essentially, B89's greatest strength IS its visuals. But it's not as simple as Burton's gothic tone or Furst's sets - it's about fully immersive, visual filmmaking - in the style of a silent film; where you HAVE to express yourself through visual storytelling and character expression. And that's a style of filmmaking that has been all but abandoned these past 70 years or so. And for that, I'll always respect both B89 as a film, and everyone who contributed to it due to their obvious academic knowledge of filmmaking and their reverence for its history.

[spidermanJLA!~]

I do love the facial emotions.

[The Guard]

People always whine about BATMAN's story. But there is one...and it's on the same level as those of most 80's action movies, with much better character insight than most films of the time period. It was a different time. While the rules of filmmaking and screenwriting haven't really changed much, the nature of screenwriting and the focus of film has to some degree over the last few decades.

[Ponyboy]

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Originally Posted by CConn

I don't disagree. Plotting is the great flaw of the movie.
The character moments are illustrated in a very subtle and (strangely) realistic.

The one example I always like to give is how Bruce reacts after he comes back from Joker's city hall shooting. Both Keaton and Gough expressed a great deal of emotional subtext 100% through their performances rather than any singular line of dialogue.

On one hand, you have Alfred, ungodly afraid and concerned for Bruce's safety, trying (I assume) for the 80 millionth time to quietly dissuade him from fighting crime. But, at the same time, he knows exactly how stubborn Bruce is, and rather say anything overt, he has to let his feelings show through offhanded comments ("Im relieved your home, sir") and his pushing the subject of Vicki.

Again, that quiet but extremely effective subplot of the movie with Alfred constantly trying to spur Bruce and Vicki's relationship on because he hopes that will lead Bruce away from Batman and away from the dark isolation he's in, is a very powerful plot line in the film. And I think through the writing, and Gough's performance, it takes on a very natural and organic progression.

I'm not trying to get into the one Burton v. Nolan argument, but, for instance, whenever Nolan addressed Alfred's personal storyline in his movies, he hit you over the head with it. You knew EXACTLY when Alfred was sad or mad or glad thanks due long streams of dialogue to express his opinions and emotions.

But people really aren't like that. Especially if they're dealing with a problem (Bruce's depression and obsession) that has been going on for countless years. Rather, they take that more quiet and demure approach. Almost like an abused family member; constantly trapped by their loved one's illness and failing, and constantly trying to escape without ever giving it true voice.

As for Bruce's side of that scene, it's all about his reactions. Both to the Joker's recent events and Alfred's bringing up of Vicki. You can very clearly tell throughout the entire scene that Bruce's focus - his obsession - is entirely directed at the Joker. It's nearly as if he's not even in the room mentally or emotionally as Alfred talks to him.

Moreover, when he replies to Alfred, he immediately ignores any and all reference of Vicki. And through the expressions, through his eyes, you can just feel that he doesn't really have a single good reason in the world for pushing Vicki away - all he can do is focus on his obsession and anxiety with the Joker.

This - from my own personal experience with people who struggle with childhood trauma, anxiety, and obsession - is an extremely realistic response to Alfred's efforts to escape the pit of depression he's fallen into. Despite the obvious logic and wisdom in Alfred's words, Bruce's psyche can't escape that cycle of mental illness and trauma that he's fallen into. Everything else becomes diminished and ultimately inconsequential compared to his singular obsession.

It's that type of character progression in B89 that I love - it's wholly organic and extremely believable - and even relatable. Now, I'll freely admit, it's perhaps due to the weaknesses of the scripting that Keaton and Gough had to give though performances, and express so much of their character's progression through their own expressions and acting, but nevertheless, what actually carried over onto the screen was pretty incredible, and had a level of subtle complexity that I rarely see in film - and I watch A LOT of films.

And I think that's part of the reason I enjoy B89 as much as I do; having seen a lot of American, European, and Asian films, I've noticed that American filmmakers heavily rely on scripting and plotting when making their films - everything else seems to almost take a backseat to getting the story to make sense, and perfectly progress from point A to point B.

Whereas, European filmmakers are a bit more comfortable with shifting focus away from scripting, and more into subtextual expression and investigation of its characters. Their movies' scripts can often be nonsensical, surreal, and downright non-existing in favor of effectively delivering the emotional or intellectual resonance that they wish to achieve.

And that's kind of what I see from B89. Rather than the story being paramount, a ton of focus is given to other - equally important aspects of film. There's the lighting that nods to Todd Browning's Dracula, there's the architecture that lends itself from Gothic works, there's their cinematography and shot selection that is inspired by silent German expressionism...

You're right. Essentially, B89's greatest strength IS its visuals. But it's not as simple as Burton's gothic tone or Furst's sets - it's about fully immersive, visual filmmaking - in the style of a silent film; where you HAVE to express yourself through visual storytelling and character expression. And that's a style of filmmaking that has been all but abandoned these past 70 years or so. And for that, I'll always respect both B89 as a film, and everyone who contributed to it due to their obvious academic knowledge of filmmaking and their reverence for its history.

[spidermanJLA!~]

Finally watched '89 Batman. First off, I know how the movie centers around Joker, but Batman/Bruce Wayne has some pretty good screentime. And BTW, We did see his origin later in the movie when Alfred let Vicki in while he was contemplating. And did you guys notice the scenes that Dark Knight "borrowed"? Such as when Joker was talking to the Italian boss that said" You're crazy", and of course the "Hit me scene." I would have liked some better fight scenes and a better Vicki Vale, but this movie has kind of fell into that category of movies that you watch and not realize it is 2 hours long. PS: As for Joker, in this movie he was gangster with anger issues and he was crazy. I had no problem with that. IMO, his Joker was Cesar Romero meets Heath Ledger meets a Crazy Jack Nicholson. And I really love the atmosphere, even though I can't relate to it.

[TheWatcher]

Let's not forget, this movie was the main inspiration for the greatest animated show of all time.

[Mace Dolex]

Originally Posted by mikey1974

you want plotholes? i'll give you plotholes!

- how do the Joker and his men survive entering the museum? you can clearly still see the poison gas still in there when they open the doors. it couldn't have disappeared THAT quickly!

The parody in MAD magazine humorously also pointed out that the poisoned gas balloons Batman just saved Gotham from and let loose might go and poison another city.

[TheWatcher]

It just started on Encore.

[Ponyboy]

[DARKxGOTHAMITE]

Yum!

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

New pic I've never seen, nice!

[Elevator Man]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

That's a nice rare behind the scene pic. Nicholson looks like he's ready to film as Burton and Batman go over the scene together.

[Cain]

Jack has such a sinister look on his face. As if he never fell out of character

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

He's trying to calculate in his head just how many millions he'll make from this thing...

[Ponyboy]

Looks like Nicholson is saying "That's one white boy that shouldn't be dancing..."