The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 3

[axecrazy]

That's a gorgeous figure! I hate the lucky bastard who gets to own it.

@ The Guard - Exactly. To expound on construct idea, even the mooks point this out to him in the Nolan Trilogy for gods sakes. When the bad guys realize that he's just a weirdo in a costume playing at being bad, they stop fearing him. They see through the construct and Batman loses his power over them. Instead they fear real psychos like Joker and Bane, because they know those guys don't pull any punches. The moral of Nolan's story seems to be don't **** with crazy people unless you're the real Batman. It's just a bad idea.

In contrast, Burton's Batman has a psychotic edge that most mooks recognize and respect on a primal level. The only bad guys who are willing to openly challenge Burton's Bat are the ones who are mentally unstable, brilliant, or just plain stupid. And they don't do so lightly because they know he is like them... only he defends the establishment rather than wants its destruction. The Timm/Dini Batman also has that crazy edge to a lesser extent.

[spidermanJLA!~]

Originally Posted by The Guard

This is kind of how I feel. Nolan's Bruce Wayne never really "lost himself to the monster", as Alfred suggested in BATMAN BEGINS. Nolan spent so much time focusing on physical ailments, and not nearly enough time really exploring the mental cost of being Batman. And I'm not talking about losing friends to madmen. Nor am I talking about being hated, or being what Gotham needs him to be. These are compelling concepts, but these concepts are also inherent to being Batman, and also inherent to many vigilantes. I don't think Nolan really went that deep into the concept of Bruce Wayne becoming and dealing with becoming Batman, to be honest. He focused on the concept of Bruce not wanting to be Batman anymore, but they're not the same thing.

If you look at this way, he loved being Batman as a person would love a new car. That is a broad view of course...

[CConn]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

But that's still ignoring all the ways he behaved that went against the people around him in the later two films.

In TDK, he was willing to turn himself in which opposed Alfred's advice for him to "endure". Then when he lets Dent take the blame, this only serves to infuriate Rachel. He also set up the whole sonar device without Lucius' knowledge, which put him on thin ice with Lucius for a moment there. Takes the blame for Dent despite Gordon's objections. Then of course in TDKR he suits up again despite Alfred's pleas and it leaves him utterly isolated. It's a gross generalization to say he was nothing but a mouthpiece for the supporting characters' ideals through all of the films.

He has a lot of various formative influences in BB keeping him reigned in, but he pretty much comes into his own in TDK. That's what classical hero's journey stories are all about, especially ones about orphans. There are many mentors and guides along the way.

But did he ever once go against Rachel's wishes? Nope, he was always led around by the scruff of his neck by a character who doesn't even exist in the comics. Horrible move.

I love Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman and I love the Burton movies. The difference there is that Bruce is pretty much a fully formed character from the start. I don't think he really learns a thing in 2 films or has much of an arc to speak of.

Then you really have no idea what you're talking about. Bruce had a massive - and extremely important - character arc that carried through both B89 and BR and actually even went into BF a bit too...

In the beginning of B89, Bruce is an eternally depressed and reclusive figure who has absolutely no interest in anything in life outside of avenging his parents' killer.

Once he's able to do this at the end of B89, his meaning for life itself is gone, so he becomes even more lost and rudderless; becoming an almost psychotic killer - thinking nothing of killing goons and thugs in BR. But, during this, he meets Selina, and she acts as his own dark mirror.

Through her he can see how futile it is to loose yourself in anger and pain and revenge. And that's exactly what he falls in love with her, and what's to help her so badly, because he wants them to save each other. Even though that doesn't happen for Selina, by the end of BR, Bruce realizes that he needs to overcome that pain rather than getting lost in it.

Which is made evident in BF, where he immediately shows a much more natural and sane interest in life outside of Batman (actual interaction with Wayne Enterprises, taking in Dick).

And that entire character arc was done with far more skill, nuance, and realism than anything in Nolan's films. Real people don't act like Nolan's characters. They don't have endless exposition that precisely explains their feelings and motivations. Instead, all of that would be done inwardly, largely hidden from the real life events swirling around him. And that's exactly what Burton and Keaton were always able to achieve.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by CConn

But did he ever once go against Rachel's wishes? Nope, he was always led around by the scruff of his neck by a character who doesn't even exist in the comics. Horrible move.

Letting Harvey to take the fall of being Batman for example.

Originally Posted by CConn

Then you really have no idea what you're talking about. Bruce had a massive - and extremely important - character arc that carried through both B89 and BR and actually even went into BF a bit too...

In the beginning of B89, Bruce is an eternally depressed and reclusive figure who has absolutely no interest in anything in life outside of avenging his parents' killer.

Once he's able to do this at the end of B89, his meaning for life itself is gone, so he becomes even more lost and rudderless; becoming an almost psychotic killer - thinking nothing of killing goons and thugs in BR. But, during this, he meets Selina, and she acts as his own dark mirror.

Through her he can see how futile it is to loose yourself in anger and pain and revenge. And that's exactly what he falls in love with her, and what's to help her so badly, because he wants them to save each other. Even though that doesn't happen for Selina, by the end of BR, Bruce realizes that he needs to overcome that pain rather than getting lost in it.

Which is made evident in BF, where he immediately shows a much more natural and sane interest in life outside of Batman (actual interaction with Wayne Enterprises, taking in Dick).

And that entire character arc was done with far more skill, nuance, and realism than anything in Nolan's films. Real people don't act like Nolan's characters. They don't have endless exposition that precisely explains their feelings and motivations. Instead, all of that would be done inwardly, largely hidden from the real life events swirling around him. And that's exactly what Burton and Keaton were always able to achieve.

That's fine and all, I have the same impression, though its a little shoehorned when coming to "Forever", but lacks a little heroism.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by CConn

Once he's able to do this at the end of B89, his meaning for life itself is gone, so he becomes even more lost and rudderless; becoming an almost psychotic killer - thinking nothing of killing goons and thugs in BR. But, during this, he meets Selina, and she acts as his own dark mirror.

Through her he can see how futile it is to loose yourself in anger and pain and revenge. And that's exactly what he falls in love with her, and what's to help her so badly, because he wants them to save each other. Even though that doesn't happen for Selina, by the end of BR, Bruce realizes that he needs to overcome that pain rather than getting lost in it.

Which is made evident in BF, where he immediately shows a much more natural and sane interest in life outside of Batman (actual interaction with Wayne Enterprises, taking in Dick).

And that entire character arc was done with far more skill, nuance, and realism than anything in Nolan's films. Real people don't act like Nolan's characters. They don't have endless exposition that precisely explains their feelings and motivations. Instead, all of that would be done inwardly, largely hidden from the real life events swirling around him. And that's exactly what Burton and Keaton were always able to achieve.

But see, that's partially the problem. I know BF is considered a loose sequel to Burton's movies, but if we're discussing Burton you can't go and use BF to inform the character arc of Burton's films when we have no idea what Burton's third movie would have actually looked like. Maybe it would have been close to what BF is...but we don't know. If Burton had been allowed to finish his story, perhaps we'd have a more complete character arc for Batman. As it stands we were left with an unfinished story and I still have no reason to believe Keaton's Batman has ultimately changed in any lasting way as a result of the events of Batman Returns.

Is he going to be any less obsessed with killing goons and thugs in the future as a result of his flirtation with hope with Selina? I have no idea. I can't use Batman Forever to come to any conclusions because that movie was a deliberate attempt by the studio to lighten up the franchise.

Again though, I loved the subtle, inward approach of Burton. I have a similar reading of BR as you do, I just feel a lot of it is ultimately ambiguous because that's how Burton viewed Batman as a character. I just also loved the more pronounced arc we got with Nolan. It's okay to enjoy both.

[CConn]

Nah, you didn't necessarily need a third movie.

"Good will toward men...and women." Was actually a fittingly subtle end to Burton's statement on Bruce Wayne; pretty much informing the audience that Bruce now had a different outlook on life and humanity...in effect, stating he was now going to be that heroic figure as opposed the anti-hero we were given in the first two movies.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

That's fine and all, I have the same impression, though its a little shoehorned when coming to "Forever", but lacks a little heroism.

But Batman's an anti-hero. That's the point.

And besides, I wouldn't necessarily call Bale's Batman all that heroic. Don't get me wrong, he was always there to save people when needed, but he had scads of narcissism too.

[ThePhantasm]

I wish we had some idea of what Burton was planning to do with Bruce's character in his third film. Has Burton ever talked about it?

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by CConn

But Batman's an anti-hero. That's the point.

And besides, I wouldn't necessarily call Bale's Batman all that heroic. Don't get me wrong, he was always there to save people when needed, but he had scads of narcissism too.

We'll that's that. At the end of the day, I see Batman as a hero. Our view of the character is different, nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I wish we had some idea of what Burton was planning to do with Bruce's character in his third film. Has Burton ever talked about it?

I think it was talked that the villian was going to be the Riddler, and Robin Williams was gonna be cast as him. Let me see if I can find the source.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

I think it was talked that the villian was going to be the Riddler, and Robin Williams was gonna be cast as him. Let me see if I can find the source.

I remember the villain rumors, I just don't remember if anything was said about where Bruce's character arc would go.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

We'll that's that. At the end of the day, I see Batman as a hero. Our view of the character is different, nothing wrong with that.

Youre over-simplifying it.

Do you even know how Bruce is characterized in the comics currently? He's an utter prick. Obsessive, egotistical, and downright abusive to the people around him half the time. He makes Keaton's Batman look tame.

Preferably, my favorite characterization of Bruce is probably the extremely well-adjusted and strangely cheerful Batman of the mid-to-late 70s, who actually bares no resemblance to either Keaton or Bale.

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Originally Posted by CConn

Youre over-simplifying it.

Do you even know how Bruce is characterized in the comics currently? He's an utter prick. Obsessive, egotistical, and downright abusive to the people around him half the time. He makes Keaton's Batman look tame.

Preferably, my favorite characterization of Bruce is probably the extremely well-adjusted and strangely cheerful Batman of the mid-to-late 70s, who actually bares no resemblance to either Keaton or Bale.

Agreed CConn, though he's not that bad now, and he definitely isn't as bad as he was in the 90s when all of what you described now was taken to the nth levels.


My favorite characterization of Bruce is actually Jeph Loeb's from Hush. He characterized him as a guy who genuinely cared for the people around him while not having him mope around all the time.

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

But see, that's partially the problem. I know BF is considered a loose sequel to Burton's movies, but if we're discussing Burton you can't go and use BF to inform the character arc of Burton's films when we have no idea what Burton's third movie would have actually looked like. Maybe it would have been close to what BF is...but we don't know. If Burton had been allowed to finish his story, perhaps we'd have a more complete character arc for Batman. As it stands we were left with an unfinished story and I still have no reason to believe Keaton's Batman has ultimately changed in any lasting way as a result of the events of Batman Returns.

Is he going to be any less obsessed with killing goons and thugs in the future as a result of his flirtation with hope with Selina? I have no idea. I can't use Batman Forever to come to any conclusions because that movie was a deliberate attempt by the studio to lighten up the franchise.

Again though, I loved the subtle, inward approach of Burton. I have a similar reading of BR as you do, I just feel a lot of it is ultimately ambiguous because that's how Burton viewed Batman as a character. I just also loved the more pronounced arc we got with Nolan. It's okay to enjoy both.

Burton's vision aside, I think BF was still a decent end to Bruce's arc (that could have been better if it wasn't for WB/Schumacher) and it enhances BR in my eyes because I think the three movies together says a lot about revenge, the road you take when you fulfill it, and afterwards. After B89, in BR Batman was even more violent, and the events of BR clearly did have an effect on Bruce and BR was referenced once or twice in it.

I agree with CConn on the arc of the character.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by CConn

Youre over-simplifying it.

Do you even know how Bruce is characterized in the comics currently? He's an utter prick. Obsessive, egotistical, and downright abusive to the people around him half the time. He makes Keaton's Batman look tame.

Preferably, my favorite characterization of Bruce is probably the extremely well-adjusted and strangely cheerful Batman of the mid-to-late 70s, who actually bares no resemblance to either Keaton or Bale.

Well I never said it was the "perfect" hero. One of the characteristics I like the most about the character is his humanity. I'm sorry if I'm not up to date to the comics, but saying that I have a oversimplified view of the character is is an understatement. There are many interpretations of Batman I like, but I like ones more than anothers.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Again though, I loved the subtle, inward approach of Burton. I have a similar reading of BR as you do, I just feel a lot of it is ultimately ambiguous because that's how Burton viewed Batman as a character. I just also loved the more pronounced arc we got with Nolan. It's okay to enjoy both.

I'm with you on this one

[CConn]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

Well I never said it was the "perfect" hero. One of the characteristics I like the most about the character is his humanity. I'm sorry if I'm not up to date to the comics, but saying that I have a oversimplified view of the character is is an understatement. There are many interpretations of Batman I like, but I like ones more than anothers.

I'm saying, if you think Keaton's Batman is too dark, then the actual comics version of the character would probably be near-vomitus to you.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by CConn

I'm saying, if you think Keaton's Batman is too dark, then the actual comics version of the character would probably be near-vomitus to you.

You can't know that . Besides, even though I am by no means an expert, I have made my fair share of reading. Perhaps, All Star Batman and Robin is the most outrageous I have read, but was fun. That and The Dark Knight Strikes Again, which I disliked.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by axecrazy

In contrast, Burton's Batman has a psychotic edge that most mooks recognize and respect on a primal level. The only bad guys who are willing to openly challenge Burton's Bat are the ones who are mentally unstable, brilliant, or just plain stupid. And they don't do so lightly because they know he is like them... only he defends the establishment rather than wants its destruction. The Timm/Dini Batman also has that crazy edge to a lesser extent.

What mooks are these? The only criminals I saw show any fear of Keaton's Batman were the two muggers at the start of Batman '89. The Joker wasn't scared of him. Penguin wasn't scared of him. Catwoman wasn't scared of him. Schreck never registered his presence in Gotham. Grissom never mentioned him before he died. Half way through Batman 1989, Joker's men knock Batman out in an alley and figure out he's just a guy in a costume.

I never ever got the sense Keaton's Batman was a fearsome presence in Gotham in Burton's movies.

I saw more fear from the criminal underworld of Batman's presence in Begins alone, than I did in both of Burton's movies combined. I haven't even mentioned the scenes in TDK where you see criminals too afraid to do anything at the sight of the batsignal, bringing attack dogs with them to the drug meets, and the mob meeting up in day time to avoid Batman.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by CConn

I'm saying, if you think Keaton's Batman is too dark, then the actual comics version of the character would probably be near-vomitus to you.

That seems like an over-simplification too. There are a wide variety of interpretations of the character in the comics.

[axecrazy]

Originally Posted by The Joker

What mooks are these? The only criminals I saw show any fear of Keaton's Batman were the two muggers at the start of Batman '89. The Joker wasn't scared of him. Penguin wasn't scared of him. Catwoman wasn't scared of him. Schreck never registered his presence in Gotham. Grissom never mentioned him before he died. Half way through Batman 1989, Joker's men knock Batman out in an alley and figure out he's just a guy in a costume.

I never ever got the sense Keaton's Batman was a fearsome presence in Gotham in Burton's movies.

I saw more fear from the criminal underworld of Batman's presence in Begins alone, than I did in both of Burton's movies combined. I haven't even mentioned the scenes in TDK where you see criminals too afraid to do anything at the sight of the batsignal, bringing attack dogs with them to the drug meets, and the mob meeting up in day time to avoid Batman.

Actually, Knox tells us what the rest of the low level mooks think. In fact, he doesn't have to say it. The opening scene is brilliant because the discussion tells us all the other punks in Gotham are talking about the same thing in hushed voices. A giant bat seems to preying on their kind... and they are spooked because the stories are coming from guys who don't usually fear anything during Gotham's wild nights. The more cynical and loud mooks laugh at the idea... until they meet the Bat for themselves. He 'converts' them and they go out spreading his 'gospel'. Among low level criminals the Bat is the bogeyman... even if they realize he's a guy in a suit. In fact, they probably fear him MORE when they make the realization because it's clear this guy is a wee bit crazy to be doing what he does. He's freak, a psycho who just happens to prey on other psychos instead of the rest of society. Are you scared of this fictional apparition yet?


So, like duh, yes all the sane mooks are terrified of him. Probably even more so since he put an end to Jack Napier and his gang. The RTCG are freaks... psychopaths emboldened by the new Lord of the Underworld. And lets be very clear here: just because Penguin thinks he's big enough to take down the Bat doesn't mean it is so. Batman retaliates after the Penguin's initial salvo, driving him back to the sewers. Penguin, like Joker before him, goes berserk and tries first kill the children, then tries to level the heart of Gotham City. Batman foils him both times. And when the RTCG finally realize Penguin is in over his head they abandon him in face of the oncoming Shadow of Bat. Batman defeats the Penguin, smashes the RTCG, and all is well again with the Bat-signal in the sky. Burton's Bat gets the job done.

Catwoman is crazy and doesn't fear anything... least of all a man. Like I said, only crazy people and their dumb minions **** with Burton's Bat. Anyone who is dumb enough to challenge him gets their ass handed to them in short order. The wiser mooks scurry into the shadows when they hear the Batmobile coming. And that is the whole point of the Batman persona, not to be some hollow 'symbol' for the masses.

Furthermore, Batman doesn't target the mob first in the Burton movies. He starts small and works his way up to build the legend. But when he hears the police are closing in on the mob's number two guy, he decides to be on site in case he needs to intervene directly in the capture, which he does when Napier tries to kill Gordon. He backs off during a mexican stand-off. But Napier doesn't take the hint or listen to a reasonable Bob -- he kills Eckhardt in full view of the Commissioner of Police. Batman reappears to remind Napier that he is still watching, but Jack doesn't take that hint either and tries to kill Batman. The rest is history. After his resurrection, Joker takes over the underworld and kills any rivals foolish enough to challenge him. So the mob is a non-issue in the Burton films because Joker took care of them early on.

Did you even watch Batman 89? Those are basic story differences obvious to anyone who watches the films. I'm talking about the impression Batman makes in Burton's films versus the Nolan Trilogy. Burton Batman gets the job done and his stature increases every time he does, whereas Nolan Batman has the stature of squashed hedgehog. As soon as the Joker appears, the criminals in Nolan's movies stop fearing Batman. His mystique and fear factor evaporates because he is only a construct created by Bruce Wayne to hide behind.

The construct serves it's purpose and becomes a statue at the end of the trilogy, with Bruce Wayne going off somewhere to live happily ever after. Now you may think that's great and all, but that's not the core of Batman. In fact, Nolan's movies don't have Batman in them at all. Just a guy called Bruce Wayne who dresses like a bat. A small distinction that makes all the difference in the world...

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by axecrazy

Actually, Knox tells us what the rest of the low level mooks think.

The worst possible way to show Batman is a feared presence in Gotham. A throw away line.

In fact, he doesn't have to say it. The opening scene is brilliant because the discussion tells us all the other punks in Gotham are talking about the same thing in hushed voices. A giant bat seems to preying on their kind... and they are spooked because the stories are coming from guys who don't usually fear anything during Gotham's wild nights. The more cynical and loud mooks laugh at the idea... until they meet the Bat for themselves. He 'converts' them and they go out spreading his 'gospel'. Among low level criminals the Bat is the bogeyman... even if they realize he's a guy in a suit. In fact, they probably fear him MORE when they make the realization because it's clear this guy is a wee bit crazy to be doing what he does. He's freak, a psycho who just happens to prey on other psychos instead of the rest of society. Are you scared of this fictional apparition yet?

I think you are strongly over glorifying this scene. One of the punks is scared at the prospect of a Bat because apparently he killed someone called Johnny Gobbs. The other one doesn't believe there is any Bat and Johnny Gobbs killed himself.

That's it. One scared punk.

Yeah, Batman's appearance and scaring the life out of them is great, but it begins and ends there. The so called legend of Batman in the Gotham underworld goes no further than this scene. His mythical status as a Bat creature is erased in an hour by the Joker's men knocking him out and seeing he's just a man in a costume wearing body armor.

So, like duh, yes all the sane mooks are terrified of him. Probably even more so since he put an end to Jack Napier and his gang.

Conjecture.

The RTCG are freaks... psychopaths emboldened by the new Lord of the Underworld. And lets be very clear here: just because Penguin thinks he's big enough to take down the Bat doesn't mean it is so.

That's not the point. The fact is he wasn't scared of him. He wasn't intimidated by the so called legend of Batman's status in Gotham. He basically laughs in Batman's face asking him if he actually thinks he stands a chance of winning. In fact the Penguin never even mentions Batman until they first meet nearly an hour into the movie.

Batman retaliates after the Penguin's initial salvo, driving him back to the sewers. Penguin, like Joker before him, goes berserk and tries first kill the children, then tries to level the heart of Gotham City. Batman foils him both times. And when the RTCG finally realize Penguin is in over his head they abandon him in face of the oncoming Shadow of Bat. Batman defeats the Penguin, smashes the RTCG, and all is well again with the Bat-signal in the sky. Burton's Bat gets the job done.

Repeating the events of the movie doesn't alter the fact that Batman was not shown a feared presence in Batman Returns. Nobody is talking about Batman's ability to foil the criminals plans here.

So I don't know what point you're trying to make with this.

Anyone who is dumb enough to challenge him gets their ass handed to them in short order.

That's true of every version of Batman. Batman's fighting ability is not the issue either.

It seems like you're going off on unrelated tangents here.

The wiser mooks scurry into the shadows when they hear the Batmobile coming. And that is the whole point of the Batman persona, not to be some hollow 'symbol' for the masses.

Where did you see any of this in Batman or Batman Returns?

Furthermore, Batman doesn't target the mob first in the Burton movies. He starts small and works his way up to build the legend. But when he hears the police are closing in on the mob's number two guy, he decides to be on site in case he needs to intervene directly in the capture, which he does when Napier tries to kill Gordon. He backs off during a mexican stand-off. But Napier doesn't take the hint or listen to a reasonable Bob -- he kills Eckhardt in full view of the Commissioner of Police. Batman reappears to remind Napier that he is still watching, but Jack doesn't take that hint either and tries to kill Batman. The rest is history. After his resurrection, Joker takes over the underworld and kills any rivals foolish enough to challenge him. So the mob is a non-issue in the Burton films because Joker took care of them early on.

Did you even watch Batman 89? Those are basic story differences obvious to anyone who watches the films.

I'm well aware of all of this. Why are you constantly repeating the events of the movie as though they are a mystery and hard to understand?

Does anything you've said there change the fact that the only criminals you see show any fear of Batman's presence in Gotham in Burton's Batman movies is those two muggers at the beginning of the movie? No.

I'm talking about the impression Batman makes in Burton's films versus the Nolan Trilogy. Burton Batman gets the job done and his stature increases every time he does, whereas Nolan Batman has the stature of squashed hedgehog. As soon as the Joker appears, the criminals in Nolan's movies stop fearing Batman. His mystique and fear factor evaporates because he is only a construct created by Bruce Wayne to hide behind.

I think you have a very different interpretation to what I saw

Batman 1989; He goes from a mythical creature, to a guy in a suit, to the hero of Gotham

Batman Returns; He goes from hero to wanted murderer of the local Christmas tree lighter (which is never rectified)

Second, the criminals in Gotham do NOT stop fearing Batman in TDK. It's just that they fear the Joker even more than him, which is as it should be since the Joker is undeniably a worse creature than Batman is.

The construct serves it's purpose and becomes a statue at the end of the trilogy, with Bruce Wayne going off somewhere to live happily ever after. Now you may think that's great and all, but that's not the core of Batman.

In what way is that not the core of Batman? You've never read a Batman story set in the future where he retired?

In fact, Nolan's movies don't have Batman in them at all. Just a guy called Bruce Wayne who dresses like a bat. A small distinction that makes all the difference in the world...

Is that why DC alumni like Denny O'Neill consider Nolan's Batman the best Batman movies yet?

You're entitled to your own opinion of course, but I can identify more Batman in one of Nolan's movies alone, than I can in both of Burton's movies combined. That's coming from someone who enjoys Burton's movies.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/159...etations.jhtml

[ThePhantasm]

I agree with The Joker. Aside from Knox's throwaway line and 89's opening scene, there's no real sense that anyone is all that afraid of Batman.

[spidermanJLA!~]

Joker's just mad he died in Batman '89.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by axecrazy

Did you even watch Batman 89? Those are basic story differences obvious to anyone who watches the films. I'm talking about the impression Batman makes in Burton's films versus the Nolan Trilogy. Burton Batman gets the job done and his stature increases every time he does, whereas Nolan Batman has the stature of squashed hedgehog. As soon as the Joker appears, the criminals in Nolan's movies stop fearing Batman. His mystique and fear factor evaporates because he is only a construct created by Bruce Wayne to hide behind.

Eh but what do you think Batman is? Of course he is a construct (aren't we all?). In the original origin story he's trying to find a way to fight crime and decides to dress as a bat.

The construct serves it's purpose and becomes a statue at the end of the trilogy, with Bruce Wayne going off somewhere to live happily ever after. Now you may think that's great and all, but that's not the core of Batman. In fact, Nolan's movies don't have Batman in them at all. Just a guy called Bruce Wayne who dresses like a bat. A small distinction that makes all the difference in the world...

You are not familiar with most versions of Batman, so it seems. You only know the modern fanatical vigilante. Originally being Batman was nothing more than a hobby. No patrols every night and ****. You also know what happened to Earth-2 Batman? There is nothing wrong with retiring.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

Well, there are many interpretations of Batman. The whole thing of "Bruce Wayne died with his parents" never seamed well with me. That's why I like a lot more Nolan's Batman, he is more human.

Well, "Bruce Wayne died with his parents" just sounds cool. When you are 14 years old. Keep in mind, in 1989 the version that still counted as Batman since the "new" Batman wasn't really defined was still the pre-crisis version where young Bruce even speculated about becoming an ordinary policeman.

I like Burton's Batman too, but I don't see it as a definitive version of the character. That goes to DCAU Batman.

Although you have to make a difference between the original BTAS Batman and the TNBA/JL Batman. The former was more like a "nice uncle" (he even had a Grey Ghost's Lair...) while the later one was more in line with the Batdick from the comics. Seems natural, when BTAS was developed its creators were still drawing from Batman stuff from guys like O'Neil, Robbins, Reed, Wein, Conway, Moench and Barr while later they seem to be more influenced by the 90s writers.