Am I the only one who feels like B'89 is vastly overrated?

[Mr. Socko]

You know, looking at what Jack did (from the film on youtube) I'm really starting to notice all the mannerisms he brought into the character - much like Heath, he seems to have this peculiar way of walking, and this constant half-gleam in his eyes that, at times seems to give him an almost reptilian look.

He has this way of moving his arms that's oddly foreboding as well - this is evidenced most by the scene in the belltower where he sends the bell crashing down below, I think.

The way he incorporates the laugh into the character is of note as well - much like Heath has done, it seems, but in a different direction. It's very natural, almost subdued in a couple of scenes, like a nervous twitch.

Just a couple of observations.

Oh, completely. Jack brought the Joker to life in movement and voice. He simply happened to use many of his own distinct mannerisms to do so. It's just that many people seem to think because he used his own style to bring the Joker to life it somehow makes it lesser, which certainly isn't true. Heath Ledger was phenomenal in The Dark Knight, he- opposed to Jack, created all of his Joker mannerisms(such as voice and walk) from scratch. From this day forward, Heath Ledger goes down in history. But that certainly doesn't erase Jack from history.

RIP Jack Nicholson's Joker.

Read the above.

He's far from dead and his massive amount of fans know it. The day people stop watching Batman '89 will be the day he dies. That day will never come. Besides...Heath's the one that died. Literally.

Please, no need to sink to such a level.

Obviously nothing needs to be said about the godawful Schumacher movies.

Schumacher directed a very fun and bold take on Batman. It's not the serious and dark approach that most love, but I sill find it enjoyable.

 

[Monstera]

Oh, in the wrong context the right movie doesn't work. Fantastic find.

You bolded:

Looking back at it both objectively and in the context of the Nolan movies

and missed

Looking back at it both objectively and in the context of the Nolan movies

Originally Posted by Monstera

Batman 89 was an interesting experiment on how to do an "authentic/dark" film Batman-- and the attempt is admirable-- but it falls pretty short.

How exactly?

Because it was all dark atmosphere and no substance. Barely a plot or properly-motivated/well-rounded characters. Burton found the appeal about 45-50% of the Bat-verse and missed everything else.

Gotham will be always worthy to fight for. Batman the character doesn't fight for a better or worse desgined city.

Batman fighting for a Burton Gotham that consists of nothing but jerks-off isn't tragic or dramatic or noble-- it's just plain stupid. Batman shouldn't be stupid.

You have to. Nolanites are the worst kind of advertising Chris Nolan could get. Not only he loves B89 but he kept the black rubber suit Burton created.

The whole idea that there are terms such as "Nolanites" and "Burtonites" being thrown around so cavalierly is pretty ******ed. It demeans meaningful discussion. I don't log in here much, but once it reaches the point where someone is using ad hominem shorthand to snicker at other fans, then maybe it's time to take a break from all the online nerdery.

 

[Cain]

Oh, completely. Jack brought the Joker to life in movement and voice. He simply happened to use many of his own distinct mannerisms to do so. It's just that many people seem to think because he used his own style to bring the Joker to life it somehow makes it lesser, which certainly isn't true. Heath Ledger was phenomenal in The Dark Knight, he- opposed to Jack, created all of his Joker mannerisms(such as voice and walk) from scratch. From this day forward, Heath Ledger goes down in history. But that certainly doesn't erase Jack from history.

Exactly Nicholson's performance will always be remembered because it was very much still The Joker in the flesh. Just because 20 years helped Ledger bring and even more authentic interpretation to life does not make this untrue. Jack was great.

Schumacher directed a very fun and bold take on Batman. It's not the serious and dark approach that most love, but I sill find it enjoyable.

Yeah, funny thing is today my friends and I were talking on the way back from the IMAX and his movies came up. They were shocked that I enjoy them. Forever still has one of my favorite takes on Bruce Wayne/Batman for that alone it always has a place in my DVD player. B&R is foolish too but it has it's good points outside of what we always cite (cinematography, Alfred and Bruce) things like Batman being sympathetic and reaching out to a villain a la Freeze by the end of this movie is classic Batman.

 

[El Payaso]

You bolded:



and missed

objectively

Yeah, I omitted the false statement ex profeso.

Because it was all dark atmosphere and no substance. Barely a plot or properly-motivated/well-rounded characters.

Motivations for the main characters are quite clear. And the psychological implications are there too. Add to that the excellent dark atmosphere.

Burton found the appeal about 45-50% of the Bat-verse and missed everything else.

Fortunately Burton only chose the 45-50 best percentage of Batman. He also admitted that back in the day it was impossible to get away with a very faithful adaptation so it wasn't too mjuch of his own decision.

Batman fighting for a Burton Gotham that consists of nothing but jerks-off isn't tragic or dramatic or noble-- it's just plain stupid. Batman shouldn't be stupid.

What's really stupid is to judge people before deciding if you're going to defend them. A hero doesn't do that. If for that let's have the BB's kid and Rachel killed at once.

The whole idea that there are terms such as "Nolanites" and "Burtonites" being thrown around so cavalierly is pretty ******ed. It demeans meaningful discussion.

Did you just say "meaningful discussion"?

I don't log in here much, but once it reaches the point where someone is using ad hominem shorthand to snicker at other fans, then maybe it's time to take a break from all the online nerdery.

As you wish.

 

[Monstera]

Yeah, I omitted the false statement ex profeso.

How can a personal judgment be false? Since this is art we're talking about, and not a science, I was offering a normative analysis. At this point, the meaningful discussion arises from the ability to express opinions and evaluations that don't contain contradicting statements, as well as make these critical assessments in good faith that there is an ideal model of the art form; in this case storytelling. And personal enlightenment and thinkning beyond your own point of view thanks to fruitful discussion among fans goes a long way.

"The false statement" : I saw B89 again a decade later after my happy childhood memories of it-- not being sure if I would like it or not as an adult. I judged it on its merits as a film at this point, ex animo, and not as a fan of Batman. Hence, as close to objective as personally possible.

The conjunctional statement also adds that I DO compare it to the Nolan films in hindsight after seeing those, in addition to the former statement. None of these opinions are false. They're just opinions. It's disingenuous to cherry-pick one assessment to the extent of disqualifying another because it doesn't fit tidily into your argument.

Besides which, that argument itself (that comparing one version of an adaptation to another separate adaptation, with both being derived from the same original source material, ie., "judging Burton's Batman in comparison to Nolan's Batman is wrong") is indeed a false premise. Why is it invalid to review by comparison in this case?

I admit I haven't done a thorough critique of Batman 89, so there isn't a whole lot of content for you to make a rebuttal. That still doesn't excuse you from making disingenuous statements.


I have to go right now, my dog just shat all over the carpet.

Also, as for meaningful discussion; if you don't find any to be had here, then why join in on conversations? Is it for fanboy pissing contests?

 

[The Guard]

How did Burton only mine 50% of what makes Batman great now? That's an interesting statement to make.

 

[Cain]

Besides which, that argument itself (that comparing one version of an adaptation to another separate adaptation, with both being derived from the same original source material, ie., "judging Burton's Batman in comparison to Nolan's Batman is wrong") is indeed a false premise.

How is it a false premise? ever think some of us just recognize differences in style and acknowledge that when forming our opinions. I could never down Burton because his creativity functions differently from Nolan's.

To me it's like saying you don't like Picasso because you feel he needs to be more like Da Vinci. I mean I would want Picasso to just be Picasso and Da Vinci to just be Da Vinci. I could only compare John Glen's Bond movies to each other and not Martin Campbell's because they both had completely different sensibilities when approaching the same source material. Which is why I could compare Batman to BR or BB to TDK because each of those films comes from the same creative source and could be compared to highlight the evolution of each filmmaker's style from picture to picture.

 

[terry78]

This is the gospel truth right here...had Burton not given us a more gritty live action Bats, all the dark Bat-**** we've gotten since 1990 would not exist. Because WB didn't want to take a chance on that.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Yeah, I think Burton is to blame that Batman comics turned into such an unreadable mess in the 90s.

 

[Cain]

Yeah, I think Burton is to blame that Batman comics turned into such an unreadable mess in the 90s.

Grant and Breyfogle's run is not an unreadable mess. But I do think some comic writers did misunderstand Miller's TDKR and ran with it like it was some kind of authority on the character. I think that had more of an effect than Burton's movies.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Grant and Breyfogle's run is not an unreadable mess. But I do think some comic writers did misunderstand Miller's TDKR and ran with it like it was some kind of authority on the character. I think that had more of an effect than Burton's movies.

You're so right. There was a deliberate attempt to turn Batman into the Dark Knight Batman, especially in the likes of War Games and such.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Grant and Breyfogle's run is not an unreadable mess. But I do think some comic writers did misunderstand Miller's TDKR and ran with it like it was some kind of authority on the character. I think that had more of an effect than Burton's movies.

Of course not, but that run started in the 80s.

(And Alan Grant didn't care for Miller's take, why should he? He came from 2000AD, where Miller ripped off many things)

And of course, the success of Burton's Batpsycho showed the powers-that-were at DC "Look, the people like the dark Batman!" so they made him more and more into a jerk.

 

[Cain]

And of course, the success of Burton's Batpsycho showed the powers-that-were at DC "Look, the people like the dark Batman!" so they made him more and more into a jerk.

I still think it had more to do with TDKR's success and impact more so than anything else. Think about how many comic industry people still consider it the most essential Batman story. Also think of the fact that there were people in the industry who didn't even care for Burton's movies. The only real impact I could see be mandated by EIC's were that the books managed to adopt a similar aesthetic to Burton's movies but thematically they were different animals. Another influence from the movies was the creation of LOTDK which while many were in continuity stories still had no bearing on the present chronology of the other Bat titles.

A lot of those post-Knigtfall and pre-Face The Face books had more in common with TDKR than anything else. Also keep in mind during that period there were still books mainly Bob Gale's NML stuff as well as things by Ed Brubaker and Greg Rucka that harkened back to the tone of the 70's and early 80's more so than acting as an extension of most of the mid 90's to mid 00's output.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I still think it had more to do with TDKR's success and impact more so than anything else. Think about how many comic industry people still consider it the most essential Batman story. Also think of the fact that there were people in the industry who didn't even care for Burton's movies. The only real impact I could see be mandated by EIC's were that the books managed to adopt a similar aesthetic to Burton's movies but thematically they were different animals. Another influence from the movies was the creation of LOTDK which while many were in continuity stories still had no bearing on the present chronology of the other Bat titles.

A lot of those post-Knigtfall and pre-Face The Face books had more in common with TDKR than anything else. Also keep in mind during that period there were still books mainly Bob Gale's NML stuff as well as things by Ed Brubaker and Greg Rucka that harkened back to the tone of the 70's and early 80's more so than acting as an extension of most of the mid 90's to mid 00's output.

Despite what people use to say these days, that DKR was such a "ground-breaking" work it was heavily critizised by a lot of people. Especially British writers who knew 2000AD comics did know (and DID this stuff before Miller) weren't that impressed by DKR and many Batman's fans were really alienated. "Year One" was much more accepted, but that "book" was much tamer. It was just when Miller's fan grew up and started to write comic themselves (okay, and anyone must notice that there was a trend of "Brutalization" in almost all superhero comics. Look at Venom or Carnage in Spider-Man). Well, Denny O'Neil (who is totally overrated) seemed to be impressed by Miller.

The "breaking of the BAt" was really somehow the end of the Darknight Detective era, enter the Dark Knight. ALthough he didn't really take over the character until "Zero Hour".

And then everything fell apart. "Batman" became Bruce Wayne's true personality, they wanted to write him as an urban legend (what never worked), he acted like a jerk to everyone close to him, he became a loner (yeah, unlike what people believe Batman was never a loner like... SUperman!).

I think Burton's success was one of the reasons for the "Dark Knight" (although the comics Batman was never like Keaton's Batman), together with the "DKR kids" and the general trend of the industry. And yes, another reason was that after the breakdown of the newsstand system comics became "written by fanboys for fanboys" stuff. The audience changed and it was not longer meant to be for kids and the mass market.

"OYL" was a necessary cut for Batman. Dini's doing a good job and Morrison, too.

(BTW, I really liked the "Club of Heroes" arc, it's kinda funny that he took the members and made them "fragments" of Batman's personalities he showed during all these years. This is a great article about this: http://www.4thletter.net/2007/11/batman-is-bruce-wayne-many-troubles-in-your-brain/ )

 

[MysterioMenace]

If you’re going to blame Burton for bad Batman stories…you’re irrational. You're just looking for a reason to be hateful toward Burton. Bitter Batman bandwagon fans. If anyone should have the finger pointed in their direction, it’s someone in the actual comic industry itself, namely the notoriously overrated Frank Miller. Burtons film had little to no influence on comics, comics had an influence upon it. It derives from the Denis O’Neil dark Batman revival from the 70’s and 80’s. It’s also very akin to how Batman was originally written in 1939. If you legitimately know anything about the history of Batman, Burton’s original film had nothing to do with bad comics in the 90‘s. Besides, isn't it all a matter of opinion anyway? How could someone see Knightfall and think Burton?!?

And anyone that thinks Denis O'Neil is overrated...doesn't have my respect. How is that even possible?

 

[The Guard]

Batman being a loner has nothing to do with BATMAN, and everything to do with people's tastes and sensibilities changing as comics became more mature and exploratory. It was happening before BATMAN ever came about. Hell, it was happening before THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS ever came about. Bruce was working with Robin less and less, allowing Alfred to question him less, becoming more obsessive about his mission, etc, etc, etc. Bruce's growing darkness is not something only brought about by the film, but it's an attempt to take Batman out of the place he'd been in for forty years by comic book writers, period. It was a change to the nature of the character. And even then, Batman's STILL not a loner, and he's STILL not always a jerk. It differs from writer to writer, and I defy you to find an arc that indicates that many of his 70's and 80's elements are not still alive and well (other than BROKEN CITY).

And did I just see you call Superman a loner?

 

[Cain]

Despite what people use to say these days, that DKR was such a "ground-breaking" work it was heavily critizised by a lot of people.

I won't dispute this hell I was only 3 when it was first published but as you said Miller's fans grew up. As you also said these are the guys that led to the IMAGE-fication if you will of the industry due to the influence TDKR and Watchmen had on them. I feel that had a much larger impact than anything the Batman movies accomplished especially since those movies polarized the fanbase anyway. This generation of creators is the one that says "Miller's Batman is an ideal blueprint for everything that comes after" instead of saying "it was a great story of where the Golden Age Batman could've ended up" which is it's proper context and leaving it at that. Thanks for that link BTW about to read up on that right now.

 

[Cain]

It’s also very akin to how Batman was originally written in 1939.

Most definitely, it's the tonal counterpart to that era.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

If you’re going to blame Burton for bad Batman stories…you’re irrational.

May be. But like I said, in the 90s the casual readers stopped to exist, only the fanboys were left. Many were influenced or even introduced to the character by the Burton movies. So the writers tried to please those fanboys and the fanboys became writers.

You're just looking for a reason to be hateful toward Burton. Bitter Batman bandwagon fans. If anyone should have the finger pointed in their direction, it’s someone in the actual comic industry itself, namely the notoriously overrated Frank Miller.

Okay. I think Miller is overrated, too. I KNEW the Judge Dredd comics, so DKR wasn't really that "cool" to me. Batman impersonating Dredd. But I still think it's good work. What many people misunderstood (hell, even Miller himself seemed to believe the hype around this) that the DKR Batman is a bitter guy in the future, who was tormented by the feeling that he had betrayed his parents (the oath, you know, he broke him because of Robin) and THEN the world became such a worse place. THAT triggered his new behaviour. The Year One Batman was more... optimistic... heroic... he made mistakes but that's because of the "realism".

Burtons film had little to no influence on comics, comics had an influence upon it. It derives from the Denis O’Neil dark Batman revival from the 70’s and 80’s. It’s also very akin to how Batman was originally written in 1939. If you legitimately know anything about the history of Batman, Burton’s original film had nothing to do with bad comics in the 90‘s. Besides, isn't it all a matter of opinion anyway? How could someone see Knightfall and think Burton?!?

Burton's Batman movies don't have anything in common with O'Neil's take. They may have taken their inspiration from the early "pulp Batman", but otherwise this take was very unique... and wrong. It hurt the essence of Batman badly. And I think a big part of Batman's new direction WAS influcenced by the success of the Burton movies. Of course there is no proof, and a lot of comic writers weren't really fond of the movies.

And anyone that thinks Denis O'Neil is overrated...doesn't have my respect. How is that even possible?

He did a few excellent stories... WITH Neal Adams. Without him he was always average. When he was editor of the Bat-titles he did really bad things. And he wasn't the guy who brought Batman back to his "dark roots". That were other guys.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Batman being a loner has nothing to do with BATMAN, and everything to do with people's tastes and sensibilities changing as comics became more mature and exploratory.

Yeah. More mature like... crippling young woman and strip them naked Great we grew up

It was happening before BATMAN ever came about. Hell, it was happening before THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS ever came about.

It happend with the story "One Bullet to Many", I think it was in the late 60s. But in the 80s Robin was actually BACK, they even introduced a new Robin called Jason Todd, because Wolfman wanted to keep Dick Grayson at the "Teen Titans".

Bruce was working with Robin less and less, allowing Alfred to question him less, becoming more obsessive about his mission, etc, etc, etc.

No. That's simply not true. Because writers back then were just writing stories to ENTERTAIN people. Escapist fiction. He didn't became "obsessive" until he turned into the Bat-Jerk (you may count "A Lonely Place of Dying", but there it was just "compensation" for the death of Robin.

Bruce's growing darkness is not something only brought about by the film, but it's an attempt to take Batman out of the place he'd been in for forty years by comic book writers, period. It was a change to the nature of the character. And even then, Batman's STILL not a loner, and he's STILL not always a jerk. It differs from writer to writer, and I defy you to find an arc that indicates that many of his 70's and 80's elements are not still alive and well (other than BROKEN CITY).

Yeah, because there are still writers WITH BRAINS!

And did I just see you call Superman a loner?

He IS a loner. He IS the ultimate loner. Unlike the family guy Batman.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I won't dispute this hell I was only 3 when it was first published but as you said Miller's fans grew up. As you also said these are the guys that led to the IMAGE-fication if you will of the industry due to the influence TDKR and Watchmen had on them. I feel that had a much larger impact than anything the Batman movies accomplished especially since those movies polarized the fanbase anyway. This generation of creators is the one that says "Miller's Batman is an ideal blueprint for everything that comes after" instead of saying "it was a great story of where the Golden Age Batman could've ended up" which is it's proper context and leaving it at that. Thanks for that link BTW about to read up on that right now.

Well, I must agree with you

But I still think that the Burton's movie played their part in this development.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Yeah, I think Burton is to blame that Batman comics turned into such an unreadable mess in the 90s.

Ridiculous thing to say and assess, and if it is true in any way than I can only pull out a quote from a famous, wise old man...

Who's more foolish, the fool or the fools who follow him?

 

[theMan-Bat]

He IS a loner. He IS the ultimate loner. Unlike the family guy Batman.

Superman, a loner? Your forgetting about Lois, Jimmy and Perry. Ma and Pa, and Supergirl and the rest of the Superman family. His Fortress of Solitude is a monument to his Kryptonian family. Superman is the ultimate family guy.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Superman, a loner? Your forgetting about Lois, Jimmy and Perry. Ma and Pa, and Supergirl and the rest of the Superman family. His Fortress of Solitude is a monument to his Kryptonian family. Superman is the ultimate family guy.

That's Clark Kent's workplace. Superman is alone. He is the last of his kind and not one of us. And Ma and Pa Kent are dead to me. And Superman doesn't love Lois Lane, just his "Clark Kent" fragment in his personality. Superman loves Clark Kent. Elliot, you got it

 

[The Guard]

Wow...