Re-evaluating Geekdom: Batman 89'

[Movies205]

My personal favorite Batman film with Begins coming in second... I trudge lightly on rewatching this film, thinking it might not live up to my memories, it been about 2 years since I last watched it or before Batman Begins came out. Batman 89' is like a mix between Miller's Dark Knight Returns and the campy 70s TV Show, and for whatever reason it is the perfect mix. The film just oozes with awesomeness, from the opening scene to just when Joker strutting around the museum throwing paint at stuff. My biggest beef with the film has always been, it never handled the duality of Bruce Wayne and Batman very well IMO, that still true today but I did come out watching it from a different light. Batman and Bruce Wayne in this movie is different than the comics, cartoon, and Batman Begins, in which it's more like the TV Show, in which Batman and Bruce Wayne are one, they are not two seperate personalities. And with that said the whole Vikki Vale scenario makes much more sense, since he's confused as to which way his life is going lead, should he make a life wiht Vikki or no? The set designs and the costume are awesome, the mask is stiff but when I see him in action it's just awesome. The car doesn't hold up as much as it did before, I think because I think the tumbler is cooler and makes more sense, but all the gadgets are awesome. Part of why I love the movie so much is simply because it has a specific story ot tell and it sticks to it, it takes what it needs to from the comics and makes it's own story. While Begins feels like a suppelment to the comics, like they try to put too much in and it feels like a charicture... Batman 89 is it's own movie... As for Batman Returns... that's another story, I watch that 1-2 years ago and hate it, I'll revisit that at another time... So everyone's thoughts...

I like to compare Begins and 89' but let's keep it civil... There both two radically different approaches to the character, and I own and love them both. But 89' appeals to me more because I think it's more stylish and I can believe it more.

 

[mister Lennon]

My personal opinion:

Batman begins its a great movie almost perfect in all the things, but with some flaws.

Batman 89 was a failed movie with many and many flaws and some right things.

 

[Movies205]

My personal opinion:

Batman begins its a great movie almost perfect in all the things, but with some flaws.

Batman 89 was a failed movie with many and many flaws and some right things.

Pul-leeze... Don't post if your not going say something that provokes intellectualy thought, this is for discussion... If you think B89 isn't good that's fine but post reaasons... Batman BEgins was far from perfect, how about how it tries to have too many villians, or the fact that it has two sepearte movies in one, it's narrative is far from perfect... SEe these are reasons... Please elucidate on your comments...

 

[El Payaso]

must... resist... joke...



Btw, I agree Movies205.

 

[mister Lennon]

Pul-leeze... Don't post if your not going say something that provokes intellectualy thought, this is for discussion... If you think B89 isn't good that's fine but post reaasons... Batman BEgins was far from perfect, how about how it tries to have too many villians, or the fact that it has two sepearte movies in one, it's narrative is far from perfect... SEe these are reasons... Please elucidate on your comments...

Ok, sorry for the lazyness, but i have posted those ones so many times before that its getting a little boring for me. But lets go:

Batman begins: I didnt say perfect, i said almost perfect, big difference. Great story, great script, very faithful to the source origin(althougth with some differences), great acting , great direction, etc. Christian bale was perfect as batman and as bruce wayne.

Flaws: scarecrow not enough developed, rachel character was weak, some fight scenes wasnt as good as they could being.


Batman 89: flawed movie with some right things. The good: the art desing, the music, the batmovile, the bat cave, batman gadgets, the costume, some acting( gough, palance, nicholson in the most part, etc).

The bad: michael keaton wasnt a good batman or a good wayne and didnt look the character, jack look was different thatn the joker but still better than keaton, kim bassinguer character was weak, storyline was poor, dialogue was the same poor, not enough action scenes, keaton was a bad fighter, etc.

 

[Cyrusbales]

B89 has a better script, art direction, direction, acting, score, editing and general feel.

BB was a mediocre film that gratuitously disapointed me. I prefer returns to BB.

The whole of BB was very pretencious, like it was trying to push all the audiences buttons, rather than just being a film that happens to do this, i've noticed this huge flaw with all of Nolan's work, most noticable in the Prestige, which is actually a pretty good film.

For me, faithfulnes too the comic, that doesn't bother me, we know it's batman, it's nice to see a slightly diff angle, each new writer does the same, why not be creative damn it!

Also Burton adds social subtexts which give an extra quality to his work.

 

[mister Lennon]

Something new to add for my part: by my point of view, in Nolan's movie there are a lot of social references and subtexts too.

 

[Movies205]

Why has this turn into Begins vs. B89? There two different takes that I both appriciate... Let's stare away from comparing, since there very different...

 

[Movies205]

One point, Jack Nicholson's Joker WAS CLASSIC JOKER! Hell his plot at the end with the balloons is classic Joker, what other villain would throw 20 million in the streets, and then disperse laughing gas just for the hell of it? Who else would follow around a girl just cuz of her connection to Batman and **** with her? Who would kill someone with a hand buzzer? The Joker in Batman was extremely faithful, the only flaw might be that Jack was playing sometimes his typical self but that's Joker.

 

[mister Lennon]

One point, Jack Nicholson's Joker WAS CLASSIC JOKER! Hell his plot at the end with the balloons is classic Joker, what other villain would throw 20 million in the streets, and then disperse laughing gas just for the hell of it? Who else would follow around a girl just cuz of her connection to Batman and **** with her? Who would kill someone with a hand buzzer? The Joker in Batman was extremely faithful, the only flaw might be that Jack was playing sometimes his typical self but that's Joker.

First, i would take nicholson joker before keaton batman or wayne any day of the week.

Second, about look: nicholson face looks like joker face, specially when he was younger, but his body and his age was so far of the character.

About performance: jack for me was a decent joker, there a lot of jack in his joker character, and sometimes it was more jack with a clown makeup than joker, but as jack cinema personality its so similar than jokers , it worked in certain way. The perfect joker? nope. A good joker? i think so.

And movies, if you are asking about opinions about both movies, 89 and begins, the comparations betweem both movies and the confrontations between both fan sides its inevitable.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Wow. Mr. Lennon......
I have absolutely no CLUE WHERE you are coming from.
Movies 205 you are spot on.

Batman 1989...ahh...a classic.
First of all Mr. Whiney whine Lennon, you need to place yourself in Burton's shoes.
What had come before Batman 1989...lets see...well, there was a 1930's movie, and there was a messed up campy 60's movie. Other than that, Burton was striking on new ground, especially trying to do Batman the way it needed to be done, DARK!

So, when you bash 89 for not being as dark, or as Batmanish as Begins, please shut up. You need to keep in mind that all the world had seen of Batman (in movies and tv anyways) was Adam West.
Tim Burton was taking on a HUGE risk here, and he did phenomenal for what he had.
In 1989, it is my firm belief that no-one could have in any way made a better Batman film.
Is it the BEST Batman film? Maybe not, but you have to give credit to the man who just stepped out of the dark and put something totally new out there.

And Keaton. Oh man, don't you dare bash Keaton. Look at his previous movies. Mr. Mom. Beetlejuice.
Now, look at Batman 1989.
Any actor who can pull that much of a 180 on the character scale, has talent. Period.
He went from campy and funny, to dead serious and dark.
That just doesn't happen all that often.
Michael Keaton, made an excellent Batman. His face had that...set, its just the way his face sits in the cowl, he just looked perfect. He had that grim line of a mouth that emodies Batman, and the command he had over his voice was perfect. Even with Bale, you can tell he had to force a Batman voice. The voice that came out of Michael Keaton's lips was not forced, in fact, it sounds to me like a voice he uses everyday.

Sure, his Bruce Wayne could have been better, but once again, this is the first time anyone has done anything outside of Adam West. And unless Keaton wanted to do alot of "old chums" and "by George you're right!"s, he had to try something he felt comfortable with. And thats what we got. Is it the best Bruce Wayne, no. But is it a good performance, yes.
He tried, ok. He tried hard.

The Joker. I cannot believe you said what you said about the Joker. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. There is no better role for him. That man simply is the essence of The Joker wrapped up in an actor.
That performance was perfect. Absolutely perfect. His laugh was chilling, his suit was stylish, and his smile was...just creepy. And yet, you could almost laugh at some of his jokes. They made sense.

Overrall, Batman 1989 is a great movie. It is a superb movie, and a superb Batman film. Is it perfect? No. But then again, will any film EVER be perfect?

Now, on the flip side:

Batman Begins.
In the new age, with new technology and an audience that is now used to seeing the Dark Batman (thanks mostly in part due to Batman 1989), Christopher Nolan was able to weave a script together that stayed faithful to the comics and embodied a dark Batman and how he began.
Bale plays a good Wayne as well as a good Batman.
I still prefer Keatons Batman over Bales, but I don't begrudge him for it.
The plotline for this film was amazing, and IMO it is just barely the better film because of its in-depth storyline of how Bruce Wayne became The Batman.
Liam Neeson played a great Ducard (and you know who if you've seen the movie) and The Scarecrow was convincing enough to be pretty darn scary.
Katie Holmes performance was good (I don't know why people bash her, she did a good job) and Michael Caine did good as Alfred.

Two great films. Batman Begins as a BATMAN film, is just barely ahead of Batman 1989 because of its deep story.
But don't go Bashing Batman 1989 because 99% of what you are bashing are not flaws with the directing, but simply flaws because this was a pioneer film.
They are both good, I love them both, but 1989 will always have a special place in my heart because it was simply The First.

PS. Um, might I point out that it gets harder and harder to read your posts Mr. Lennon. Can you try and slow down and spell things correctly?

 

[El Payaso]

Why has this turn into Begins vs. B89?

mister Letroll

 

[mister Lennon]

mister Letroll

Hey, good name. I would choose it before my nickname , but it was selected before.

 

[CConn]

...choosed?

 

[mister Lennon]

Wow. Mr. Lennon......
I have absolutely no CLUE WHERE you are coming from.
Movies 205 you are spot on.

Batman 1989...ahh...a classic.
First of all Mr. Whiney whine Lennon, you need to place yourself in Burton's shoes.
What had come before Batman 1989...lets see...well, there was a 1930's movie, and there was a messed up campy 60's movie. Other than that, Burton was striking on new ground, especially trying to do Batman the way it needed to be done, DARK!

So, when you bash 89 for not being as dark, or as Batmanish as Begins, please shut up. You need to keep in mind that all the world had seen of Batman (in movies and tv anyways) was Adam West.
Tim Burton was taking on a HUGE risk here, and he did phenomenal for what he had.
In 1989, it is my firm belief that no-one could have in any way made a better Batman film.
Is it the BEST Batman film? Maybe not, but you have to give credit to the man who just stepped out of the dark and put something totally new out there.

And Keaton. Oh man, don't you dare bash Keaton. Look at his previous movies. Mr. Mom. Beetlejuice.
Now, look at Batman 1989.
Any actor who can pull that much of a 180 on the character scale, has talent. Period.
He went from campy and funny, to dead serious and dark.
That just doesn't happen all that often.
Michael Keaton, made an excellent Batman. His face had that...set, its just the way his face sits in the cowl, he just looked perfect. He had that grim line of a mouth that emodies Batman, and the command he had over his voice was perfect. Even with Bale, you can tell he had to force a Batman voice. The voice that came out of Michael Keaton's lips was not forced, in fact, it sounds to me like a voice he uses everyday.

Sure, his Bruce Wayne could have been better, but once again, this is the first time anyone has done anything outside of Adam West. And unless Keaton wanted to do alot of "old chums" and "by George you're right!"s, he had to try something he felt comfortable with. And thats what we got. Is it the best Bruce Wayne, no. But is it a good performance, yes.
He tried, ok. He tried hard.

The Joker. I cannot believe you said what you said about the Joker. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. There is no better role for him. That man simply is the essence of The Joker wrapped up in an actor.
That performance was perfect. Absolutely perfect. His laugh was chilling, his suit was stylish, and his smile was...just creepy. And yet, you could almost laugh at some of his jokes. They made sense.

Overrall, Batman 1989 is a great movie. It is a superb movie, and a superb Batman film. Is it perfect? No. But then again, will any film EVER be perfect?

Now, on the flip side:

Batman Begins.
In the new age, with new technology and an audience that is now used to seeing the Dark Batman (thanks mostly in part due to Batman 1989), Christopher Nolan was able to weave a script together that stayed faithful to the comics and embodied a dark Batman and how he began.
Bale plays a good Wayne as well as a good Batman.
I still prefer Keatons Batman over Bales, but I don't begrudge him for it.
The plotline for this film was amazing, and IMO it is just barely the better film because of its in-depth storyline of how Bruce Wayne became The Batman.
Liam Neeson played a great Ducard (and you know who if you've seen the movie) and The Scarecrow was convincing enough to be pretty darn scary.
Katie Holmes performance was good (I don't know why people bash her, she did a good job) and Michael Caine did good as Alfred.

Two great films. Batman Begins as a BATMAN film, is just barely ahead of Batman 1989 because of its deep story.
But don't go Bashing Batman 1989 because 99% of what you are bashing are not flaws with the directing, but simply flaws because this was a pioneer film.
They are both good, I love them both, but 1989 will always have a special place in my heart because it was simply The First.

PS. Um, might I point out that it gets harder and harder to read your posts Mr. Lennon. Can you try and slow down and spell things correctly?

One thing in your long post is true, and i did a mistake. I thougt that it was a thread about comparing batman begins and batman 89, but it was a thread about only batman 89. I didnt read well all the first post, my mistake, my fault. Sorry for that.

The rest of your post about your opinions about both movies is totally valid for me. Your personal opinion, anything to add.

But the other part of your post is simply garbage and crap, because i posted my opinion about those movies and the performances, direction, etc. My personal opinion. Did you like batman 89? great for you, i didnt liked it and i posted it. Plain and simple.

But something to clear, Burton didnt invent anything. The dark batman was in the 80s and 70s comics. The tv show was about the 50s and 60s comics, because of that, it was campy. Batman was made in the 80s and it was about the dark tone used in the comics by people like alan moore or frank miller. And about cinema, anything too. Burton used many references by expresionist movies, hammer movies, universal movies, etc. His own world was in edward sissorhands, even in batman returns, but not in batman.

The rest is only matter of opinion, your opinion vs my opinion , nothing more. But i ask you something, dont insult me and post that garbage full of insults because i have only critized a movie that you liked. Its childish and stupid and it doestn say anything about you.

Last thing, read well my post about Jack Nicholson about the joker, because i think that you didnt read it well.

 

[Dark Guardian]

The rest is only matter of opinion, your opinion vs my opinion , nothing more. But i ask you something, dont insult me and post that garbage full of insults because i have only critized a movie that you liked. Its childish and stupid and it doestn say anything about you.

Ok fine, opinion. But who said I insulted you? Did I say "Mr. Lennon your such a stupid idiot, why can't you like Batman 1989?"
No. Or at least...not that I can remember.
If the Mad Hatter is controlling my mind and making me say things I did not want to say then please let me no.
But I have not insulted you, or at least I didn't really try to insult you. Believe me, if I'd wanted to insult you there would be no doubt in anyones mind that I was trying my hardest to hurt you mentally.
I am merely stating the facts from my point of view countering those from your point of view.

And while Burton did not invent the "dark Batman" perse, he was the first to make a movie out of it. I was merely trying to place you in his shoes, a man who has to make a "dark" movie in direct contrast to the campy, family movie that had come before and the perils that he had to face.
By no means was this the first appearance of "dark Batman", you could trace that all the way back to Batman's first appearance, that was certainly dark enough for its time.

 

[Movies205]

Ok fine, opinion. But who said I insulted you? Did I say "Mr. Lennon your such a stupid idiot, why can't you like Batman 1989?"
No. Or at least...not that I can remember.
If the Mad Hatter is controlling my mind and making me say things I did not want to say then please let me no.
But I have not insulted you, or at least I didn't really try to insult you. Believe me, if I'd wanted to insult you there would be no doubt in anyones mind that I was trying my hardest to hurt you mentally.
I am merely stating the facts from my point of view countering those from your point of view.

And while Burton did not invent the "dark Batman" perse, he was the first to make a movie out of it. I was merely trying to place you in his shoes, a man who has to make a "dark" movie in direct contrast to the campy, family movie that had come before and the perils that he had to face.
By no means was this the first appearance of "dark Batman", you could trace that all the way back to Batman's first appearance, that was certainly dark enough for its time.

Original Batman is akin to Murder She Wrote

 

[mister Lennon]

Well, lets see, Whiney whine isnt exactly a praise for me. But lets forget it. I understand very clear your last post and you know what, i dont doubt that if you want to hurt myself mentally,you would do it, but dont doubt you that if i want to do the same with you, i will do it.


What i mean is the next, talking about burton batman: the 60s show was campy because batman was campy at that time. The burton movie was darker because it was dark at that time in comics too. It would be a great merit if in the 80s batman would be campy and burton would do a dark movie, but he only did what it was in the comics at that time. It would be stupid to do a campy batman as 30 years before with the suscess of comics like dark knight, killing joke, regular series, the cult, etc. It isnt a great merit for me.

 

[El Payaso]

Like it's not great merit to make a dark Batman when it has been dark 20 years before 2005?

 

[dude stannis]

B'89 is a classic and stil my favorite movie of all time. Begins' major liability is David Goyer, the guy's a hack. Plain and simple. He lifted from Spiderman pretty hard and wrote way too many recurring lines. Thank Zod for Nolan who turned into a classic movie. Also thank Zod Goyer only wrote the treatment not the script for TDK and that the Nolans are writing the proper script.

 

[mister Lennon]

Like it's not great merit to make a dark Batman when it has been dark 20 years before 2005?

I havent never said that one of the merits of batman begins is to do it dark.

 

[Lando81]

Cant we all agree that Batman Begins kicks '89s ass?

 

[dude stannis]

No. Because it doesn't.

 

[The Kid]

Amen.

I regard Batman 89 as THE batman film to capture batman's cool legendary essence perfectly. It's timeless, to me anyway.

It really grabs a hold of the fantasy aspect of batman and runs with it, just look at gotham... Returns does this to an even greater extent and I truly enjoy that side of batman. The pinnacle of this pure COOL spirit of batman that Burton got absolutely right is when Batman's taking Vicky Vale back to the cave.

The mysteriousness.

The magical feeling the music creates.

It just makes batman seem so fantastical and beyond all this mundane reality. I love it.

 

[El Payaso]

Cant we all agree that Batman Begins kicks '89s ass?

No. Because it never did.