Returns or 89?

[A Necessary Evil]

Batman Returns > Batman 89

 

[The Sarge]

While '89 has a better Gotham and overall "batmanish" feel, I prefer Returns.
Usually it's a close call, but lately I've been definitely been leaning toward the ladder.

First off, batman Himself is better. The suit is improved- fist better, and is more smooth, less rough looking. And Keatons performance is perfected. I would sa it's the best batman of ALL films. Put me in the camp that agree's with the "less is more". Remember when he's just out in the batmobile prowling the streets at night in the snow? No one running out to greet him or anything, totally alone. Keatons Performance is a little too much in some parts of 89 for me now.

The writing is so much better too. 89 was aright, but it really falls apart in areas. Why is Joker going up to the clocktower to get picked up? How did all those henchmen get up there? Why does Vicki looked drugged out when Joker dances with her?
Returns seems a bit more tongue in cheek with it's campyness. And I totally dig it. The creepy parts are great, and for me, german expressionism and batman just kind of fit in an awesome way. Peanut butter in my chocolate.

 

[Hobgoblin]

89. Returns was a little perverse lol whoa there Penguin.

Thats why I love it so much.t:

 

[Jokers_Wild]

Batman Returns. Plus, it's the first Batman movie I got to see in theaters when it came out!

 

[ALP]

Batman '89 is more of a true Batman movie, but I prefer Returns.

Returns is Burton unrestrained (he didn't have so much creative freedom for '89) and at the top of his game to boot. I find Batman to be more interesting in it and find the villains to be a lot more deep and interesting as well. The Joker was a bad apple from the very beginning of the movie, but Penguin and Catwoman both have reasons for becoming who they are. Also, I loved the whole winter wonderland thing. It's a very different kind of environment to put Batman in and it ensured that we'd always have a Batman movie to watch at Christmas. Well, those of us who like it, anyway.

I can definitely understand its critics, though. It is a huge departure from the more traditional Batman we saw in the first movie. It has all those sex references and a few gruesome elements (Penguin eating a fish, biting a man's nose, and having black blood) that turned some people off and contributed to Burton having the franchise taken from him. And some of the campy elements in it even rival Schumacher, so I can understand those who say it's not as dark as the first one, even though it seems darker to me.

Please...tell me what defines "TRUE Batman?"

I've heard it stated so many times before but can never agree with it. How is B'89 more of a true Batman movie? By stating that, you are essentially confining Batman and the mythos into whatever stereotypical form you think Batman just fit into. As you refer to '89 Batman as the "traditional" one.

There is no such thing as one true Batman story or movie. Just look to the comics, Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum, anything by Kelly Jones. Every single one of them is just as valid and just as true as the next. Anyway, I do fully agree with everything in your first paragraph.

 

[The Joker]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did. Batman was not as eclipsed by the villain in Batman '89 as he was in Returns either.

 

[ALP]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did. Batman was not as eclipsed by the villain in Batman '89 as he was in Returns either.

???

Usually many people say that Joker eclipsed Batman in '89. I see what you mean though.

 

[Sinestro]

Neither

 

[The Joker]

???

Usually many people say that Joker eclipsed Batman in '89. I see what you mean though.

Well Joker did eclipse him in B'89, but it wasn't as bad as in Returns with a triple whammy of villains. And all of them with big roles.

 

[GothamAlleys]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did.

Thats the way I read that post too, but as I always repeat, I couldnt care less if its identical to the way comics were or not. I care if its good. None of the movies are really faithful to the comics and all of them deviate plenty. Doesnt take away from either Burton's or Nolan's movies and I dont think it would add anything to their quality. Its nice if they have the core from the comics, but let them go their own way. Burton and Nolan didnt know squat about comic books and look how nicely it turned out

 

[Bat-Mite]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did.

This. Usually, I want comic book faithfulness, but the lack of faithfulness turned out to be Returns' biggest strength. It did its own thing and did it well. I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

Spoiler

 

[Smalley]

This. Usually, I want comic book faithfulness, but the lack of faithfulness turned out to be Returns' biggest strength. It did its own thing and did it well. I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

Spoiler

I agree, I just love the crazy, unfaithful off-the-wall-ness of Returns.

 

[The Joker]

His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

Spoiler

Wow, where did you get that from?

 

[Bat-Mite]

Wow, where did you get that from?

Someone posted it on here a couple of years ago and I made sure to save it. I believe the original source was a Tim Burton art book.

 

[EliteF50]

I love them both, but Returns is better. I love the action, the atmosphere, the characters, the writing, etc.

 

[Draven]

I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been..

Spoiler

Do you know who didn't want Burton to use something like this? Was it the studio or did Nicholson not like it and then the studio said no?

 

[ALP]

Someone posted it on here a couple of years ago and I made sure to save it. I believe the original source was a Tim Burton art book.

Yeah there are several drawings and some paintings of the Joker and other Bat characters that Burton did. Many are in his recent art book. Here's one page of Joker concepts:

Spoiler

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

LOve that Joker!

Every scene with Nicholson is iconic.

The 89' movie hasn't been matched by another bat-film yet IMO.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Do you know who didn't want Burton to use something like this? Was it the studio or did Nicholson not like it and then the studio said no?

I'd be surprised if Nicholson objected to it, considering some of the roles he's played. If anyone made a stink about it, it was probably the studio, since they were constantly forcing script rewrites and such. I really don't know that much about what he was and wasn't allowed to do in the film, but I know he was forced to put a cathedral into the film's finale because someone (I think it was Jon Peters) saw the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway and decided that the movie needed a gothic cathedral.

 

[GothamAlleys]

This. Usually, I want comic book faithfulness, but the lack of faithfulness turned out to be Returns' biggest strength. It did its own thing and did it well. I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

Spoiler

I think it was great that Tim did one faithful to the comics movie and one personal movie. This way we have both, plus, Joker has been my favorite villain even before the movie, and I wouldve been dissapointed at the time to see something radically different from what was in comics when it comes to this character. While I applaud the remaking of the characters that Returns and Nolan's movies did, in this instance Im happy that we got a comic book looking Joker

 

[El Payaso]

I have always thought that a Burton Joker would have looked like Heath Ledger's Joker.

 

[returntovoid]

I have always thought that a Burton Joker would have looked like Heath Ledger's Joker.

Yeah, because Heath's Joker looked like Beetlejuice.

If Sam Hamm and Bob Kane didn't have anything to do with B89, Burton's Joker would have looked like Beetlejuice.

 

[The Joker]

If this is to be believed:

Burton's Joker was going to go around wearing a big Scarecrow type hat, sunglasses, a scarf, and some big buttoned up overcoat....

 

[Bat-Mite]

I have always thought that a Burton Joker would have looked like Heath Ledger's Joker.

Same here. Nolan's Joker is a perfect fit with Burton's Penguin and Catwoman.

 

[ALP]

Same here. Nolan's Joker is a perfect fit with Burton's Penguin and Catwoman.

Only visually!

But you're right...look at Burton's track record. His characters are usually tattered and dirty. Joker in B'89 was far more 'clean' and vain than any other Burton characters. Heath's Joker is all dirty, dusty, with hair going everywhere and circles around his eyes just like Beetlejuice and the Penguin. If Joker in B'89 were a full on Burton design his hair would have been more unkempt and dark circles around his eyes.