Sam Hamm's original B'89 script

[ab38416]

I especially loved the bit of Joker giving the board meeting to the corpses with the "We got 'em rolling in the aisles!" line.

Same here.

 

[Cassandra]

In the script and even in the final shooting script, Vicki just gets let into Bruce's Study, where he falls asleep into his flashback. It's clear in the scripts and the novelization that Vicki figured out the secret on her own, as opposed to the movie, where you get the vibe that Alfred just cut to the chase.

Vicki came across as much more intelligent and driven in the novelization, or so I feel. In the final version of the film she doesn't seem like much more than a slightly bland damsel, which is too bad.

 

[silentflute]

I remember reading Hamm's original draft way back in late '88.I thought it was pretty damn good.Not great, but with the right filmmakers,it could have been.

It's a shame they got a director who had no understanding of the material and a hack writer who thought it would be cool to make the Joker responsible for the Waynes' death.

 

[El Payaso]

It's a shame they got a director who had no understanding of the material

How did he not understand it?

and a hack writer who thought it would be cool to make the Joker responsible for the Waynes' death.

Is he as hack as a writer who made Ra's al Ghul, Ducard the mentor of Batman?

 

[Carusos Shades]

They opted for plot symmetry having joker kill his parents. They probably figured the vast majority of the public would be unaware of Joe Chill and wouldn't care! And judging from the box office they were right!

 

[silentflute]

How did he not understand it?


Just about in every single way.



Is he as hack as a writer who made Ra's al Ghul, Ducard the mentor of Batman?


I have no problem withthat.Certainly more believable and for the story served it's purpose.Joker killing Bruce's parents is just a bad Hollywood plot device.

 

[El Payaso]

How did he not understand it?


Just about in every single way.

Unable to elaborate?

As far as I can see, Nolan kept Burton's bat-suit concept and the darness of it too.

Is he as hack as a writer who made Ra's al Ghul, Ducard the mentor of Batman?


I have no problem withthat.

I see you don't, as you're being extremely incostintent.

Certainly more believable and for the story served it's purpose.

As believable as the other, since it's all fiction.

And both served a purpose.

Joker killing Bruce's parents is just a bad Hollywood plot device.

Care to elaborate how it is bad?

 

[silentflute]

Unable to elaborate?

I can elaborate.But what's the point?It's not like I'm going to convince you.

As far as I can see, Nolan kept Burton's bat-suit concept and the darness of it too.

Mhm.Good observation.However, a Batsuit alone does not make a good Batman movie.



I see you don't, as you're being extremely incostintent.

How am I being inconsistent?My argument has nothing to do with being dead on faithful to the comics- as you're probaly well aware there are many different interpretations within the comics as well.My problem with Batman 89 is that it was just as campy as the TV series,but pretended to be otherwise.I have a deep appreciation for the tv series, the difference being that it was in on it's own joke.



As believable as the other, since it's all fiction.

Hollywood convenience-let's make it all tie in and be symmetrical.




And both served a purpose.

Yeah,too bad, in 89's case, the purpose was pointless.The whole point of batman is that the killer of his parents was some faceless criminal that represented the randomness of CRIME.that's what motivates Batman every night.The moment you give that person a face and name, and have Batman actually avenge hisparent's death, you dilute the whole purpose of him being Batman to begin with.



Care to elaborate how it is bad?

I have.

 

[Buttman]

How am I being inconsistent?My argument has nothing to do with being dead on faithful to the comics- as you're probaly well aware there are many different interpretations within the comics as well.My problem with Batman 89 is that it was just as campy as the TV series,but pretended to be otherwise.I have a deep appreciation for the tv series, the difference being that it was in on it's own joke.

That's definitely up at the top of the list of "Idiots who think they're saying something intelligent or raising a point that no one else has, but infact are suprised to find nobody has raised it before, because it's an idiotic idea." The long title of my list was just to add a little more patronising words. I know your type. You hate on Burton's film, but you have no idea why. It's because, you're well, basically.. you're a monkey. Who walks on two legs. You have opinions, but you have no idea how to explain them to others or even how to begin too. So instead you leech something that sounds smart or insightful from a review or a fellow boardmember and consider yourself done for the day.

Do you even understand the television series? I doubt it. It sounds more like your thought process was "lol ppl dunt lyk da seriz so il say itz lyk dat lol 2 ngeativz mak a negativ wen doez leno start??/"

In short, Batman 89 is absolutely the farrest away from the Television series as Batman can get, your point was stupid and invalid. Live with it.


P.S; Two negatives make a positive, just in case you didn't pick up on that one.

 

[silentflute]

That's definitely up at the top of the list of "Idiots who think they're saying something intelligent or raising a point that no one else has, but infact are suprised to find nobody has raised it before, because it's an idiotic idea."

Do u babble as you type-or the other way around?



The long title of my list was just to add a little more patronising words.

You're incapable of being patronising- that takes intelligence.


I know your type.

You know nothing.Realize that before you make assumptions.


You hate on Burton's film, but you have no idea why.

I know perfectly why.You don't, even though it's been explained.


It's because, you're well, basically.. you're a monkey. Who walks on two legs. You have opinions, but you have no idea how to explain them to others or even how to begin too. So instead you leech something that sounds smart or insightful from a review or a fellow boardmember and consider yourself done for the day.


Funny hat you feel the need to start name calling because you're feelings are hurt that I dissed your favorite movie.That's not only stupid, but very childish.Get over it , and actually say something worthwhile.I've explained what's wrong with the picture in my above post. If you're too dumb to understand my point, then you need get some comprehension skills son. And refrain from typing.

Do you even understand the television series? I doubt it.

yeah, because it's so deep and profound.The better question is ..do you?

It sounds more like your thought process was "lol ppl dunt lyk da seriz so il say itz lyk dat lol 2 ngeativz mak a negativ wen doez leno start??/"

Looks like you have no thought process, period.

In short, Batman 89 is absolutely the farrest away from the Television series as Batman can get, your point was stupid and invalid. Live with it.

Don't expect you to see it.Go live the 'Batman 89 is the greatest film' fantasy.You're looks match you're future.


P.S; Two negatives make a positive, just in case you didn't pick up on that one.

Did you just learn that?Or are you quoting your math teacher?t:And by the way, 'farrest' is not a word.Ask any English teacher.

 

[EXCELSIOR]

Cool it with the name-calling!

 

[Hunter Rider]

I suggest reading the boss man's post before blatantly continuing this petty spat.

 

[Buttman]

I suggest reading the boss man's post before blatantly continuing this petty spat.

Technically he posted while I was writing my post..

 

[Hunter Rider]

Then you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[Buttman]

Then you've got nothing to worry about.

Well someone deleted my post, I figured that was you? Ahh well, I thought the post was pretty funny. Should probably stop thread-stealing anyway.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Well someone deleted my post, I figured that was you? Ahh well, I thought the post was pretty funny. Should probably stop thread-stealing anyway.

It was me, The fact that you didn't deliberately ignore Ex's post about ending the pissing contest is a good thing.

 

[Buttman]

It was me, The fact that you didn't deliberately ignore Ex's post about ending the pissing contest is a good thing.

What did you think of Sam Hamm's script Mr. Mod?

 

[El Payaso]

Unable to elaborate?

I can elaborate.But what's the point?It's not like I'm going to convince you.

Nice excuse, but I see you actually did try to convince me later in your post. You just did about those points you actually felt you could explain.

As far as I can see, Nolan kept Burton's bat-suit concept and the darness of it too.

Mhm.Good observation.However, a Batsuit alone does not make a good Batman movie.

That's why it was so convenient B89 was more than a batsuit.

I see you don't, as you're being extremely incostintent.

How am I being inconsistent?My argument has nothing to do with being dead on faithful to the comics- as you're probaly well aware there are many different interpretations within the comics as well.My problem with Batman 89 is that it was just as campy as the TV series,but pretended to be otherwise.

Yeah, Robin, the cheesey lines, the POW! WHAM! all over, the Joker henchmen with funny names.

In fact BB also tried too hard to be "serious" and "realistic" but every 4 minutes the corny cliché dialogue and terrible one-liners broke that appaerance.

It seems both movies commited the same sin.

That said, what ever has the supposed campiness to do with character merging? Aren't you trying to reply my question with another totally unrelated complaint?

I have a deep appreciation for the tv series, the difference being that it was in on it's own joke.

As it was B89, as it was BB. At most B&R wass a Tv series re-mix.

And both served a purpose.

Yeah,too bad, in 89's case, the purpose was pointless.

No it wasn't. That way you justify hatred and a solid relationship between hero and villiain, not some random our-of-the-blue hatred.

The whole point of batman is that the killer of his parents was some faceless criminal that represented the randomness of CRIME.that's what motivates Batman every night.The moment you give that person a face and name, and have Batman actually avenge hisparent's death, you dilute the whole purpose of him being Batman to begin with.

Two words: Joe Chill. A face and a name.

It seems comic books gave the Wayne's killer a pointless purpose long before Burton. But as one is based on the other, it seems reasonable.

Care to elaborate how it is bad?

I have.

You have... failed at it.

 

[silentflute]

What did you think of Sam Hamm's script Mr. Mod?

 

[El Payaso]

lol, yeah, the nerve of that guy trying to keep the thread on topic.

 

[silentflute]

Nice excuse, but I see you actually did try to convince me later in your post. You just did about those points you actually felt you could explain.

Understand one thing- I'm nottrying to convince you of anything.I've discussed the numerous problems of Batman 89 in other threads, so this has nothing to do with what i felt i 'could explain'.It's just a choice.



That's why it was so convenient B89 was more than a batsuit.

Actually it was just that - the Batsuit.



Yeah, Robin, the cheesey lines, the POW! WHAM! all over, the Joker henchmen with funny names.

It might as well have.That would have fit in nicely with the soundstage looking gotham,Nicholson's Joker and Elfman's score.

In fact BB also tried too hard to be "serious" and "realistic" but every 4 minutes the corny cliché dialogue and terrible one-liners broke that appaerance.

While the dialogue in Begins was less than perfect, it was far better than B89.No comparison there.That being said, Begins suceeded in being both more serious and realistic then B89.By leaps and bounds I might add.


It seems both movies commited the same sin.

No...they, in fact, did not.

That said, what ever has the supposed campiness to do with character merging? Aren't you trying to reply my question with another totally unrelated complaint?

No, I merely pointed that out as well.Two sepearte issues.Both valid.



As it was B89, as it was BB. At most B&R wass a Tv series re-mix.

Really now?B89 was in own it's own joke?BB- what joke was that???



No it wasn't. That way you justify hatred and a solid relationship between hero and villiain, not some random our-of-the-blue hatred.

So the way you justify hatred between 2 antagonists is to go for the obvious?Where did you learn that-writing for the screen 101?




Two words: Joe Chill. A face and a name.

Ok.I see it has to be baby steps.I didn't mean it in the literal sense.What I mean to say is this:JOE CHILL represents the randomness of violence and crime in our society.Joe Chill could be John Doe.He's no one IMPORTANT- his name and face REPRESENT something bigger than him..The Joker on the other hand is an entirely different entity.

It seems comic books gave the Wayne's killer a pointless purpose long before Burton. But as one is based on the other, it seems reasonable.

Read above and try not to take everything siad sio literally.Use your brain.



You have... failed at it.

Again,I'm not trying to convince you of anything.Therefore it'd be hard to fail.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Wow. Silentflute doesn't have an axe to grind. He's also not an opinion-Nazi.

People don't agree with you, flute. let it go.

 

[Samurai Pasta]

I don't agree with everything he's said, but I think his opinions are just fine.

 

[Swordmaster]

It's the way he expresses them, as if they were beneath him. That's the irritating part.

 

[Samurai Pasta]

Hmmmm.... I understand. Nothing I haven't seen both Nolan lovers and Burton lovers do, though.