So, how old is Bruce/Batman supposed to be in the Burton-Shumacher films?

[Catman]

Penguin is 33 in Returns, so Bruce should be around there...I think.

 

[El Payaso]

Little older I'd say. Some white hairs in the temples.

 

[Catman]

But he gets younger in Forever.

 

[Buttman]

I think he's supposed to be about 33-34 in the first Batman, then maybe 38 in B&R or such.

 

[El Payaso]

But he gets younger in Forever.

You amazed for Schumacher's desicions?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

The novelization for B89 says he's 35. The same age his father was when he died.

 

[Mr. Socko]

How old was Keaton in 89?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

How old was Keaton in 89?

38.

 

[Catman]

The novelization for B89 says he's 35. The same age his father was when he died.

woah!

 

[DocLathropBrown]

woah!

Yeah, and in one of the only things that seems contrived or just doesn't work in that novel, upon viewing of the newspaper telling about the Wayne murders, Vicki asks Knox how old Thomas was when he died, and Knox replies "35". Earlier in the novel, during the "Horseback riding at Wayne Manor" scene (In the novel, she goes to Wayne Manor twice, not counting the party, and the first time, she and Bruce ride horses on Bruce's property), Vicki asks Bruce his age and he says "35."

So, the age is the clincher for Vicki that Bruce is Batman.

Of course, in the novel, Bruce has the utility belt with him at Vicki's apartment and uses it to examine the Joker's package, which Vicki gets a glimpse of. When she gets back from being kidnapped by the Joker (In an offshoot of the apartment scene; it becomes a full-fledged Batman v. Joker fight), she finds Bruce gone and not dead, so it's not quite as contrived as it could be. But Bruce being 35 the same as his father? C'mon! Like that would make it so crystal clear that since he died at 35 and the Batman just showed up, Bruce being 35 means that he's being the Batman to honor his father? Vicki may be a reporter, but that's like an Adam West-level of coincidental deduction, there.

I don't have a problem with Vicki figuring out his identity, but honestly, Gardner (and perhaps going back to Hamm and Skarron) portraying the age as the clincher is a little hard to swollow. But I'm happy to say that it's the only moment the book falters. Despite being not being a unique being (it's based on a screenplay, obviously), it remains one of the best Batman books/stories ever told, and it's so good, it could totally stand on it's own; were it re-released with nothing on the cover to note its connection to the film, people might not notice. It totally expands the film with the depth that Burton's subtext only hints.

And I've just noticed that I can't ever discuss the book without going into a promotion of it. Just to get it out of my blood, I think I might start a thread detailing the whole of the book and how it differs and expounds on the film.... but not tonight. The novel fleshes out the script and makes it plain that Sam Hamm was the original David Goyer. I honestly think that if Michael Keaton hadn't been cast, and Naiper didn't kill the Waynes, fans wouldn't have immediately shunned B89 for BB. It would have been perfect enough.

 

[Catman]

So, the age is the clincher for Vicki that Bruce is Batman.

Yeah, that is dumb.

 

[Bat Attack]

I say...who cares, it's just a movie. But, I always assumed he was in his mid-late 30's.