The Batman VS Batman Begins VS Batman 1989.

[Frodo]

Batman 89 changed what the GA felt Batman was and should be.

Before 89, the GA felt thought that Batman was always campy character, because the 60s show.

The vast majority of filmgoers didn't see Batman as this dark, avenging character prior to that film.
Their image of Batman was bright, colorful, and absurd tough and cheek storytelling.

Then, 20 years later this is what the public see's, this gothic, operatic, big screen Spectacle

Alot of fans today take for granted that Batman films tend to be dark , and alot of them don't realize how Batman 89 was perceived by the GA as this radical approach to the character.

Again, we're talking about the average filmgoer of the 1980s, not the seasoned comicbook collectors and fans who knew about The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, or Strange Apparitions, in real time.

Batman 89 shaped how the GA would view the character on film and tv from that moment forward.

For people who've grown up in a world of cinematic universes and superhero tv shows across many different platforms, Batman 89 may not seem all that special.

But to see it in the context of a time in which these type of superhero/comic book movie spectacle's were rare, was a treat, and i'll never forget seeing it in a packed theater and people cheering , rooting, and hollering for the film.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Batman 89 def deserves more love. I think it's a tighter race between all 3 films than this poll would suggest.

At this moment I think both 89 and BB completely dwarf TB in terms of historical significance for the character though. Obviously that book has yet to be written, but it just doesn't feel as revolutionary as both 89 and BB were at the time. IMO.

True enough with historical significance, but I think that's more timing than anything. We now live in a world where the average moviegoer will watch a Batman movie and actually attempt to take it seriously. All the work of trying to make that possible was just already done by the time TB came out, by the movies before it like 89, BB and TDK. I think it's possible for a future movie to be culturally significant in that way if Reeves focuses on the right elements for a sequel, but it's gonna be something more detail focused than holistic like how 89 or BB was significant.

 

[Doctor Jones]

B89 has the weakest script, but it's influence can't be understated. It's also still a great movie despite its problems. It's so just goddamn entertaining.

 

[DKDetective]

This Bat Bible was written back in the 90's yes? His bible states that:

"Bruce or Batman
Which one is genuine, Bruce Wayne or Batman? Answer: Batman. Wayne has become part of his tool kit, an identity he finds useful."

Fast forward to 2014 and he said this;

"I decided that Batman is the REAL guy and Bruce Wayne is the disguise. Other people have played it other ways perfectly validly. There is NO one right way to act Hamlet. And there’s no one way to write Batman … or Superman! These characters have been around for … well, Superman’s 76 years, Batman’s 75, and it’s been estimated that 80 percent of the people on Earth know about Batman in one form or another. They are open to interpretation"

Source: The DENNY O’NEIL Interviews: ‘There is No Hope in Crime Alley!’

So he obviously has changed his views on his Bat bible statement of how Batman is given how he said in that more recent interview the opposite way is equally valid. Considering we also saw him say Chris Nolan got Batman right, its easy to see he didn't beholden to the view that Batman is on a mission he knows he can't win.

Opinions and views change. Denny's obviously did.

Reading through other areas of that Bat Bible are not even factually correct. The love life aspect for example;

"He's been seen with dozens of attractive females, but he's never had a serious affair. He favors women who, like himself, are underachievers. It is assumed that he has occasional flings--the phrase "one night stand" comes to mind--but his dates tend neither to confirm or deny the assumption. If they ever compared experiences, they'd learn that an evening with Bruce is always the same: dinner, a show or an appearance at some social or charity affair, and early leave-taking, a plea of illness or a busy tomorrow, a quick kiss on the cheek with a promise to call, and a silent telephone thereafter."

He's never had a serious affair? He had serious relationships with Vicki Vale and Silver St Cloud. There's more that came after them but I'm covering the era before when that 'Bat Bible' was written.

Your bolded comments are exactly my point and have been my point since the outset of this exchange. As I said before, Denny's views, like all of ours, have changed over time. My understanding and personal interpretation of Batman has changed over time. At the time of the Nolan films, I really was into 70s O'Neil/Englehart and Bale/Nolan version of the character in terms of being relatively psychologically well-balanced. I never liked the idea of a more obsessive, mentally ill Batman, because most writers took it as an excuse to write Bruce as an unhinged *******. However, I really like Reeves' interpretation and how he portrays Bruce's mental illness and PTSD in a human, real way and is able to portray Bruce as still being a fundamentally good, moral, and compassionate man, despite his mental illness. For me, it is a game changer and I hope that it influences comics writers going forward.

My point at the beginning of this discussion was that it is just as much a valid interpretation of the character that Bruce is an obsessive who can never quit and will die on the job as it is the idea that one day he can find closure and retire. My whole point of that original Denny quote was that he thought that both options were perfectly valid ones for Bruce and that Denny himself has gone back and forth over the years.

 

[The Joker]

Your bolded comments are exactly my point and have been my point since the outset of this exchange. As I said before, Denny's views, like all of ours, have changed over time. My understanding and personal interpretation of Batman has changed over time. At the time of the Nolan films, I really was into 70s O'Neil/Englehart and Bale/Nolan version of the character in terms of being relatively psychologically well-balanced. I never liked the idea of a more obsessive, mentally ill Batman, because most writers took it as an excuse to write Bruce as an unhinged *******. However, I really like Reeves' interpretation and how he portrays Bruce's mental illness and PTSD in a human, real way and is able to portray Bruce as still being a fundamentally good, moral, and compassionate man, despite his mental illness. For me, it is a game changer and I hope that it influences comics writers going forward.

My point at the beginning of this discussion was that it is just as much a valid interpretation of the character that Bruce is an obsessive who can never quit and will die on the job as it is the idea that one day he can find closure and retire. My whole point of that original Denny quote was that he thought that both options were perfectly valid ones for Bruce and that Denny himself has gone back and forth over the years.

Fair enough. Its people who vehemently deny that Batman retiring/giving up is something the character would or could never do that I take to task. It falls back to what I said about fans projecting what they think Batman is over what he actually is. Its one thing to have your preference of what you like a character to be. We all have those. Its another to just say nope that's not Batman. He wouldn't do that. Not saying you did that here. Just speaking in general as that's how these discussions usually start off.

Even though I don't think Denny O'Neil is the defining view of Batman, or any comic book writer for that matter, its just when someone you admire and respect as a Batman writer gives it a thumbs up it always feels good. At least for me. Because I don't think any intelligent person expects movies to 100% adapt comic books faithfully. There's always going to be changes. Because its an adaption. Not a copy. As long as they get the spirit and essence of the characters right I'm happy.

 

[DKDetective]

Fair enough. Its people who vehemently deny that Batman retiring/giving up is something the character would or could never do that I take to task. It falls back to what I said about fans projecting what they think Batman is over what he actually is. Its one thing to have your preference of what you like a character to be. We all have those. Its another to just say nope that's not Batman. He wouldn't do that. Not saying you did that here. Just speaking in general as that's how these discussions usually start off.

Even though I don't think Denny O'Neil is the defining view of Batman, or any comic book writer for that matter, its just when someone you admire and respect as a Batman writer gives it a thumbs up it always feels good. At least for me. Because I don't think any intelligent person expects movies to 100% adapt comic books faithfully. There's always going to be changes. Because its an adaption. Not a copy. As long as they get the spirit and essence of the characters right I'm happy.

Beyond people rightfully saying "interpretations" like Snyder's are illegitimate, which go way outside 80 years of consensus on key points like Batman not killing, I don't think anyone here was really saying that any film interpretation was not valid... Especially that Nolan's ending was an illegitimate interpretation or without basis in the source material, I think posters like @DeadlyWest were just saying that it didn't accord with their personal interpretation of the character.

To say the idea that Bruce retiring and living happily ever after with Selina is not a valid interpretation based on the comics is just insane. It is precisely the ending that DC gave the Golden Era version of the character on Earth-2.

That aside, personally, I found The Dark Knight Rises unsatisfying. The idea of Bruce's first encounter with the Joker being the end of his career as Batman and that it only lasted two years, apart from a very brief return 8 years later, just didn't do it for me. It felt premature. If Nolan's Bruce had a fulsome 8-10 years as Batman before retirement like the Golden Age version, I would have no issue with that ending.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Fair enough. Its people who vehemently deny that Batman retiring/giving up is something the character would or could never do that I take to task. It falls back to what I said about fans projecting what they think Batman is over what he actually is. Its one thing to have your preference of what you like a character to be. We all have those. Its another to just say nope that's not Batman. He wouldn't do that. Not saying you did that here. Just speaking in general as that's how these discussions usually start off.

Even though I don't think Denny O'Neil is the defining view of Batman, or any comic book writer for that matter, its just when someone you admire and respect as a Batman writer gives it a thumbs up it always feels good. At least for me. Because I don't think any intelligent person expects movies to 100% adapt comic books faithfully. There's always going to be changes. Because its an adaption. Not a copy. As long as they get the spirit and essence of the characters right I'm happy.

I think what you touch upon here is precisely why I adore The Batman so much more than movies made prior to it.

While obviously, as you yourself said, there are always going to be changes made in adaptations, every Batman adaptation in the past has made some fundamental change to the essence of who the character is (to me, at the very least). The Batman is the first Batman movie I've ever seen to 100% maintain the core of the character with zero compromises.

I'm a comic fan first and movie fan second, so naturally I'm gonna prefer the adaptation first and film second approach. And The Batman has that in spades. There are objective flaws with it, even things I would certainly change (I honestly wish there was more precedence given to Bruce being morally outraged at the loss of life on the highway, for example). But it is the first live action movie to have the sprit and essence of my favourite fictional character of all time with zero compromises on that. And given how utterly important this character is to me, as anyone who's read my postings about what Batman means to me personally will tell you, that means so much more to me than if this was just trying to be a great film first and good adaptation second.

 

[InCali]

Beyond people rightfully saying "interpretations" like Snyder's are illegitimate, which go way outside 80 years of consensus on key points like Batman not killing, I don't think anyone here was really saying that any film interpretation was not valid... Especially that Nolan's ending was an illegitimate interpretation or without basis in the source material, I think posters like @DeadlyWest were just saying that it didn't accord with their personal interpretation of the character.

To say the idea that Bruce retiring and living happily ever after with Selina is not a valid interpretation based on the comics is just insane. It is precisely the ending that DC gave the Golden Era version of the character on Earth-2.

That aside, personally, I found The Dark Knight Rises unsatisfying. The idea of Bruce's first encounter with the Joker being the end of his career as Batman and that it only lasted two years, apart from a very brief return 8 years later, just didn't do it for me. It felt premature. If Nolan's Bruce had a fulsome 8-10 years as Batman before retirement like the Golden Age version, I would have no issue with that ending.

I agree WRT TDKR. It was easily my least favorite of the trilogy and picking up where it did after TDK was a bad call. I'm just guessing Nolan wanted to wrap things up.

WRT to the subject of THIS thread, I just haven't seen a better Bats movie than Begins. I really can't think of anything about it that I didn't like. It would have been cooler in IMAX, but that was a bad ass movie. While people tend to think of TDK as the best movie in the trilogy; and not without reason, I just liked the storyline of BB and the more I think about it, the more sure I am that it's my personal favorite. Ledger's performance in TDK really just made that movie.

 

[The Batman]

IMO, Given the nature of this board, describing Nolan's trilogy as "Great films first, great adaptions second" or something similar comes off as a bit of a backhanded compliment, whether people intend it to be or not.

As a comics fan, Nolan does as good a job at capturing the core of Batman/Bruce as Reeves does, particularly in BB. Neither really do it as well as Adam West did.

 

[DeadlyWest]

IMO, Given the nature of this board, describing Nolan's trilogy as "Great films first, great adaptions second" or something similar comes off as a bit of a backhanded compliment, whether people intend it to be or not.

As a comics fan, Nolan does as good a job at capturing the core of Batman/Bruce as Reeves does, particularly in BB. Neither really do it as well as Adam West did.

Certainly not my intention. It's apples and oranges. Whether you prefer one or the other is just up to you. Me personally, I just happen to prefer oranges.

 

[InCali]

Certainly not my intention. It's apples and oranges. Whether you prefer one or the other is just up to you. Me personally, I just happen to prefer oranges.

Not mine either. The fact is that comic characters change over time and I don't think there's a "real" BM, SM, etc.

One thing is, however, for sure......the Batman TV series didn't exactly capture the essence of any BM I read in the comics.....but I liked it. LOL

 

[Quixotica]

I may have fallen out of love with Batman 89 as I grew up, but man its Batmobile is still the most gorgeous beast.

 

[Frodo]

IMO, Given the nature of this board, describing Nolan's trilogy as "Great films first, great adaptions second" or something similar comes off as a bit of a backhanded compliment, whether people intend it to be or not.

As a comics fan, Nolan does as good a job at capturing the core of Batman/Bruce as Reeves does, particularly in BB. Neither really do it as well as Adam West did.

Yeah.

In all honesty, I've only started to hear that " Great films first, great adaptions second" line post The Batman' s release.

That certainly wasn't an argument I heard a few years ago.

The impression I get from that line of argument, is that it's a way of trying to dismiss the Nolan films, and to say that The Batman is better on both counts.

That may not be the intent of all of those who make that argument , but that's what it comes off as to me.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

I’ve heard that criticism since 2008. “It’s a great crime drama and but less of a Batman film”.

 

[WayneMB]

i've seen and heard those criticisms when i was younger freshly post nolan trilogy. it's not a new thing, nor is it nonsenical.

 

[The Joker]

Its the fanboy cycle. It happens every time a new version comes out. They criticize/dismiss the older versions in an attempt to make the new version look superior. Its happened with Batman, Superman, Spider-Man etc. Like clockwork.

It was amusing when people were trying to make the likes of the TASM movies and Snyderverse look so superior over everything else. Nothing beats the time when they tried to make Letoker look like the greatest Joker yet. "He Is PeRmA WhItE WiTh No FiXeD sMiLe. BeSt JoKeR EvAh!!!".

I have to say its probably been the tamest its ever been for The Batman. Most fans seem to be not trying to compare and just appreciating each version for what they are. Even in the versus threads like this. I am still legit surprised Begins has been winning the poll while TB is still in its honeymoon phase. Didn't expect that.

 

[Frodo]

I’ve heard that criticism since 2008. “It’s a great crime drama and but less of a Batman film”.

True, you did have some fans says that post TDK , but even then, those represent a minority even in fandom.

That's also different then saying a whole trilogy are great films first, and adaptations second.

 

[Frodo]

i've seen and heard those criticisms when i was younger freshly post nolan trilogy. it's not a new thing, nor is it nonsenical.

It's a new thing when it's used in relation to The Batman, which is the context that argument has been used in recently.

As far as whether the argument is nonsensical, all I can say is that I don't buy it at all , but we're all gonna have our own opinions on these films.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

I remember Ledger’s Joker being criticized as “he is just a generic serial killer, not the Joker”. But thankfully that one has died down.

 

[BatLobster]

I remember Ledger’s Joker being criticized as “he is just a generic serial killer, not the Joker”. But thankfully that one has died down.

Paul Dano's Riddler:

"Wait till they get a load of me..."

 

[AntonGobbs89]

Batman 89 changed what the GA felt Batman was and should be.

Before 89, the GA felt thought that Batman was always campy character, because the 60s show.

The vast majority of filmgoers didn't see Batman as this dark, avenging character prior to that film.
Their image of Batman was bright, colorful, and absurd tough and cheek storytelling.

Then, 20 years later this is what the public see's, this gothic, operatic, big screen Spectacle

Alot of fans today take for granted that Batman films tend to be dark , and alot of them don't realize how Batman 89 was perceived by the GA as this radical approach to the character.

Again, we're talking about the average filmgoer of the 1980s, not the seasoned comicbook collectors and fans who knew about The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, or Strange Apparitions, in real time.

Batman 89 shaped how the GA would view the character on film and tv from that moment forward.

For people who've grown up in a world of cinematic universes and superhero tv shows across many different platforms, Batman 89 may not seem all that special.

But to see it in the context of a time in which these type of superhero/comic book movie spectacle's were rare, was a treat, and i'll never forget seeing it in a packed theater and people cheering , rooting, and hollering for the film.

Someone really needs to write a book on the making of Batman 89 because there’s a lot of context surrounding that film that’s unfortunately lost nowadays. How many younger Batman fans are aware that Batman uses a grapple gun primarily because of this movie? How many are aware that referring to the Batplane as the Batwing came from this movie? How many are aware that the design of the Batwing in this film heavily altered the look of it in the comics and other media? How many are aware that Keaton was the first actor to give a different voice to Batman?

Also, the Batsuit in this film was the first of its kind. Before this superhero’s on film were primarily men in leotards. That’s another reason why the casting of Keaton didn’t go over well with people. They all envisioned him wearing a skin tight suit like Adam West, because that was the only frame of reference. I wish I was around to experience the marketing and see Keaton’s suit for the first time. It would’ve blown my mind.

That’s why I get annoyed when Batman fans just dismiss Burton’s contributions to Batman. I don’t think people understand that a lot of what he and his team brought to the table at the time has become the status quo for the character and his world.

But beyond all of that, I’d still rank it above those other two films. Even though I really like Begins and ,to a lesser extent, The Batman, the 89 film just got the tone right. It’s dark and gothic, but at the same time it has a sense of fun and adventure to it. For me no other Batman film has been able to recapture or balance that tone in the same fashion.

Finally, the 89 film isn’t limiting itself in terms of being a comic book film. For example the Joker is a guy that fell into a vat of chemicals. He’s not some dude with a skin disease or a man shaped by the wrongs of society. Batman also rides in a car that looks otherworldly but is still identifiable as a Batmobile. It’s not something you can easily find on the street and it isn’t made by the military. With Batman Begins I have less of a problem with this, but in The Batman a lot of that grounded stuff really rubbed me the wrong way. I was looking at a behind the scenes vid on Pattinson’s costume, and the costume designer talked about how his belt and the tools on the belt are only things that a cop would have. That’s an approach to Batman that I don’t really care for personally.

 

[antsman41]

I’ve heard that criticism since 2008. “It’s a great crime drama and but less of a Batman film”.

...every scene Bruce is in though, he's doing Batman stuff. He's never just "Bruce Wayne" - yah know?

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I have to give it to The Batman

1. The Batman
2. Batman Begins
3. Batman '89

Since 2008 my #1 spot for best Batman movie has been a tie between TDK and Batman Returns. I think The Batman is now up there with them.