The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 3

[Senator Pleasury]

The bit with the Bat signal lit in the sky and Batman standing high is awesome, and pretty iconic
My problem with it is Batman was a wanted man through the entire movie, then he killed the Joker, sent his signal to the cops and gave them a letter with his hand writing, then they just take it. Goes against Vikki Vale replying to Batman saying "He's a maniac" with "People say the same about you"

With Batman Begins at least Batman saved the city from the chaos it was in, Gordon worked with him, so them making a bat signal for him is understandable

Well, in both movies Batman saved Gotham from a madman who tried to poison Gotham with gas. But then the bat-signal makes more sense in B89 since there Batman was officially considered a hero for that (what Vicky says about him being a maniac happens before Batman saved Gotham), whereas in BB (and then in TDK) he was still a wanted man. In fact Gordon had to deny the bat-signal existed; he said that was some sort of "defective" searchlight, and I don't know why or how nobody investigated this any further since it'd be an evidence that a wanted man works along with the Gotham Police Dept.

Just one more thing: Batman's letter in B89 was handwritten? In the movie we cannot see the actual letter.



***********************

I thought mods were flawless machines without feelings

I think just the last part is true.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Well, in both movies Batman saved Gotham from a madman who tried to poison Gotham with gas. But then the bat-signal makes more sense in B89 since there Batman was officially considered a hero for that (what Vicky says about him being a maniac happens before Batman saved Gotham), whereas in BB (and then in TDK) he was still a wanted man. In fact Gordon had to deny the bat-signal existed; he said that was some sort of "defective" searchlight, and I don't know why or how nobody investigated this any further since it'd be an evidence that a wanted man works along with the Gotham Police Dept.

Just one more thing: Batman's letter in B89 was handwritten? In the movie we cannot see the actual letter.

In the shooting script it was described as a handwritten letter. They didn't add that in any dialogue in the actual film. However, it's stupid, because if it was handwritten and they wanted to find out who Batman was, all they would need to do would be to give handwriting tests to all of the Gothamites.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

In the shooting script it was described as a handwritten letter. They didn't add that in any dialogue in the actual film. However, it's stupid, because if it was handwritten and they wanted to find out who Batman was, all they would need to do would be to give handwriting tests to all of the Gothamites.

Yeah. Good they left that out.

I also heard that originally the Joker was supposed to be throwing false bills with his face on them. But in the movie it was real money.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I'd only do that if I disagreed. Parker had bum dead to rights.

Searching your name again?

 

[shauner111]

Watched this last night. I appreciate it more of course. It's entertaining and fun. But im not sure if I would call it a movie with substance. I don't really think any of the Burton/Shumacher movies had "substance".

There were blinking moments of it like the reveal of Joker killing Bruce's parents. That was a serious moment and well acted by Keaton. Or him visiting crime alley with roses while Vikki stalks him. But I cant really think of anything else from this movie that wasn't just done for the sake of good fun.

My childhood nostalgia came back for sure. But there's still a lot of this movie that doesn't make sense. The plot holes in TDKR have always never been plotholes for me, always easy to explain. But there's a lot in Batman 89' that's a bit dumb. He kills people yet they're honoring him at the end?? He's BRUCE WAYNE and Vikki and others don't know what he does for a living?? Or what happened to Thomas and Martha Wayne??

Nicholson is hilarious. I still crack up every time the scene comes up when he burns that guy to a crisp. I love it. But it's also the weakest Joker ive seen on film. It's very strong but it's still Jack playing Jack if you know what I mean. Hammill and Ledger blow him out of the water. I also prefer no origin for Joker. Just a personal thing for me.

Was never a fan of the "Jack Napier" addition. Killing Bruce's parents works for this movie alone, but it's not something im comfortable with because Batman shouldn't be a revenge tale like Punisher. Once he kills this man he may never stop (as you see in Returns). And that's just not my batman. I prefer Joe Chill because it's not a psychotic it's just a greedy desperate man doing the killing. A product of the harsh environment of Gotham City and his own bad choices. But he's not insane. He doesn't enjoy killing Bruce's folks.

But the moment of the "Napier/Wayne" reveal works in a dramatic way. Kind of gets lost after though. Vale coming into the cave was WAY too quick after Bruce finds out the truth. Like 2 seconds later and then it shifts to dialogue about their relationship. Or lack of! I mean they like each other, they had a one-night stand, but why is Vikki talking about love or Bruce wanting to tell her his truths?? I don't buy it.

Fun movie. Maybe ill appreciate Batman Returns more when I buy that on Blu-ray too, bringing me back to my childhood. But overall these movies aren't made with too much psychology or serious moments behind it. Even if Burton and the rest try to sell that notion in documentaries.

I still think TDK-T is far superior than these Keaton films and the closest thing to the comics we have thus far. Even if it's still far away from what we could potentially get. The reboot will probably be the closest. Mask Of The Phantasm on the other hand might actually be the greatest "Batman" movie though. That's another movie I watched a couple nights ago & IMO better than any of the Burton/Shumacher quadrilogy by a long shot.

 

[The Shape]

B89 has just as much "substance" as any film in the Nolan trilogy. The themes and character arcs aren't quite as obvious or heavy-handed (with characters literally spelling things out like in TDK trilogy), but they're there. Overall, B89 completely captures the essence of Batman, as do the Nolan films. Both are wildly different but equally valid interpretations of Batman.

 

[The Shape]

In the shooting script it was described as a handwritten letter. They didn't add that in any dialogue in the actual film. However, it's stupid, because if it was handwritten and they wanted to find out who Batman was, all they would need to do would be to give handwriting tests to all of the Gothamites.

Really? That's a criticism you'd have?

 

[shauner111]

It's a stupid nitpick. I would never think of that. It's irrelevant. But it's true lol. In reality that's what they could have done. But Burton's Gotham is not like our world so it doesn't matter.

But 89' is very Batman. It's valid. But it doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of substance as Nolan's. I watch plenty of movies that deal with themes of substance without much dialogue even..so I know about that. Nolan has his exposition, sure. But I just don't see the substance here besides a couple of short scenes in each movie.

 

[milost]

B89 has just as much "substance" as any film in the Nolan trilogy. The themes and character arcs aren't quite as obvious or heavy-handed (with characters literally spelling things out like in TDK trilogy), but they're there. Overall, B89 completely captures the essence of Batman, as do the Nolan films. Both are wildly different but equally valid interpretations of Batman.

This.

I completely agree. It was much more subtle with what it was trying to do and didn't rely on obnoxious exposition (mostly coming from a certain cockney Butler I might add).

Hell, TDKR took a page from '89 with it's concept of Alfred wanting Bruce to live a happy life. We see it again and again throughout the picture and it's particularly evident with "I have no wish to fill my few remaining years grieving for the loss of old friends . . . or their sons." Much better than the forced "I am going to cry, then leave you for the rest of the movie" performance.

I also think that the orphan/Bruce Wayne losing his parents angle is much better in the Burton films than the Nolan ones, especially with Bruce visiting the site where his parents died and "Childhood Remembered". An guess what? Not a word is spoken in either scene. Keaton's face says it all.

 

[Cain]

Nicholson was indeed hilarious. He had so many little lines that just always resonated with me and made me laugh "better stay inside the lines", "I thought I was a pisces", "We've got a flying mouse to kill and I wanna clean my claws". Also no matter how many times I see this movie every single time he breaks into his laugh I can't help but crack up right along with him. It's contagious.

 

[shauner111]

This.

I completely agree. It was much more subtle with what it was trying to do and didn't rely on obnoxious exposition (mostly coming from a certain cockney Butler I might add).

Hell, TDKR took a page from '89 with it's concept of Alfred wanting Bruce to live a happy life. We see it again and again throughout the picture and it's particularly evident with "I have no wish to fill my few remaining years grieving for the loss of old friends . . . or their sons." Much better than the forced "I am going to cry, then leave you for the rest of the movie" performance.

I also think that the orphan/Bruce Wayne losing his parents angle is much better in the Burton films than the Nolan ones, especially with Bruce visiting the site where his parents died and "Childhood Remembered". An guess what? Not a word is spoken in either scene. Keaton's face says it all.

There was nothing forced about it. And im sorry but Alfred's conversation with Bruce and what he said is just a part of life and how a real person in that situation would react. For that world, it was needed. Forced? Give me a break.

Ill take emotion over no emotion any day of the week.

 

[milost]

I like the commercial the best.

You get a wide range of how sick and twisted he is in some scenes. The scene where he's making a collage out of all those pictures of victims and dead people is pretty disturbing. It'd be like going on sites like rotten.com or faces of death and making "art" out of them. Sick stuff.

 

[milost]

There was nothing forced about it. And im sorry but Alfred's conversation with Bruce and what he said is just a part of life and how a real person in that situation would react. For that world, it was needed. Forced? Give me a break.

Ill take emotion over no emotion any day of the week.

Hey, come on. Opinions, we're all entitled to them. You think '89 lacks substance, I don't. I didn't tell you to "give me a break" when I disagreed, did I?

It was forced to me, I was actually surprised with Caine after the great performances he gave in the first two. He was just a blubbering fool in his last performance, practically begging the audience to pull out their heartstrings. I never bought it, nor that turn. I much preferred the "why do we fall" and "nevah" speeches in the elevator shaft in Batman Begins. Much more genuine.

I think '89 handled that concept much better without Alfred crying his eyes out. Keaton's rebuttal to that notion of a "happy life" was much better as well, "I can't be bothered with that now, I have to get this guy, why don't you marry her" (paraphrasing of course). It felt much more real.

 

[shauner111]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[The Shape]

Nicholson was indeed hilarious. He had so many little lines that just always resonated with me and made me laugh "better stay inside the lines", "I thought I was a pisces", "We've got a flying mouse to kill and I wanna clean my claws". Also no matter how many times I see this movie every single time he breaks into his laugh I can't help but crack up right along with him. It's contagious.

"Never rub another man's rhubarb."

 

[The Shape]

It's a stupid nitpick. I would never think of that. It's irrelevant. But it's true lol. In reality that's what they could have done. But Burton's Gotham is not like our world so it doesn't matter.

But 89' is very Batman. It's valid. But it doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of substance as Nolan's. I watch plenty of movies that deal with themes of substance without much dialogue even..so I know about that. Nolan has his exposition, sure. But I just don't see the substance here besides a couple of short scenes in each movie.

I usually agree with you and generally feel the same way you do about TDKR (loved it), but I think you're off the mark here.

There's no such thing as "themes of substance" anyway. In B89, there are not only a bunch of subtle character moments for Bruce/Batman, but much of what we get out of the film is by reading between the lines. We are only shown what we need to see, and from that, we are able to develop an understanding of the character of Bruce Wayne (Keaton), a man plagued with inner torment.

 

[Cain]

"never rub another man's rhubarb."

"what are you laughing at?!?!"

 

[regwec]

Shauner, you're a smart guy, and a nice one. But I sensed, from a mile away, the inevitability of your presence in this thread becoming a vigorous defense of the Nolan trilogy!

Both are great, but I do get a sense that Burton trusted his audience a bit more than Nolan did. The Nolan trilogy is a bit like being told a story as a kid, where everything is explained to you, and context is constantly provided as reassurance and perspective. Burton showed rather than explained. As a result, I think people who saw the Nolan films first tend to think that the substance isn't there in the Burton movies, because it is not so heavily signposted for them. I actually prefer films like that, that allow the viewer to use a degree of intuition.

 

[The Shape]

Shauner, you're a smart guy, and a nice one. But I sensed, from a mile away, the inevitability of your presence in this thread becoming a vigorous defense of the Nolan trilogy!

Both are great, but I do get a sense that Burton trusted his audience a bit more than Nolan did. The Nolan trilogy is a bit like being told a story as a kid, where everything is explained to you, and context is constantly provided as reassurance and perspective. Burton showed rather than explained. As a result, I think people who saw the Nolan films first tend to think that the substance isn't there in the Burton movies, because it is not so heavily signposted for them. I actually prefer films like that, that allow the viewer to use a degree of intuition.

Yes. More so, they're just different approaches to the Batman character. As I said a few days ago, Nolan's trilogy really works from a behind-the scenes, how-to standpoint, in which we saw the creation/evolution/conclusion of Batman from the ground up. Compared to the 4 non-Nolan films, which all seem more like one-off stories than an interconnected series of events, I think Nolan's approach was welcomed with open arms and rightfully so. Whether one prefers the Burton films or the Nolan trilogy, there's no denying it was cool to see how/why Bruce came up with and ultilized his Batman persona. After the series ended in the 90s, we as fans deserved the more in-depth look that Nolan gave us. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Having said that, Burton's approach to Batman was also unique in that, as I said, we only saw what we needed to see...and it was still more than enough to tell the story he wanted to tell. In referring to B89, of course, because I do feel that Burton altered his approach with Batman Returns.

While B89 is definitely somewhat of a grittier, real-world tale (I would argue the set design echoes this), Returns is definitely more fantastical and way more "out there", which is a little off-putting if you watch the films back to back. As fun, waxky, and creepy as Retrns is, I can't help but wonder what the sequel would have been like if Burton made it to be more of a continuation of B89's tone.

 

[Travesty]

I always see that criticism of Nicholson's Joker, that it was just Nicholson playing Nicholson. Sure, he didn't "escape" into a full fledged Joker as say Leger did, but I prefer Nicholson's version just because of the way he was written, and lets be honest, Nicholson's performance wasn't horrible. It still felt, looked and sounded very much like The Joker. All of his gadgets, silly morbid jokes, the maniacal laughter, etc all felt like pure Joker to me. While I don't think it's the perfect Joker ever created, I do prefer it over Ledger, and think it's the best live-action version we have seen so far.

All have been good, though.

 

[shauner111]

Shauner, you're a smart guy, and a nice one. But I sensed, from a mile away, the inevitability of your presence in this thread becoming a vigorous defense of the Nolan trilogy!

I cant argue with that! I didn't want to talk about Nolan, just my opinions on this movie but I couldn't help it haha. Sorry guys.

Both are great, but I do get a sense that Burton trusted his audience a bit more than Nolan did. The Nolan trilogy is a bit like being told a story as a kid, where everything is explained to you, and context is constantly provided as reassurance and perspective. Burton showed rather than explained. As a result, I think people who saw the Nolan films first tend to think that the substance isn't there in the Burton movies, because it is not so heavily signposted for them. I actually prefer films like that, that allow the viewer to use a degree of intuition.

I agree. I think Burton and WB made the first movie for the general audience AND the fans. Like really trusting that the fans would just buy into the silliness from Joker and how Bruce was feeling without really talking about it. That's cool. But I think Nolan made these more for the general audience, hence the explaining. And we have to remember that he's making the trilogy almost as a reaction to the whole Burton/Shumacher quadrilogy. So I think it was inevitable that he or whoever the director, was going to approach it differently. Burton's movies were very visual. Nolan REALLY dug in with the script, dialogue instead.

Maybe im not really saying it properly. People can interpret 89' the way they want. If you see substance here and there, while I don't, then I guess it doesn't make you wrong for seeing it. And there are scenes with substance, I actually named a few. But I don't believe there's anywhere near the amount that people are saying...again...that might just be me. My main issue with the scenes that do have substance, is that they jump too quickly back into the fun ride or a joke or a moment that takes away from the emotional potential. Man Of Steel is a movie with those same criticisms. It didn't ruin the experience for me for MOS, and it didn't here either, but I just prefer the slower lingering approach with scenes like that I guess.

 

[Sawyer]

Searching your name again?

You know it!

With Parker running around talking ****, I have to do this on a weekly basis.

 

[CConn]

I kinda see where Shauner is coming from in this respect; both B89 and BR's plots are so tight and move so quickly that you can almost lose focus of the much more quality and nuanced aspects of the film. Honestly, there's so much character depth in both films, they'd almost be better had if they didn't even have any conventional plots and just focused primarily on the character interaction.

That said, I'm sure if they did that, it'd go over everyone's heads like movies like The Master did and everybody would hate them.

 

[CConn]

Additionally, I must mentioned yet again, the thing that makes B89 truly incredible isn't even it's portrayal of the Batman mythos necessarily; it's about how incredibly accurate a reinvention it was of classic 20s/30s filmmaking it was - especially horror films from that time. I will still contend that no film outside of Blade Runner has ever come close to recapturing that same pitch perfect emulation of that classic genre.

 

[milost]

I always see that criticism of Nicholson's Joker, that it was just Nicholson playing Nicholson. Sure, he didn't "escape" into a full fledged Joker as say Leger did, but I prefer Nicholson's version just because of the way he was written, and lets be honest, Nicholson's performance wasn't horrible. It still felt, looked and sounded very much like The Joker. All of his gadgets, silly morbid jokes, the maniacal laughter, etc all felt like pure Joker to me. While I don't think it's the perfect Joker ever created, I do prefer it over Ledger, and think it's the best live-action version we have seen so far.

All have been good, though.

I hate that. That gripe is just so cliched it's old.


I see a clear distinction between Jack Nicholson the actor and the Joker. Sure, when he's playing Jack Napier, it is essentially Jack Nicholson, but once he steps out into the light in Grissom's apartment and proclaims "the Joker", I see the Joker.

Nobody ever criticizes Deniro or Al Pacino for playing themselves over and over again, or most other actors for that matter.

When The Joker is doing his little marketing jig in his commercial with his dead, superimposed (before photoshop) models, trying to "market" the poison he created that's killing Gotham, that's the Joker. When he's shaking his ass, laughing at the Gargoyle, then something sort of snaps in his head and he tenses up and makes that "I better be careful or I'm going to slip" troll face, that's the Joker.



Saying he just, "played himself" is sort of insulting. It makes it sound like he just showed up, slathered make up on, and portrayed himself with no thought process about the character when that's the farthest from the truth.




[YT]mSqXBRpasZ8[/YT]