The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 5

[Rodrigo90]

And what I loved most about him, was how clutzy he could be in social situations. He wasn't really used to being in normal, everyday situations. He was cemented in basic routines and that was a reclusive, isolated pattern, where being Batman was the only thing he felt most comfortable and natural in doing.

 

[The Joker]

Unfortunately that's what I disliked about him (among some other things), because to me that's not Batman. Outside of Burton's version I've never seen Bruce characterized like that. So it didn't sit right with me. Bruce is supposed to be socially functional not clutzy, even when he is just putting on an act for the public, or being in an intimate setting with a woman. Some of the best Bruce Wayne stuff (I mean from it all - comics, cartoons, and movies) come from him in social situations. He doesn't spend his life under a rock. That would be very boring to me. It felt like they'd given him another character's traits.

I also missed the whole Wayne family legacy/Wayne Enterprises angle, and how that's important to Bruce.

They should bring back Bruce Wayne being a socialite who smokes a pipe t:

 

[BatLobster]

I'm always going to have a fondness for Keaton because, well...he was my childhood Batman and my first exposure to the character. And I love Keaton as an actor. But his Bruce Wayne was very different take on the character that is nowhere near close to definitive if you look to pretty much any other version of the character- even the Schumacher films. It's fine to like it, I personally do enjoy it, but I think there's some mental gymnastics required to argue that it was anywhere near a classic depiction of Bruce Wayne. They went more of a Clark Kent route with him, where just seems like this meek, social misfit. It's an entirely different archetype. Batman was still pure Batman though, so that's why I think they were able to get away with it.

 

[Penguin]

That’s one of the things I love the most about the Golden Age Bruce Wayne, he’s very outgoing and he’s like that panel says, a socialite.

 

[shauner111]

I'm always going to have a fondness for Keaton because, well...he was my childhood Batman and my first exposure to the character. And I love Keaton as an actor. But his Bruce Wayne was very different take on the character that is nowhere near close to definitive if you look to pretty much any other version of the character- even the Schumacher films. It's fine to like it, I personally do enjoy it, but I think there's some mental gymnastics required to argue that it was anywhere near a classic depiction of Bruce Wayne. They went more of a Clark Kent route with him, where just seems like this meek, social misfit. It's an entirely different archetype. Batman was still pure Batman though, so that's why I think they were able to get away with it.

Other than his shrugging of the shoulders when he kills people, yes, he was a great Batman. I only like his Bruce Wayne because it was Keaton. It's still not Bruce to me though.

 

[Decepticonus]

They should bring back Bruce Wayne being a socialite who smokes a pipe t:

Amen brotha!

 

[Rodrigo90]

Unfortunately that's what I disliked about him (among some other things), because to me that's not Batman. Outside of Burton's version I've never seen Bruce characterized like that. So it didn't sit right with me. Bruce is supposed to be socially functional not clutzy, even when he is just putting on an act for the public, or being in an intimate setting with a woman. Some of the best Bruce Wayne stuff (I mean from it all - comics, cartoons, and movies) come from him in social situations. He doesn't spend his life under a rock. That would be very boring to me. It felt like they'd given him another character's traits.

I also missed the whole Wayne family legacy/Wayne Enterprises angle, and how that's important to Bruce.

They should bring back Bruce Wayne being a socialite who smokes a pipe t:

It's like they wanted to go the Clark Kent for some reason. Since making Bruce more of a recluse, which isn't the character from the comics, they made him all the more awkward in social situations. I think it's all brought into one structure, that his life is Batman. Those who aren't in the elite don't know what he looks like, and those who are, probably still don't know that much about him. He's invited out to events, but he's out on a nightly patrol. He can't form close relationships because of being who he really is.
I just can't deny that I enjoyed the interpretation.

Being who Burton is and the obvious life he had, it seems to me like he injected some of his own personality, quirks, and lifestyle into Keaton's Bruce.

And yes, I want Affleck to smoke a pipe!
"Tell me...do you smoke? You will!"

 

[Keehar]

The Keaton Wayne was a cold fish. I couldn't picture him taking in an orphan Dick Grayson, or having a Robin and Batgirl. He was cold as ice with 'ol Gordon too.

 

[Mace Dolex]

The Keaton Wayne was a cold fish. I couldn't picture him taking in an orphan Dick Grayson, or having a Robin and Batgirl. He was cold as ice with 'ol Gordon too.

Except for one interaction in Batman Returns there was never any scenes with Bruce and Gordon in the Burton movies, it isn't until Schumacher takes over that Batman is all talkative.

 

[Decepticonus]

The Keaton Wayne was a cold fish. I couldn't picture him taking in an orphan Dick Grayson, or having a Robin and Batgirl. He was cold as ice with 'ol Gordon too.

To be fair Gordon was pretty damn useless in these films. They could do a Lucas cut of them where he's removed from the films entirely and I wouldn't notice/care. This is nothing against Pat Hingle, it's just his character just wasn't utilized very well.

But yeah the Bruce Wayne in this always bothered me because this movie was my introduction to Batman, not the comics. You see the placeholder for his name and seat at the dinner for District Attorney Lando. Then there's a party at his mansion and fund raiser as well. So obviously this guy is wealth, influential and must do something for a living... but what? OK maybe he inherited it all from his parents, but where they get it from? And even if he's just some trust fundie then why does he get to sit in on that dinner? Being my first introduction to this franchise I knew nothing and learned nothing about Bruce Wayne, it's safe to say Burton was interested in the character.

 

[regwec]

Little is made of it, but nor was more detail really needed. We know he is a rich philanthropist who is personally rather reclusive, citing Alfred as all his family. More important to the story is his childhood trauma and the resultant war of crime.

 

[Keehar]

Except for one interaction in Batman Returns there was never any scenes with Bruce and Gordon in the Burton movies, it isn't until Schumacher takes over that Batman is all talkative.

Yep he had like no friendship with white moustache until Schumacher. Another important thing Mr. Burton left out.

To be fair Gordon was pretty damn useless in these films. They could do a Lucas cut of them where he's removed from the films entirely and I wouldn't notice/care. This is nothing against Pat Hingle, it's just his character just wasn't utilized very well.

But yeah the Bruce Wayne in this always bothered me because this movie was my introduction to Batman, not the comics. You see the placeholder for his name and seat at the dinner for District Attorney Lando. Then there's a party at his mansion and fund raiser as well. So obviously this guy is wealth, influential and must do something for a living... but what? OK maybe he inherited it all from his parents, but where they get it from? And even if he's just some trust fundie then why does he get to sit in on that dinner? Being my first introduction to this franchise I knew nothing and learned nothing about Bruce Wayne, it's safe to say Burton was interested in the character.

HA yeah Gordon was super lame in these movies. Big shame because Hingle was a good actor but he had nothing to do. Yep cut him out and it doesn't change anything.

Burton so wasn't interested in the character. Barely knew anything about him. I bet we wouldn't have even seen the flashback of his folks getting killed if the Joker hadn't been involved in it.

 

[The Batman]

I dug Keaton's Wayne, mainly because Keaton made that interpretation work.

I also just don't see the point in deducting points because he wasn't a social billionaire playboy. When there's so many media versions of the character that offer that, it really doesn't mater that there's one version that didn't have that "public" persona, IMO. Just like how there's so many versions of Batman where he never retires, I can hardly be bothered to complain that Bale's Batman did. If there are going to be continuous adaptions of the mythos, I want to see some variety.

 

[Keehar]

That ain't why he sucks. It's that it's a characterization that has never been done for Bats because it ain't who he is. At least there's been versions of Bats that have retired and wanted to retire. Never had a weirdo hermit Bruce Wayne. That's why I hated it. It just ain't Wayne.

 

[The Joker]

Same. Though I wouldn't say it sucked. It just wasn't my cup of tea for a Bruce Wayne characterization. Like someone else mentioned it was like a Clark Kent type of persona. This is not a fault with Keaton. Just the writing. Keaton did fine with the material he had.

It's the same kind of reasons like why some people don't like The Penguin in Returns because he was a disgusting sewer dwelling freak, which is a far cry from who The Penguin is. Or how the Joker was made the killer of Batman's parents (that particular one got a big fan backlash along with the Alfred taking Vicki into the Batcave thing) etc. Or to take a more recent example, that god awful Green Goblin in TASM 2 and how much he and the whole Goblin story was bastardized.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well, I loved Keaton's portrayal of Bruce. It was 90% of the time, hilarious, in my opinion. So, with that, I can easily understand some folk not liking it.

 

[Decepticonus]

I dug Keaton's Wayne, mainly because Keaton made that interpretation work.

I also just don't see the point in deducting points because he wasn't a social billionaire playboy. When there's so many media versions of the character that offer that, it really doesn't mater that there's one version that didn't have that "public" persona, IMO. Just like how there's so many versions of Batman where he never retires, I can hardly be bothered to complain that Bale's Batman did. If there are going to be continuous adaptions of the mythos, I want to see some variety.

My only problem was again this was my introduction to Batman, is it offered nothing on Bruce Wayne on who he is and what he, Bruce Wayne, not Batman does. It's sad I had to wait for TAS, a ****ing cartoon to get better development and actual story telling of the character. You'd think a 90 minute film that was indeed also made for adults could maybe handle that better, but nope. It makes me happy Burton never got his Superman movie cause his approach would be "So Clark Kent is just kinda there in the background and Luthor is the main character, right?"

 

[The Shape]

And what I loved most about him, was how clutzy he could be in social situations. He wasn't really used to being in normal, everyday situations. He was cemented in basic routines and that was a reclusive, isolated pattern, where being Batman was the only thing he felt most comfortable and natural in doing.

Yes. And to build on that, I wouldn't even say that he was "clutzy" but more so just uncomfortable in social situations, which makes perfect sense for someone like Batman who is one of the quintessential "loners" of superhero media. He still had an air of confidence about him as Bruce in some ways, along with a sense of humor ("Because I bought it in Japan"), but he was also quirky and a little weird, which can also be said of many absurdly rich people. Some might say that he projected an even more realistic "Bruce Wayne" person towards the people he interacted with.

I think Keaton and Burton delivered a fantastic take on Bruce Wayne and Batman in B89 that was really interesting. Instead of portraying Bruce himself as a social butterfly who puts on this total facade as his public persona, his name alone was the persona. He still threw lavish parties, had Wayne Enterprises, and likely spent a **** ton of money on whatever he wanted. The film demonstrates that Bruce is a well known figure, but there is a Gatsby-like aura of mystery about him that I'm sure would only cause the public and people of Gotham to be more fascinated by him.

B89 is one of the most unique superhero "origin" movies ever, because they presented us with a character that was fleshed out but mostly developed through second-hand accounts. Most of what we learn or suspect about Bruce and his history comes from hearing dialogue between other characters and through the actions of other characters. Vicki and Knox at Wayne Manor, Alfred talking to Vicki, Vicki seeing Bruce swinging upside down, Vicki following Bruce to the alley, Vicki and Knox looking into Bruce's past, etc. The same can be said about Batman and how much of what we hear about him are rumors and speculation from secondary characters.

Bruce verbally offers very little information about himself to the secondary characters, but each small bit of info is crucial to building the characterization and cluing us into his mindset.

Vicki Vale: What about your family?
Bruce Wayne: Well, actually, Alfred is my family.
Vicki Vale: You know, this house and all this stuff really doesn't seem like you at all.
Bruce Wayne: Some of it is very much me. Some of it isn't.

Vicki Vale: A lot of people think you're as dangerous as the Joker.
Batman: He's psychotic.
Vicki Vale: Some people say the same thing about you.
Batman: What people?
Vicki Vale: Well, I mean, let's face it. You're not exactly normal, are you?
Batman: It's not exactly a normal world, is it?

Notice how he dodges her question, which is essentially the same thing as admitting that the people are right. Even when Batman publicly addresses the city, it's delivered to us in the form of a letter read by someone else.

Dist. Atty. Harvey Dent: We've received a letter from Batman this morning. 'Please inform the citizens of Gotham that Gotham City has earned a rest from crime. But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city, call me.'
Alexander Knox: Question. How do we call him?
Commissioner Jim Gordon: He gave us a signal.

For both Bruce and Batman, we really only see what the other characters see, for the most part, or what he wants them to see. It's the total opposite of Batman Begins where we follow Bruce completely from A-Z and get that total "behind the scenes" look at Batman, and I love both tellings of the Batman story.

What's fascinating is that for much of B89, we aren't truly shown who Bruce Wayne is or why he is Batman. It's only after that one, pivotal flashback right before the climax of the film that the full picture is presented to us (the only look into his past), building on everything we'd seen and heard previously like leaving the rose in the alley and the newspaper clipping. And that's all we need to understand him.

To make a long story short, I love this movie.

 

[Keehar]

My only problem was again this was my introduction to Batman, is it offered nothing on Bruce Wayne on who he is and what he, Bruce Wayne, not Batman does. It's sad I had to wait for TAS, a ****ing cartoon to get better development and actual story telling of the character. You'd think a 90 minute film that was indeed also made for adults could maybe handle that better, but nope. It makes me happy Burton never got his Superman movie cause his approach would be "So Clark Kent is just kinda there in the background and Luthor is the main character, right?"

Totally. You end up knowing more about the Joker who should be the mystery guy than you do about Batman haha.

Spoiler

Yes. And to build on that, I wouldn't even say that he was "clutzy" but more so just uncomfortable in social situations, which makes perfect sense for someone like Batman who is one of the quintessential "loners" of superhero media. He still had an air of confidence about him as Bruce in some ways, along with a sense of humor ("Because I bought it in Japan"), but he was also quirky and a little weird, which can also be said of many absurdly rich people. Some might say that he projected an even more realistic "Bruce Wayne" person towards the people he interacted with.

I think Keaton and Burton delivered a fantastic take on Bruce Wayne and Batman in B89 that was really interesting. Instead of portraying Bruce himself as a social butterfly who puts on this total facade as his public persona, his name alone was the persona. He still threw lavish parties, had Wayne Enterprises, and likely spent a **** ton of money on whatever he wanted. The film demonstrates that Bruce is a well known figure, but there is a Gatsby-like aura of mystery about him that I'm sure would only cause the public and people of Gotham to be more fascinated by him.

B89 is one of the most unique superhero "origin" movies ever, because they presented us with a character that was fleshed out but mostly developed through second-hand accounts. Most of what we learn or suspect about Bruce and his history comes from hearing dialogue between other characters and through the actions of other characters. Vicki and Knox at Wayne Manor, Alfred talking to Vicki, Vicki seeing Bruce swinging upside down, Vicki following Bruce to the alley, Vicki and Knox looking into Bruce's past, etc. The same can be said about Batman and how much of what we hear about him are rumors and speculation from secondary characters.

Bruce verbally offers very little information about himself to the secondary characters, but each small bit of info is crucial to building the characterization and cluing us into his mindset.

Vicki Vale: What about your family?
Bruce Wayne: Well, actually, Alfred is my family.
Vicki Vale: You know, this house and all this stuff really doesn't seem like you at all.
Bruce Wayne: Some of it is very much me. Some of it isn't.

Vicki Vale: A lot of people think you're as dangerous as the Joker.
Batman: He's psychotic.
Vicki Vale: Some people say the same thing about you.
Batman: What people?
Vicki Vale: Well, I mean, let's face it. You're not exactly normal, are you?
Batman: It's not exactly a normal world, is it?

Notice how he dodges her question, which is essentially the same thing as admitting that the people are right. Even when Batman publicly addresses the city, it's delivered to us in the form of a letter read by someone else.

Dist. Atty. Harvey Dent: We've received a letter from Batman this morning. 'Please inform the citizens of Gotham that Gotham City has earned a rest from crime. But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city, call me.'
Alexander Knox: Question. How do we call him?
Commissioner Jim Gordon: He gave us a signal.

For both Bruce and Batman, we really only see what the other characters see, for the most part, or what he wants them to see. It's the total opposite of Batman Begins where we follow Bruce completely from A-Z and get that total "behind the scenes" look at Batman, and I love both tellings of the Batman story.

What's fascinating is that for much of B89, we aren't truly shown who Bruce Wayne is or why he is Batman. It's only after that one, pivotal flashback right before the climax of the film that the full picture is presented to us (the only look into his past), building on everything we'd seen and heard previously like leaving the rose in the alley and the newspaper clipping. And that's all we need to understand him.

That is lesson 101 on how to not do an origin for a hero right there now. That's why nobody's done it that way since I reckon. How old is this movie now like 25 years right. If that was such a great formula for an origin I reckon someone else would have done it on the other big heroes. It doesn't work because it gives you nothing but weak scraps. Bruce Wayne is just a name and that's enough. Nope I like a little personality and meat to go with my character. Bruce Wayne is like the Gotham favourite son, Not the faceless recluse. Finding out tiny tid bits of obvious or useless info about him from other characters. Batman's not normal? Well gee he dresses up as a Bat so we kinda figured that out already. Alfred is his family, well yeah we know that since he lives alone with him and we find out later that his folks died. Sending a letter to the people of Gotham at the end well what that's a normal thing for Bats. The only Batman that would publicly address the city himself is pure West haha.

10/10 for saying why you liked it though. But it's still a quarter baked Bats character.

 

[BatLobster]

Well-argued, Shape.

I don't deny that the Keaton/Burton Bruce is an interesting and valid take on the character, and it's one I happen to like a lot, but I just think it's fair to acknowledge that it's a rather large deviation from the more classic archetype of the billionaire Bruce Wayne. The very nature of casting Keaton was to cast against type, Burton specifically did not want a square-jawed, built, handsome Ben Affleck-type in the role. Burton's take on the mythos was a quirkier one, and the includes the casting of Keaton and the characterization of Bruce.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing all comes down to one's personal preference and how flexible you are about the liberties taken. My opinion is that it was a good take, but also a decidedly non-definitive one that stands out in pretty stark contrast from most other portrayals of Bruce Wayne.

 

[The Shape]

I think people sometimes confuse or blend B89 with Batman Returns, which is the quirkier and weirder take on the Batman mythos. For all the campiness and over-the-top Joker moments, B89 is still a fairly straight-faced take on Batman.

As far as liberties taken, one say could say the same about many things throughout Nolan's trilogy; that it all comes down to personal preference as a Batman fan and how flexible you are about the liberties taken. But in terms of creating an adaptation versus a strict translation, it also comes down to the execution which is where I feel this movie excelled. Irregardless of strict adherence to the source material or not, Batman 89 contains all of the quintessential elements that can and should make up a Batman story.

I love how this Burton quote can be applied both to B89 and TDK, despite the plots being so different: "...the whole film and mythology of the characters is a complete duel of the freaks. It's a fight between two disturbed people".

 

[The Joker]

I think duel of the freaks is more applicable to Batman Returns than Batman '89, not to mention a more interesting one, too. One of the reasons why I prefer Returns over Batman '89, in spite of it over shadowing Batman even more narrative wise with the villains, is it does more interesting things with the story and characters.

Penguin's the angry orphan who's a product of what his parents did to him. Batman's an angry orphan who's a product of what happened to his parents. Catwoman's the angry vengeful masked vigilante, whom Batman recognizes similarities of himself in her, because he's an angry masked vigilante. It's like each villain represents a different side to Batman. He has that moment with both Penguin and Catwoman in the movie where he empathizes in some way with them. "His parents....I hope he finds them". "We're the same. Split, wrecked down the center".

For all it's flaws, Returns actually went and did something interesting with the characters. Actually delved into their psyches, and tried to tie them into Batman symbolically, without making it contrived like they did with the Joker in Batman '89 with the killing of Batman's parents, which in my opinion didn't work at all (you can tell it was a last minute re-write idea they threw in). Even Bruce Wayne feels a bit more like traditional Bruce Wayne when we see him going to business meetings with Schreck, verbally sparring and slapping Schreck down, basically outright telling him he knows Oswald's a crook. Gloating in his face at Schreck's party about how Penguin was exposed as a criminal etc. He was more confident, more outgoing, less weird and recluse like in Returns. I liked that.

Even Schreck himself could be seen as the corrupt millionaire, the polar opposite to Bruce.

When I say duel of the freaks, it's not just between Batman and the villains, even Penguin and Catwoman have a falling out, and he "kills" her. It's just a wonderful freak show clash of mentally damaged characters with various similarities.

 

[The Shape]

That is lesson 101 on how to not do an origin for a hero right there now. That's why nobody's done it that way since I reckon. How old is this movie now like 25 years right. If that was such a great formula for an origin I reckon someone else would have done it on the other big heroes. It doesn't work because it gives you nothing but weak scraps. Bruce Wayne is just a name and that's enough. Nope I like a little personality and meat to go with my character. Bruce Wayne is like the Gotham favourite son, Not the faceless recluse. Finding out tiny tid bits of obvious or useless info about him from other characters. Batman's not normal? Well gee he dresses up as a Bat so we kinda figured that out already. Alfred is his family, well yeah we know that since he lives alone with him and we find out later that his folks died. Sending a letter to the people of Gotham at the end well what that's a normal thing for Bats. The only Batman that would publicly address the city himself is pure West haha.

10/10 for saying why you liked it though. But it's still a quarter baked Bats character.

It seems like my post went right over your head. When was the last time you actually watched this film? 5 years ago right before your 10th birthday? If you are a fan of the Batman character, I suggest you give it a re-watch with an open mind. It's a movie that doesn't explicitly tell you things as much as it shows them.

It's funny that you think this is how to not make a superhero movie, since Burton's Batman could be considered to be the single most influential superhero movie of the past 25 years that completely changed the landscape of summer blockbuster movies in general. It was and is an incredible blend of drama, humor, darkness, and design, and though it does feel a bit dated in places, one could argue that nearly every superhero movie that has come since then owes a debt to this Batman.

 

[The Shape]

I think duel of the freaks is more applicable to Batman Returns than Batman '89, not to mention a more interesting one, too.

If anything, Returns is more of a figurative and literal circus of freaks and creeps, especially with characters like Catwoman and Schrek in the mix.

It's not nearly as much of a duel between two characters as it was for Batman and the Joker; two freaks who were responsible for the creation of one another, seemingly fated to meet again and destroy one another.

 

[Keehar]

It seems like my post went right over your head. When was the last time you actually watched this film? 5 years ago right before your 10th birthday? If you are a fan of the Batman character, I suggest you give it a re-watch with an open mind. It's a movie that doesn't explicitly tell you things as much as it shows them.

Now now sticks and stones. It's only a movie we're talking about not your mother. Are we going have to get a mod person in here to cool your jets or are you going to act your age and be civil? I ain't insulted you. So what's your problem, can't take seeing a movie you like being criticized?

I'm a big Bats fan, last caught this movie last year on TV. It's fresh in my mind still and I don't need to re-watch. Stand by all I said all the way. The movie shows nothing except basic stuff that doesn't tell you half of who Bruce Wayne is.

It's funny that you think this is how to not make a superhero movie, since Burton's Batman could be considered to be the single most influential superhero movie of the past 25 years that completely changed the landscape of summer blockbuster movies in general. It was and is an incredible blend of drama, humor, darkness, and design, and though it does feel a bit dated in places, one could argue that nearly every superhero movie that has come since then owes a debt to this Batman.

Nope the influence of this movie was the serious darkness of it. Not how they handled Batman's so called origin story. After this movie they started making darker comic movies.