The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 5

[The Batman]

I'd say that both Blade and X-Men took a B89-esque approach to their respective origin stories. I like that B89 didn't rip off the structure of STM like most CBM's do on their first outing.

Peeling back the layers and uncovering Bruce's story was very fitting for Batman, IMO. I liked that not every aspect of Bruce's life wasn't spelled out for you. But to each his own.

 

[The Shape]

I'd say that both Blade and X-Men took a B89-esque approach to their respective origin stories. I like that B89 didn't rip off the structure of STM like most CBM's do on their first outing.

Peeling back the layers and uncovering Bruce's story was very fitting for Batman.

Agreed. "Peeling back the layers" is a great way to put it; the opposite of creating an origin by building layer upon layer. It was well-executed and, as you said, very fitting.

Its "less is more" approach is refreshing, even now 25 years later.

 

[The Joker]

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.

I would argue Schreck is less of a freak than Batman. Schreck doesn't put on an outlandish costume.

But yes that's why the label works better on Returns. It is a clash of three bizarre freaks, and all with similarities to each other in some interesting way.

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.

But that's just it, there was no real duel between Batman and the Joker in this. Not until the end. It takes Batman 5 minutes of off screen detective work to foil Joker's smilex scheme. Quick and easy. So Joker takes a gamble and challenges Batman to meet him at the parade. To which just before that happens we learn that Joker killed Batman's parents. So in the end when they finally come face to face, it's just a punch up over Joker killing his parents, which we just learned 15 minutes ago.

That to me is not only much of a duel for a 2 hour movie, but also a horribly contrived one. Which is obvious considering that bad idea was thrown in last minute during the writer strike, and against Sam Hamm's wishes, too, I might add, with good reason.

Whereas in Batman Returns, from the get-go as soon as Penguin surfaces Batman is spying on him, getting in Penguin's face about knowing what he really is ("You don't really think you'll win do you?" "Things change"). Penguin then frames him. Trashes his Batmobile with Batman trapped inside. Then Batman publicly exposes Penguin's true nature. Then foils his kidnap the kids plot. Then his attempt to destroy Gotham. Then they finally physically clash and Penguin falls to death.

That to me is a proper duel between freaks. Heck that to me is a proper duel between hero and villain. It wasn't half as exciting like that, or as well written with the Joker.

Peeling back the layers and uncovering Bruce's story was very fitting for Batman, IMO. I liked that not every aspect of Bruce's life wasn't spelled out for you. But to each his own.

What layers though? I mean honestly the only substantial thing that's revealed about him personally is the death of his parents. That could be argued was only revealed because of how it was tied to the Joker. Other than that he's pretty much a blank slate.

Who was it that said last page that they had to learn from BTAS about the details of Batman and Bruce Wayne, because this movie gave barely anything. I mean it didn't even give the correct origin of who killed his parents.

 

[Keehar]

I'd say that both Blade and X-Men took a B89-esque approach to their respective origin stories. I like that B89 didn't rip off the structure of STM like most CBM's do on their first outing.

Nah they didn't. Blade gave all the details of his origin, his weaknesses, his serum, we even saw the store where he gets his serum ingredients, how he hooked up with Whistler, we even got to meet his vampire Mom.

X-Men was an ensemble piece. Not a one hero flick. But ask most X fans and they'll tell you it was a Wolverine movie haha.

 

[Penguin]

Keaton made that interpretation work.

Sums up my thoughts entirely, even if it wasn't my preferred portrayal.

 

[The Shape]

I would argue Schreck is less of a freak than Batman. Schreck doesn't put on an outlandish costume.

He's still a murderer and a creep who has a significant role in the film by "creating" Catwoman and figures heavily into the finale.

But yes that's why the label works better on Returns. It is a clash of three bizarre freaks, and all with similarities to each other in some interesting way.

What label works better? A duel is a fight or contest between two people. Yes, there are more "freaks" in Batman Returns as you and I have both said, but it's a bit different than the "ying" and "yang" duel between Batman and the Joker that began when Bruce was a boy. The "duel of freaks" thing I quoted was from Burton's own words about B89.

But that's just it, there was no real duel between Batman and the Joker in this. Not until the end. It takes Batman 5 minutes of off screen detective work to foil Joker's smilex scheme. Quick and easy. So Joker takes a gamble and challenges Batman to meet him at the parade. To which just before that happens we learn that Joker killed Batman's parents. So in the end when they finally come face to face, it's just a punch up because Batman is pissed Joker killed his parents.

That to me is not only much of a duel for a 2 hour movie, but also a horribly contrived one. Which is obvious considering that bad idea was thrown in last minute during the writer strike, and against Sam Hamm's wishes, too, I might add, with good reason.

Whereas in Batman Returns, from the get-go as soon as Penguin surfaces Batman is spying on him, getting in Penguin's face about knowing what he really is ("You don't really think you'll win do you?" "Things change"). Penguin then frames him. Trashes his Batmobile with Batman trapped inside. Then Batman publicly exposes Penguin's true nature. Then foils his kidnap the kids plot. Then his attempt to destroy Gotham. Then they finally physically clash and Penguin falls to death.

That to me is a proper duel between freaks. Heck that to me is a proper duel between hero and villain. It wasn't half as exciting like that, or well written with the Joker.

I don't think I, nor Tim Burton, were using the phrase "duel of freaks" to point to physical confrontations only. Rather, I think it applies to the film in a more figurative sense, in that this duel between "freaks" (who each represent the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of continuing life after a traumatic experience) technically began when The Joker killed Bruce's parents and their lives became intertwined. They crossed paths several times later in life, and I think you're forgetting or ignoring all of those points in the timeline since you're only referencing the last few minutes of the film.

- Napier killes Bruce's parents in front of him
- Batman attempts to foil Napier's Axis Chemicals robbery (not knowing Napier had been set up). He lets Napier go to save Gordon's life, and then becomes inadvertently responsible for the creation of "The Joker"
- Bruce looks on as The Joker kills a crime lord in the light of day. The come face to face for a fleeting moment, and Bruce realizes who he is, begins to look into Napier
- Batman crashes The Joker's museum "date" to rescue Vicki, leading to a chase as they attempt to escape The Joker's goons
- Bruce is at Vicki's apartment when The Joker pops in. Bruce stands up to The Joker to take the attention away from Vicki, and The Joker shoots Bruce. This is when Bruce realizes that Napier killed his parents.
- After Batman foils his Smilex plan, The Joker plans to release Smilex in gas form into the city at his "party", and publicly calls for Batman to come face him
- Batman sends the Batmobile to Axis Chemicals to destroy the facility and hopefully whatever Joker was planning, but The Joker isn't in the building and his plan is already in motion
- Batman swoops in with the Batwing to capture and release The Joker's balloons and foil his plans, then swoops back to eliminate The Joker himself, but The Joker takes out the Batwing
- Batman follows The Joker and Vicki to the top of the cathedral, takes out the last goons, and then has the face-to-face showdown with The Joker

To say there's no "duel" or battle of wits in this just negates almost the entire movie and ignores everything that happens. They're battling for Gotham, they're battling for Vicki, and they're battling for revenge. They foil each other's plans each step of the way. They come face to face several times in various situations but are unable to eliminate each other. They each reference each other countless times during the movie and are fixated on one another at times. The Joker even invites Batman publicly to face him man to man, which is the true, historical definition of a duel -- an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals.

What about this isn't a proper duel, and how is it all that much different than what you outline from Batman Returns? If anything, the battle between Batman and Penguin is cut from the same cloth as this one. Even during the physical fight they have at the end of B89, which you say was just a "punch up", The Joker leaves Batman and Vicki hanging by their limbs from the highest building in Gotham. They both nearly fall to their deaths.

B89 is certainly a slow-burner that takes its time building towards the finale, and the battle between Batman and The Joker is more of a chess game than a non-stop action bonanza. I love its slow burn, though.

 

[The Shape]

Who was it that said last page that they had to learn from BTAS about the details of Batman and Bruce Wayne, because this movie gave barely anything. I mean it didn't even give the correct origin of who killed his parents.

There's really no such thing as something being "correct" or "incorrect" in an adaptation or interpretation of something. Was The Joker incorrect in TDK because he didn't have white skin, or was Two Face poorly portrayed because it wasn't his correct origin? Is Batman's entire origin incorrect in BB because he was trained by Ra's al Ghul?

You keep saying you don't like that The Joker killed Bruce's parents and that Sam Hamm didn't want it and all that, but what exactly does it change about Bruce and Batman in this movie? Bruce didn't know who killed his parents throughout his life, and still wound up devoting his adult life to becoming Batman and protecting Gotham. Batman was already focused on The Joker before he finds out that Napier killed his parents, and even after he does find out, it only serves to create a personal link between Batman and The Joker that further emphasized the theme of them being dark reflections of one another, having inadvertently created each other and what not.

What does it change about about the origin of Batman or what made him become Batman that bothers you so much?

 

[The Joker]

He's still a murderer and a creep who has a significant role in the film by "creating" Catwoman and figures heavily into the finale.

Being a murderer and a creep doesn't make him a freak. If it did then 90% of Gotham's underworld are freaks, too.

What label works better? A duel is a fight or contest between two people. Yes, there are more "freaks" in Batman Returns as you and I have both said, but it's a bit different than the "ying" and "yang" duel between Batman and the Joker that began when Bruce was a boy. The "duel of freaks" thing I quoted was from Burton's own words about B89.

The duel of freaks label works better for Returns since it's more prominent in that, and almost non existent in Batman '89. We'll get into the whys now in your next part of the post;

I don't think I, nor Tim Burton, were using the phrase "duel of freaks" to point to physical confrontations only.

Neither was I.

Rather, I think it applies to the film in a more figurative sense, in that this duel between "freaks" (who each represent the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of continuing life after a traumatic experience) technically began when The Joker killed Bruce's parents and their lives became intertwined.

That's a non existent duel since they were unaware of each other's existence until many years later. There was no intertwining until the Joker was born. They would have been linked whether or not Joker was the one that killed his parents at that point.

They crossed paths several times later in life, and I think you're forgetting or ignoring all of those points in the timeline since you're only referencing the last few minutes of the film.

No I'm not, and I'll tell you exactly why now.

- Napier killes Bruce's parents in front of him

The basis for their punch up when they finally meet face to face.

- Batman attempts to foil Napier's Axis Chemicals robbery (not knowing Napier had been set up). He lets Napier go to save Gordon's life, and then becomes inadvertently responsible for the creation of "The Joker"

This is not a duel nor a battle of wits. This was an attempt to get Carl Grissom, and Napier was just the means to do it. Batman did not intend to drop him in the chemicals any more than Napier intended to accidentally fall over the railing.

- Bruce looks on as The Joker kills a crime lord in the light of day. The come face to face for a fleeting moment, and Bruce realizes who he is, begins to look into Napier

Bruce realizing Napier is alive, and then looks at his file. Is this what you call a duel or battle of wits?

- Batman crashes The Joker's museum "date" to rescue Vicki, leading to a chase as they attempt to escape The Joker's goons

This was neither a duel, nor a battle of wits, not to mention nothing personal between Batman and Joker. Batman inadvertently learned that Vicki was in trouble and saved her. Joker was oblivious to the fact she's dating Batman, just as Batman was oblivious that Joker had taken a fancy to her.

- Bruce is at Vicki's apartment when The Joker pops in. Bruce stands up to The Joker to take the attention away from Vicki, and The Joker shoots Bruce. This is when Bruce realizes that Napier killed his parents.

Connected to your first point about killing his parents. Same thing.

- After Batman foils his Smilex plan, The Joker plans to release Smilex in gas form into the city at his "party", and publicly calls for Batman to come face him

At the finale of the movie, after Batman foiled his plan just by handing Vicki a file with all the answers.

Again I must ask is this the stuff you think good duels or battle of wits are made of?

- Batman sends the Batmobile to Axis Chemicals to destroy the facility and hopefully whatever Joker was planning, but The Joker isn't in the building and his plan is already in motion

Batman goes to blow up the chemical plant he knows Joker is making his poisons in. Why didn't he destroy it earlier when Joker first launched his smilex scheme? In fact when did he even figure out that's where Joker was, and how?

Again glossed over nonsense and no show of battles of wits or any duel here either.

- Batman swoops in with the Batwing to capture and release The Joker's balloons and foil his plans, then swoops back to eliminate The Joker himself, but The Joker takes out the Batwing
- Batman follows The Joker and Vicki to the top of the cathedral, takes out the last goons, and then has the face-to-face showdown with The Joker

Summarize this in one sentence; Batman foils his kill the city plan easily.....again....and then follows him up the church tower where he kills him for killing his parents.

To say there's no "duel" or battle of wits in this just negates almost the entire movie and ignores everything that happens. They're battling for Gotham, they're battling for Vicki, and they're battling for revenge. They foil each other's plans each step of the way. They come face to face several times in various situations but are unable to eliminate each other. They each reference each other countless times during the movie and are fixated on one another at times. The Joker even invites Batman publicly to face him man to man, which is the true, historical definition of a duel -- an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals.

It doesn't negate or ignore anything. Look at all the things you've listed. They're empty fluff material most of them that don't even involve Batman and Joker interacting at all, or dueling any wits, or anything at all.

You say they come face to face several times. They share one proper confrontational scene together as Batman and the Joker, and that's at the end. The scene in Vicki's apartment was nothing, just Bruce acting like a jackass so Joker would shoot him and leave. The only reason that was there was to trigger his memory that Joker killed his parents. Speaking of which, the scene of killing his parents is not a duel or battle of wits between them. Bruce was just a kid. He was nothing important to Jack. What else was there? Oh yeah Bruce realizing Jack is still alive when he sees him kill the mob guy. Big battle of wits and duel there. Staring doe eyed at him as he drives off. What does that leave? Axis Chemicals, where it wasn't even about Jack, it was about getting Grissom using him.

What about this isn't a proper duel, and how is it all that much different than what you outline from Batman Returns? If anything, the battle between Batman and Penguin is cut from the same cloth as this one. Even during the physical fight they have at the end of B89, which you say was just a "punch up", The Joker leaves Batman and Vicki hanging by their limbs from the highest building in Gotham. They both nearly fall to their deaths.

It's apples and oranges to the Penguin one. Batman and Penguin are more directly and intentionally in conflict with each other almost from the get-go. Batman uncovers Penguin's Red Triangle connection, then goes and watches him in the Batmobile. He then directly confronts Penguin letting him know exactly what he is, and Penguin gloats that he can never win. Already we've got more battle of wits and confrontation here than Batman and Joker had. Then Penguin goes and frames Batman using one of his own batarangs. Then he sabotages his Batmobile and takes it for a hellish joyride with Batman trapped inside. Batman then records Penguin saying incriminating things, and uses that to expose Penguin to Gotham. He turns Penguin's own words against him. Then he foils Penguin's kidnap plot, and even sends a mocking note to Penguin letting him know he's foiled it. Finally he foils Penguin's destroy Gotham plot, and then faces off with Penguin one on one.

You compare that to what, Batman accidentally dropping Napier in some chemicals, staring goggled eyed at him when he sees he's alive, doing some off screen detective work that foils his plan, swooping in and taking his balloons. Dropping in a roof, grabbing Vicki and leaving promptly etc.

It's laughable compared to Returns which has Batman and Penguin snapping at each other's heels constantly.

B89 is certainly a slow-burner that takes its time building towards the finale, and the battle between Batman and The Joker is more of a chess game than a non-stop action bonanza. I love its slow burn, though.

It doesn't build towards anything, because the crux of their confrontation hinges on a revelation we learn 15 minutes before it happens. The confrontation between Batman and Joker at the end has nothing to do with him kidnapping Vicki, or trying to kill the city. It's all about the fact that he killed his parents.

 

[The Joker]

There's really no such thing as something being "correct" or "incorrect" in an adaptation or interpretation of something.

Of course there is. If you're adapting something then there are always key elements essential to making it a proper adaption.

For example, I'm a Stephen King fan. If I were adapting say Misery, there is absolutely elements of that story that have to be maintained for it to be a proper adaption, like say Paul Sheldon being a writer, Annie Wilkes being a psycho, Paul being physically incapacitated in some way, Annie being a nurse and his number one fan etc etc.

Was The Joker incorrect in TDK because he didn't have white skin

Of course not. Why would it? Did something significant like his personality, goals, or relationship with Batman radically change because of it? No. It's like asking does wearing black rubber instead of grey spandex change who Batman is.

or was Two Face poorly portrayed because it wasn't his correct origin?

What's the correct origin? That he was the good D.A. who was horribly scarred by criminals and turned into a murderous criminal himself.

Is Batman's entire origin incorrect in BB because he was trained by Ra's al Ghul?

Of course not. Did Batman travel the world studying criminals? Was he trained in martial arts, fear etc? Did Ra's Al Ghul want Bruce to lead his organization because he thought he was most worthy? Yes, yes, and yes. There's not even the issue of knowing who Bruce really is because he knows that in the comics, too.

You keep saying you don't like that The Joker killed Bruce's parents and that Sam Hamm didn't want it and all that, but what exactly does it change about Bruce and Batman in this movie? Bruce didn't know who killed his parents throughout his life, and still wound up devoting his adult life to becoming Batman and protecting Gotham. Batman was already focused on The Joker before he finds out that Napier killed his parents, and even after he does find out, it only serves to create a personal link between Batman and The Joker that further emphasized the theme of them being dark reflections of one another, having inadvertently created each other and what not.

It completely ruins the Batman/Joker relationship. That's what it changes. Batman does not owe his existence to the Joker, and he does not hate the Joker for it. That's a huge colossal change to their dynamic, to Batman's greatest villain, and I'm frankly surprised you even asked that. You think because Bruce personally didn't know it was Joker for years changes that fact and makes it ok? Of course not. Ignorance is not bliss here.

Since when are Batman and Joker dark reflections of each other? A reflection implies similarities. What have they got in common that makes them a reflection of any kind to each other? They couldn't be more opposite.

What does it change about about the origin of Batman or what made him become Batman that bothers you so much?

The Joker did not create Batman. That's what bothers me so much. Puts a whole new spin on their relationship that is so so wrong.

I remember when Batman Begins came out, some people actually thought Joe Chill was the Joker!

 

[BatLobster]

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.

In this instance I was mostly thinking of Batman 89. Again, I'm talking specifically about the take on Bruce Wayne. It was a more idiosyncratic, almost neurotic take on the character. Keaton brought that quirkiness to the role.

I'm not criticizing it for this, and I'm aware the same could be said about liberties taken with certain aspects of the Nolan movies, or nearly any comic book adaptation. I'm just saying that objectively speaking, Keaton's Bruce Wayne stands in pretty stark contrast to just about all other depictions of the character, be it comics, movies or any other media. Over the years, certain changes that the movies have at times ended up finding their way into the comics and other media. For instance, we've seen the scarred Joker pop up in the Arkham games and some comics, the Burton Penguin aesthetic making its way into TAS, Bane's appearance reflecting Hardy-Bane in the comics, etc. But I've never seen Bruce Wayne drawn or characterized in a way that resembles the Keaton Wayne. The Keaton Batman, in 90s comics yes, but not his Bruce- that is something very unique and specific to Burton's vision. It's not a depiction that has proved to be all that compatible with the larger canon as such. Doesn't mean it's not great in its own right, or that it didn't capture some of the essential elements of Bruce Wayne. It did, enough for me to still view it as a valid take on the character and my favorite of the 89-97 series despite Kilmer and Clooney being closer to the classic depiction of a Bruce Wayne more in the public eye. Because Keaton just brought an "it" factor to the role, and he made a damn cool Batman. He is what made it work, which probably why his take on the character never really directly influenced anything in Batman media.

At the same time, Keaton's version of the character is also in a uniquely positioned place in a pop culture sense, because it marked the first time the general audience ever took Batman seriously and for a lot of us our first ever taste of Batman period. For these reasons, I think he'll always hold a special place in a lot of our hearts despite being a more offbeat version of Bruce Wayne with very little resemblance to the more dashing billionaire figure we're used too.

 

[The Shape]

I hate this game of splitting up people's posts a million times, but I'll play along.

That's a non existent duel since they were unaware of each other's existence until many years later.

Let me start by saying that what I listed wasn't meant to each represent various bullet points of "duels" in the movie. Rather, I outline a vague timeline of all the times they interacted and came up against one another in the film, because you had said "there was no real duel between Batman and the Joker in this. Not until the end. It takes Batman 5 minutes of off screen detective work to foil Joker's smilex scheme. Quick and easy. So Joker takes a gamble and challenges Batman to meet him at the parade. To which just before that happens we learn that Joker killed Batman's parents. So in the end when they finally come face to face, it's just a punch up because Batman is pissed Joker killed his parents." -- which dismisses many other things that happen in the film between them.

Also, it seems that, based on the rest of your post, you are taking the term "duel" too literally, as it looks like you go on to tell me how each plot point I listed isn't a duel. I know that, and you missed my point.

Let's move away from the word "duel" and apply other synonyms instead like contest, game, or battle. Burton said that the whole movie and the mythology of the characters is a duel/battle/contest of the freaks, and that was my point. Before they even knew each other, they were adversaries. Ever since the first time they came face to face, they were at war. The purposeful and accidental actions of these two characters represent the causes and effects of the battle that ultimately takes place in Gotham between Batman and The Joker. It's almost a mythological battle, in a sense.

The basis for their punch up when they finally meet face to face.

Are you suggesting that Batman would not have rescued Vicki or taken down The Joker has he not learned that Napier killed his parents when he was a boy?

This is not a duel nor a battle of wits. This was an attempt to get Carl Grissom, and Napier was the means to do it. Batman did not intend to drop him in the chemicals any more than Napier intended to accidentally fall over the railing.

Batman certainly intended to apprehend Napier here, and the reason he went to Axis Chemicals was because he overheard Gordon getting the news of Napier cleaning out the place. They literally come face to face here with Batman hoisting him in the air, before Napier weasels his way out of it and then has his accident.

You had pointed to how Batman quickly began investigating Penguin in Returns. Well, here was have the first confrontation Batman has with Napier/Joker, the second Batman scene in the movie.

Bruce realizing Napier is alive, and then looks at his file. Is this what you call a duel or battle of wits?

Of course not, but it's Bruce investigating The Joker and plays into the over-arching conflict between them...

This was nothing personal between Batman and Joker. Batman inadvertently learned that Vicki was in trouble and saved her. Joker was oblivious to the fact she's dating Batman, just as Batman was oblivious that Joker had taken a fancy to her.

Is the party-crashing scene in TDK any less valid or important because The Joker had no idea at that point that Batman loved Rachel? No, and I'm not sure what your point is here. I listed this because it's another example of Batman getting in The Joker's way, and plays into their back-and-forth throughout the film -- and yes, their "battle of wits".

Also, do you not recall that The Joker was attempting to pry information about Batman from Vicki here?

Connected to your first point about killing his parents. Same thing.

Not sure what you mean by this. I listed this as yet another confrontation between them.

At the finale of the movie, after Batman foiled his plan just by handing Vicki a file with all the answers.

Okay...and the antidote that cured Gotham's citizens in Batman Begins was made by Lucius Fox while Bruce was sleeping for 2 days, so your point is what exactly? That Batman foiling his original Smilex plan was too easy? What is wrong with Batman cracking the chemical code (himself) and having Vicki release the names of the infected product combinations to the public?

This made The Joker even more pissed and led him to call out Batman publicly.

Is this the stuff you think good duels or battle of wits are made of?

Yes, for a movie that was made 25 years ago and even now, I do.

Batman goes to blow up the chemical plant he knows Joker is making his poisons in. Why didn't he destroy it earlier when Joker first launched his smilex scheme? In fact when did he even figure out that's where Joker was, and how?

Again glossed over nonsense and no show of battles of wits or any duel here either.

Wrong. It's another example of their struggle throughout the film, this time with The Joker being a step ahead.

Summarize this in one sentence; Batman foils his kill the city plan easily.....again....and then follows him up the church tower where he kills him for killing his parents.

Here we are again, something I'm shocked that you could be so wrong about. It's one thing to not like something, but you keep saying that the fight at the end of the movie happens only because The Joker killed Batman's parents.

Why do you think this? What evidence is there to demonstrate this? As I said before, do you honestly believe that if Bruce hadn't learned that Napier killed his parents, he wouldn't have gone after Vicki to save her and fight The Joker? Yeah, he's pissed at The Joker for killing his parents, they have the "you made me" talk, but I'm not sure how you think the parents angle would have actually changed the ending.

I mean, Batman was already onto The Joker and foiling his plans prior to learning this information. The Joker was a mass-murdering psychopath who had just tried and almost succeeded in killing hundreds of people. I'm not sure why you seemed to think his parents death all of a sudden became the driving motivation in taking down The Joker, but it wasn't.

It doesn't negate or ignore anything. Look at all the things you've listed. They're empty fluff material most of them that don't even involve Batman and Joker interacting at all, or dueling any wits, or anything at all.

The fact that you choose to dismiss all of these things as empty fluff doesn't mean that's what they actually are.

Speaking of which, the scene of killing his parents is not a duel or battle of wits between them. Bruce was just a kid. He was nothing important to Jack. What else was there?

It only began the trajectory of their paths crossing and inadvertently led to a large scale battle between two "freaks". No biggie, I guess..

It's apples and oranges to the Penguin one. Batman and Penguin are more directly and intentionally in conflict with each other almost from the get-go. Batman uncovers Penguin's Red Triangle connection, then goes and watches him in the Batmobile. He then directly confronts Penguin letting him know exactly what he is, and Penguin gloats that he can never win. Already we've got more battle of wits and confrontation here than Batman and Joker had. Then Penguin goes and frames Batman using one of his own batarangs. Then he sabotages his Batmobile and takes it for a hellish joyride with Batman trapped inside. Batman then records Penguin saying incriminating things, and uses that to expose Penguin to Gotham. He turns Penguin's own words against him. Then he foils Penguin's kidnap plot, and even sends a mocking note to Penguin letting him know he's foiled it. Finally he foils Penguin's destroy Gotham plot, and then faces off with Penguin one on one.

You compare that to what, Batman accidentally dropping Napier in some chemicals, staring goggled eyed at him when he sees he's alive, doing some off screen detective work that foils his plan, swooping in and taking his balloons. Dropping in a roof, grabbing Vicki and leaving promptly etc.

It's laughable compared to Returns.

Look, it's clear which movie you prefer, but you are severely downplaying the drama of B89 to build up the drama of Returns. I mean, what you just described from Returns sounds a hell of a lot like what we're discussing about B89 -- a hero and villain "battling" over the course of a movie, investigating each other, plotting against each other, foiling each other plots, and then one final "face to face" confrontation. I mean, I even think Batman and the Penguin have less face to face moments in Returns than Batman and Joker/Napier do in B89.

It doesn't build towards anything, because the crux of their confrontation hinges on a revelation we learn 15 minutes before it happens. The confrontation between Batman and Joker at the end has nothing to do with him kidnapping Vicki, or trying to kill the city. It's all about the fact that he killed his parents.

Can't even believe I'm reading this again.

The confrontation doesn't "hinge" on that revelation. Rather, the revelation adds a new layer of drama to their imminent confrontation. The Joker still would have called Batman out and invited him to face him, The Joker still would have shot down the Batwing, The Joker still would have taken Vicki up with him, and Batman still would have gone after them...

 

[The Joker]

Let me start by saying that what I listed wasn't meant to each represent various bullet points of "duels" in the movie. Rather, I outline a vague timeline of all the times they interacted and came up against one another in the film, because you had said "there was no real duel between Batman and the Joker in this. Not until the end. It takes Batman 5 minutes of off screen detective work to foil Joker's smilex scheme. Quick and easy. So Joker takes a gamble and challenges Batman to meet him at the parade. To which just before that happens we learn that Joker killed Batman's parents. So in the end when they finally come face to face, it's just a punch up because Batman is pissed Joker killed his parents." -- which dismisses many other things that happen in the film between them.

I understand your presentation, I just prefer to address each one individually as it's more thorough. It's the Science student in me. Sorry if it's annoying you. I'll stop responding this way if you want.

The other things you listed were not representative of Batman and Joker engaged in some battle of wits, or feud/duel....what ever you want to call it.

You can condense down what it was into exactly what I said in that paragraph.

Also, it seems that, based on the rest of your post, you are taking the term "duel" too literally, as it looks like you go on to tell me how each plot point I listed isn't a duel. I know that, and you missed my point.

If I missed your point then it's because you mis-phrased it. You said their duel/battle/rivalry....again what ever you want to call it, began when Joker killed Batman's parents and encompassed the whole movie, to which you began listing your points to illustrate this.

Let's move away from the word "duel" and apply other synonyms instead like contest, game, or battle. Burton said that the whole movie and the mythology of the characters is a duel/battle/contest of the freaks, and that was my point. Before they even knew each other, they were adversaries. Ever since the first time they came face to face, they were at war. The purposeful and accidental actions of these two characters represent the causes and effects of the battle that ultimately takes place in Gotham between Batman and The Joker. It's almost a mythological battle, in a sense.

It's fine to say they were enemies before they even knew each other, because technically they were. However that doesn't illustrate that the movie encompasses a constant battle or duel between them from that point, because for the bulk of it it does not have that. If anything it would be more accurate to say the Joker chasing Vicki is more of a focal point since he directly seeks her out on three separate occasions, more than he does with Batman.

Are you suggesting that Batman would not have rescued Vicki or taken down The Joker has he not learned that Napier killed his parents when he was a boy?

Of course not. I'm saying their confrontation at the end, the anger and rage Batman had, the whole verbal exchange between them had nothing to do with Vicki, or Gotham. It was all about killing his parents.

Batman certainly intended to apprehend Napier here, and the reason he went to Axis Chemicals was because he overheard Gordon getting the news of Napier cleaning out the place. They literally come face to face here with Batman hoisting him in the air, before Napier weasels his way out of it and then has his accident.

Yes, but the end goal was to get Grissom. It wasn't really about Napier. He was just a means to an end to get to the big man. That's what I'm talking about.

You had pointed to how Batman quickly began investigating Penguin in Returns. Well, here was have the first confrontation Batman has with Napier/Joker, the second Batman scene in the movie.

He was not the Joker yet. And it was the first time they came face to face in the movie. And it wasn't even a personal vendetta since Napier wasn't the one they really wanted to get. It was Grissom. It's what the Cops would call using smaller fish to catch a big fish.

Of course not, but it's Bruce investigating The Joker and plays into the over-arching conflict between them...

But nothing came of it. Unlike when Batman researched Penguin and found out his ugly past with the circus gang, and used that to confront Penguin. That's my point.

Is the party-crashing scene in TDK any less valid or important because The Joker had no idea at that point that Batman loved Rachel? No, and I'm not sure what your point is here. I listed this because it's another example of Batman getting in The Joker's way, and plays into their back-and-forth throughout the film -- and yes, their "battle of wits".

Valid in what sense? Joker was there to kill people because he promised every day Batman didn't turn himself in people would die. So in every sense of the word it was valid and personal because Joker was doing this because he was after Batman.

But I'm not going to be pedantic and say you're not right in saying it pissed Joker off that Batman hauled Vicki out of there. "You ran off with that sideshow phony". But my point is that it wasn't really any sort of Batman/Joker conflict or battle of wits. It was something Batman learned by accident, and even then he didn't know it had to do with Joker til he burst in there.

Also, do you not recall that The Joker was attempting to pry information about Batman from Vicki here?

That seemed like an after thought. He spent most of the conversation babbling on about how he was an artist like her, and she would take pics and record his work and join him in his new artistic venture.

But credit where it's due. He did ask her about it, even though it seemingly wasn't a main priority to him.

Not sure what you mean by this. I listed this as yet another confrontation between them.

I mean it's related to the same thing. It's just an extension of the parents plot.

Okay...and the antidote that cured Gotham's citizens in Batman Begins was made by Lucius Fox while Bruce was sleeping for 2 days, so your point is what exactly? That Batman foiling his original Smilex plan was too easy? What is wrong with Batman cracking the chemical code (himself) and having Vicki release the names of the infected product combinations to the public?

Because the antidote just being made didn't magically solve anything and put an an end to the villain's plan. He had to fight the rioters on the Narrows, and stop the train.

Batman simply foiled the smilex scheme by handing Vicki a file. That was a quick easy confrontation free end to the big poison the products scheme.

This made The Joker even more pissed and led him to call out Batman publicly.

Right, in the finale which as I said is really where their feud really starts to kick off.

Yes, for a movie that was made 25 years ago and even now, I do.

Really? Arnie and the Predator had a better cat and mouse game going on than Batman and Joker did here. And the Predator barely even spoke.

Wrong. It's another example of their struggle throughout the film, this time with The Joker being a step ahead.

How is it an example of a struggle? We never saw Batman struggle with this. He just magically out of the blue decides to bomb Axis. After he's foiled the big smilex plot, too. Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has fled.

Here we are again, something I'm shocked that you could be so wrong about. It's one thing to not like something, but you keep saying that the fight at the end of the movie happens only because The Joker killed Batman's parents.

Why do you think this? What evidence is there to demonstrate this? As I said before, do you honestly believe that if Bruce hadn't learned that Napier killed his parents, he wouldn't have gone after Vicki to save her and fight The Joker? Yeah, he's pissed at The Joker for killing his parents, they have the "you made me" talk, but I'm not sure how you think the parents angle would have actually changed the ending.

I mean, Batman was already onto The Joker and foiling his plans prior to learning this information. The Joker was a mass-murdering psychopath who had just tried and almost succeeded in killing hundreds of people. I'm not sure why you seemed to think his parents death all of a sudden became the driving motivation in taking down The Joker, but it wasn't.

I'll tell you exactly why this is. I'm not talking about him stopping the smilex balloons or saving Vicki. I'm talking about the heated confrontation they have at the end is all based on Joker having killed Batman's parents. Not to mention the scene earlier where Batman swooped in trying to gun down Joker in the street and comically missing somehow.

All of this was based on him wanting Joker dead because he killed his parents. Had this not been the case, Batman wouldn't have been trying to gun him down, and therefore most likely would not have been shot out of the sky like he was. He wouldn't have beat seven shades of hell and killed Joker in the church tower.

Do you understand now what I mean?

The fact that you choose to dismiss all of these things as empty fluff doesn't mean that's what they actually are.

I could say the same about you think they have some meaning couldn't I? You have your opinion, I have mine. And we're just discussing it.

It only began the trajectory of their paths crossing and inadvertently led to a large scale battle between two "freaks". No biggie, I guess..

No, if you want to be technical Napier falling into the chemicals is what began their "battle". If Joe Blow from Alaska killed Batman's parents instead of Napier, Bruce would still be Batman, still trying to take down Grissom and still trying to nab Napier to do it. Everything would have played out the same.

It's Napier becoming the Joker that gets them connected. By the time Bruce learns Joker killed his parents they're already in "battle".

Look, it's clear which movie you prefer, but you are severely downplaying the drama of B89 to build up the drama of Returns. I mean, what you just described from Returns sounds a hell of a lot like what we're discussing about B89 -- a hero and villain "battling" over the course of a movie, investigating each other, plotting against each other, foiling each other plots, and then one final "face to face" confrontation. I mean, I even think Batman and the Penguin have less face to face moments in Returns than Batman and Joker/Napier do in B89.

Some of the basic furniture is the same, but the execution is something else entirely. Batman and Penguin's conflict was more direct, more clashes between the two of them, and certainly more dramatic. You're 100% right there is less face to face moments between Batman and Penguin than there is with Joker. Which proves my point I was not basing what I was saying on physical confrontation.

Characters can have 50 scenes together and they can amount to very little.

Can't even believe I'm reading this again.

The confrontation doesn't "hinge" on that revelation. Rather, the revelation adds a new layer of drama to their imminent confrontation. The Joker still would have called Batman out and invited him to face him, The Joker still would have shot down the Batwing, The Joker still would have taken Vicki up with him, and Batman still would have gone after them...

I know we've been through this already in this post, but just for the sake of completion, I'll repeat it again. I'm not saying for a second Batman wouldn't have stopped Joker's plan at the parade. I'm saying the confrontation they had in this at the end hinged on that revelation. Or are you saying the brutal beating and murder of the Joker Batman dished out on him was for any reason other than the fact he had learned he killed his parents?

Take out that plot and it's anyone's guess how their one and only showdown would have went. He might have just knocked him out and left him for the Cops. Or something equally boring. But the point is they added that in last minute just to try and spice up their rivalry and make it more personal.

 

[Greens]

How is it an example of a struggle? We never saw Batman struggle with this. He just magically out of the blue decides to bomb Axis. After he's foiled the big smilex plot, too. Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has fled.

I think he blew up Axis to stop Joker from executing his parade plan. That's why he looks so pissed when it turns out Joker wasn't even in the factory at all. That's my interpretation, at least.

I love this movie, but I agree that the script is clunky at times.

 

[regwec]

Superior posting, theShape. It's a movie that provokes a lot of thoughtful analysis, and reading someone else's is always rewarding.

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?

I am considering blowing the dust off my ignore list.

 

[Penguin]

To address the whole reflection thing between Batman and Joker that was mentioned earlier, I found an interview piece where Bob Kane talks about the movie.

Bob Kane echoed this theme: [Bruce Wayne] became, in his own way, as psychotic as the Joker, except the Joker fights against justice and for evil. They're mirror images of each other. (People, 1989)

Taken from: http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/batmanjoker-relationship-on-paper-and.html

The scene where Bruce and Joker visit Vicki Vale’s apartment, they both say the exact same thing when they walk inside is a subtle hint.

 

[Rodrigo90]

From one mad man to the other.

Burton had a distinct vision in his mind over Bruce. He envisioned Batman as the ultimate loner. Burton himself was bit of an outcast in his youth, he was different to his peers around him. It's not hard to imagine him thinking,
"I know what happens to you when you're alone for so long."

And so Bruce, his Bruce, became the socially awkward hermit in the hills. It brought out funny little quirks because of how unadjusted he was to certain situations and activities. He was detached most times. Several conversations, he has to have a little pause in order to register what's going on around him and what's being said. Burton, in his opinion, thought it would've made more sense that way, given how Bruce chooses to live out this relatively isolated life, where his only time for interest in human contact was when he threatening those who committed evil, as a silent, masked phantom of the night.

But saying that. He was sociable and friendly, and he did desire the right woman, but his maintaining of those things left him in situations he didn't know how to quite handle, which I found both humorous, and peeling back that layer, sad, especially in the Batcave scene where Vicki finds out.

Whatever the reasons behind Burton's choices for this interpretation, I thought they were unique and brilliant.

 

[Naked Shia]

you know what was great? how they basically show you that bruce had been journeying to become the batman. The whole scene with knox and vale seeing all those weapons was their way of making you understand what he did, without spending 30 minutes explaining it. show, don't tell.

 

[shauner111]

Even though i prefer 89' to Returns, i agree with Joker in his argument, over Shape.

Quite frankly, im baffled that Shape asked how does the origin affect Batman and Jokers dynamic. It COMPLETELY changes their dynamic. Like Joker said (the poster not the character) it makes Batman owe his existence to his rival. It makes him hate Joker because he took away his parents and created a bit of a monster. It makes Batman go out for revenge, which he doesn't come back from in the Burton universe because we see him as more of a hermit in the 2nd movie and he seems to be killing people more.

The ending still holds up visually. But it's basically Batman going out to rescue his lady that Joker also happens to be trying to sex up + Bats wanting to confront/murder Joker for what he did years ago. The whole "Joker killed his parents" angle is only written in there so Batman has an excuse to go after Joker in the final act, with more emotion behind it than just "The hero saves the girl from the creep". Good for them for adding something else to the mix, but it feels like something they threw on top last minute. Im also not too sure if that was such a good idea for a first movie. It made people (non fans) expect that dynamic between the Joker & Batman years later.

It's quite weird and yet interesting how the first film was such an experiment.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The Joker has always been a symbol for the chaotic random evil that took his parents. Plus, in the comics Joker has killed Robin, paralyzed Batgirl, and hurt countless other people close to Bruce, driving him to revenge each time (even though he doesn't kill Joker). I don't see the B89 storyline to be a huge change from that basic idea.

 

[The Shape]

Quite frankly, im baffled that Shape asked how does the origin affect Batman and Jokers dynamic. It COMPLETELY changes their dynamic. Like Joker said (the poster not the character) it makes Batman owe his existence to his rival. It makes him hate Joker because he took away his parents and created a bit of a monster. It makes Batman go out for revenge, which he doesn't come back from in the Burton universe because we see him as more of a hermit in the 2nd movie and he seems to be killing people more.

The ending still holds up visually. But it's basically Batman going out to rescue his lady that Joker also happens to be trying to sex up + Bats wanting to confront/murder Joker for what he did years ago. The whole "Joker killed his parents" angle is only written in there so Batman has an excuse to go after Joker in the final act, with more emotion behind it than just "The hero saves the girl from the creep". Good for them for adding something else to the mix, but it feels like something they threw on top last minute. Im also not too sure if that was such a good idea for a first movie. It made people (non fans) expect that dynamic between the Joker & Batman years later.

I'm a little baffled that it seems you're putting words in my mouth. I never said or suggested that it didn't change the Batman/Joker dynamic (even though he only discovers this information for a small portion of the film). Rather, someone suggested their final confrontation only takes place because The Joker killed Batman's parents and that it completely changed the finale, which I refuted and feel is an absurd notion.

Yes, The Joker having killed Bruce's parents adds more emotion to their final confrontation, but it didn't serve as an "excuse" for Batman to go after The Joker. The main reasons were to save an innocent woman (another person Bruce cared about) and to stop the madman who had been terrorizing Gotham and killing innocent people. Getting revenge against the man who shattered his life as a boy was the icing on the cake and, as we've said, added an additonal layer to the conflict between them.

Would anyone suggest that Batman used Rachel's death as an excuse to go after The Joker at the end of TDK? No, because there were other factors at play...like Batman being Batman and wanting/needing to stop the bad guy and save lives because that's what he does.

As far as COMPLETELY changing their dynamic, it changed their dynamic for one act of the movie, and even then what was really changed other than them having a personal link to one another and being responsible for each other's creation? They were each still the opposing forces of good and evil, ying and yang, order and chaos, right and wrong, with characterizations and actions that were in line with what we know to be true of them from the comics.

I could see people being upset if we were talking about the comic book canon, but this was a one-shot story in which The Joker died like 20 minutes after their dynamic "completely" changed. I fail to see how it was detrimental to the story they were trying to tell, unless you're a comic book purist that can handle changes like this, as I know some people here are.

The Joker has always been a symbol for the chaotic random evil that took his parents. Plus, in the comics Joker has killed Robin, paralyzed Batgirl, and hurt countless other people close to Bruce, driving him to revenge each time (even though he doesn't kill Joker). I don't see the B89 storyline to be a huge change from that basic idea.

Correct.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The ending still holds up visually. But it's basically Batman going out to rescue his lady that Joker also happens to be trying to sex up + Bats wanting to confront/murder Joker for what he did years ago. The whole "Joker killed his parents" angle is only written in there so Batman has an excuse to go after Joker in the final act, with more emotion behind it than just "The hero saves the girl from the creep". Good for them for adding something else to the mix, but it feels like something they threw on top last minute. Im also not too sure if that was such a good idea for a first movie. It made people (non fans) expect that dynamic between the Joker & Batman years later.

It wasn't just "the hero saves the girl from the creep." Joker tried to gas and kill all of Gotham city, remember? I guess after Batman thwarted that plan and then Joker shot down his plane he was just supposed to let Joker escape?

 

[Indy Flash]

It is a great movie. What more can anyone ask. And I'm a Nolan fan too.

 

[Keehar]

you know what was great? how they basically show you that bruce had been journeying to become the batman. The whole scene with knox and vale seeing all those weapons was their way of making you understand what he did, without spending 30 minutes explaining it. show, don't tell.

HA for all we know he ordered half of that stuff from abroad. You get no idea that any of it had anything to do with him being Bats either. Because we're all Bat nerds you're assuming that it's to do with being Batman because you know Batman's back story of travelling for his training but normal audiences would be clueless about that. That's not showing or telling them nothing about his Batman journey.

Too lazy to give Bruce the proper back story he deserves.

The Joker has always been a symbol for the chaotic random evil that took his parents.

Say what now. His folks were killed in a mugging. That means all the muggers and other opportunistic random thieves are as much a symbol of the evil that took his folks as Joker is if you believe that symbolic thing haha. Makes no sense.

Even though i prefer 89' to Returns, i agree with Joker in his argument, over Shape.

Quite frankly, im baffled that Shape asked how does the origin affect Batman and Jokers dynamic. It COMPLETELY changes their dynamic. Like Joker said (the poster not the character) it makes Batman owe his existence to his rival. It makes him hate Joker because he took away his parents and created a bit of a monster. It makes Batman go out for revenge, which he doesn't come back from in the Burton universe because we see him as more of a hermit in the 2nd movie and he seems to be killing people more.

The ending still holds up visually. But it's basically Batman going out to rescue his lady that Joker also happens to be trying to sex up + Bats wanting to confront/murder Joker for what he did years ago. The whole "Joker killed his parents" angle is only written in there so Batman has an excuse to go after Joker in the final act, with more emotion behind it than just "The hero saves the girl from the creep". Good for them for adding something else to the mix, but it feels like something they threw on top last minute. Im also not too sure if that was such a good idea for a first movie. It made people (non fans) expect that dynamic between the Joker & Batman years later.

Winner.

Man this movie got so much wrong.

To address the whole reflection thing between Batman and Joker that was mentioned earlier, I found an interview piece where Bob Kane talks about the movie.

Bob Kane echoed this theme: [Bruce Wayne] became, in his own way, as psychotic as the Joker, except the Joker fights against justice and for evil. They're mirror images of each other. (People, 1989)

Taken from: http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/batmanjoker-relationship-on-paper-and.html

Joker fights against justice and for evil. Well that's great Mr. plagiarist thief Bob Kane. You like just described nearly all the Bat villains.

 

[BrollySupersj]

Ultimately what I love about Batman 89 is just the feel and tone of the movie. It's brooding, it's gothic, it's dark. I just love all the design aspects. Like how Gotham looks like an actual fictional city, an almost metropolitan Transylvania even. The way they designed the city makes me believe a giant bat creature lurks in the alleys and rooftops. I love how they change the lighting around Batman's eyes to make them hidden, to get rid of the fact he's a man at first. I love how the batsuit is locked up in giant tomb looking vault. Batman 89 to me has the best aesthetics of any movie. Not in terms of say, the batsuit, but in how the world looks. It always pleases me when watch it.

 

[Indy Flash]

Vicki is my favorite Batman girl I just don't know why.