The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 5

[The Joker]

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.

That's my problem with it. How did he know Joker was making his poisons there? When did he find out? Why didn't he blow up the plant earlier when Joker first put his poison the products scheme into action when it would have really helped? What made him think Joker was going to use smilex at the parade?

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.

Exactly. If you're a casual Joe watching this movie, and ignorant of anything to do with Batman, that scene fills in no blanks about Bruce's preparation to become Batman.

This is why people like Decepticonus, who is a classic of example of someone who saw this movie with no prior knowledge of Batman, and relied on BTAS to fill in the blanks about Bruce's background that Batman '89 neglected ten fold.

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.

Also correct. There is no similarities or symbolism between Batman and the Joker other than they are polar opposites of each other. Black vs white. Positive vs negative. I suppose that is a kind of symbolism in how they are two opposing forces in just about every way. But it's got nothing to do with the randomness of crime. Thousands of criminals in Gotham besides the Joker contribute to random crimes. Including some of the other prominent members of the rogues gallery.

I've yet to see a comic that suggests Batman hates Joker specifically for this reason.

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.

Yes take anything Bob Kane said with a pinch of salt. Bill Finger is the man who deserves our respect and trust more.

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.

That killing the parents angle was added in last minute during the writer's strike by Burton.

A blatant attempt to add some personal gravitas to their confrontation.

Also a bit of info for anyone who's interested on why Billy Dee Williams never did get to play Two Face, and how he signed on believing he would eventually get to play him;

 

[shauner111]

What a shame about the Billy Dee Williams situation. That would have been the more logical idea for a sequel instead of Penguin. Two-Face and Catwoman.

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?

Of course not. But he didn't have to blow up a chemical plant with people in it (he obviously knew about those people). He didnt need to hook Jokers leg to a massive statue, knowing that he's hanging onto a ladder and there's no way that he can survive if he lets go.

When it was all said and done, it became about revenge. The whole story came down to the revenge plot. Bruce finds out that Joker killed his parents (they both made each other) and then goes after him, murdering the murderer in the process. He kills the guy that was putting the city in danger. Sure, that would be a relief. But they simply reward him by looking up to him as their hero and protector. Bruce even writes a note that only a hero would write (a very Superman thing to do). And then we all believe it because it's a epic moment with good music? He's not really a hero. He could have locked up Joker but he kills him in cold blood. Is he still a badass? Absolutely. But he's no hero like they try to spell out for the audience before the credits appear.

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.

100 % agree. Visually, it's stunning. The script however is a different conversation.

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.

How is Batman representing order and "right"? Killing people, murdering is not right. Bruce is a mess in this movie. He's not "order". He stumbles on his words, can barely communicate, he loses control/order by killing Joker when he can lock the guy up. He completely misses Joker from his batwing even though he had enough prep time and a good target with one man standing in a street wide open. He reminds me more of Ryan Goslings Driver than the Batman of the comics. Even though Keaton is damn good in that suit as an actor.

But does it work for the story at hand? Perhaps. But it's incredibly rushed, tacked on, and the heroic ending doesn't make much sense. That's some of the worst police work i've ever seen. That version of Jim Gordon has no business being a commissioner.

Yes it's a different interpretation but it goes against the Joker/Batman dynamic. It not only slaps Joker in the face by putting him in the same league as any other mugger (he's in a class of his own, with different motivations)...but it cheapens Batman once he kills him. The "order" is gone after this. They are no longer polar opposites. And i think Burtons idea of the two, was to make it seem like they're the same. When it's all said and done they're both freaks who made each other. Only one survives. But that's not Joker and Batman. They're not the same, even if Joker believes it. This big change only works because Keaton and Nicholson are great actors, they sell it well, and so does the look of the film. Im not sure if people would have enjoyed that take if they just read the script, with zero visual aids. I think nostalgia plays into it as well.

 

[Decepticonus]

This is why people like Decepticonus, who is a classic of example of someone who saw this movie with no prior knowledge of Batman, and relied on BTAS to fill in the blanks about Bruce's background that Batman '89 neglected ten fold.



Also correct. There is no similarities or symbolism between Batman and the Joker other than they are polar opposites of each other. Black vs white. Positive vs negative. I suppose that is a kind of symbolism in how they are two opposing forces in just about every way. But it's got nothing to do with the randomness of crime. Thousands of criminals in Gotham besides the Joker contribute to random crimes. Including some of the other prominent members of the rogues gallery.

I've yet to see a comic that suggests Batman hates Joker specifically for this reason.



Yes take anything Bob Kane said with a pinch of salt. Bill Finger is the man who deserves our respect and trust more.

Yes, thank you. A movie should include everything or at least close to everything. It's sad that it's not until Schumacher do we find out more about Bruce with Batman Forever such as he owns and operates Wayne Enterprise that produces....blenders to mount to your head while watching television.. or that he is a socialite always welcome by the press and on t.v. with live viewing of the circus... anyways those are beside the point.

Of course I do not expect everything to be there I don't expect Year One, Man Who Falls, Zero Year and whatever else you want to throw my way, of course not, but we need some substance. Think of this way - cast someone else instead of Keaton, somewhat maybe not as entertaining as Keaton but no one bad and furthermore they completely take out Batman. Either it's just a Bruce Wayne movie OR they are two different people. Are you remotely interested in this character of Bruce Wayne given they gave you nothing to work with and know? I have no problem with Keaton OR even the aloofish Clark Kent type Batman as long as you can explain why he is this way.

And this is the problem with Burton, he's not a very good story teller it's always the recycled outcast socially awkward loner labeled as weirdo who looks back at society as "weird". Again, personally I wouldn't mind this approach towards Bruce Wayne if done well. I recall Burton and even Brian Bolland sharing the same view on Batman in that he's more interesting of a character the more tucked away in the shadows and mysterious he is, where less is more. I hated that...until after watching this movie again for the first time again in like 9 years since I got the anniversary blu-ray edition for Christmas. The less you see of Batman the better, kind of like a monster or horror movie villain. Think Freddy Krueger who had minimal screen time in the first film, but in each sequel he got more making his less scary because he became too familiar (and dial up the camp as well). However, this should be the approach to take with his alter ego - Bruce Wayne.

 

[Penguin]

Yes take anything Bob Kane said with a pinch of salt. Bill Finger is the man who deserves our respect and trust more.

What exactly did Kane plagiarize? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but do either of you have some evidence of this?

 

[BatLobster]

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.

Even going off the premise that The Joker symbolizes the chaos that took his parents, it's still a different thing to take that symbolism and make it literal. Some might say it's even a bit on the nose and takes away from the mystique of their relationship by making it an actual cause and effect chain, rather than two opposing ideals clashing.

Also, Batman flat out says, "I'm going to kill you." It's a very different dynamic because of it. Batman has every intention to murder him going into the finale, and it's all fueled by the parents thing. Yes he wants to save the city too, but it goes beyond that He's already thwarted Joker's big plan when he states his intentions to kill him.

The one thing I will say is that the flashback sequence in Batman 1989 is incredible, very haunting, and it's perfectly timed in the movie as a way to give us a glimpse into Bruce's psyche after keeping him a mystery for most of the movie up until then. It's a clever device to make things more personal in the third act and get us really rooting for Batman, and from a writing standpoint it makes a certain amount of sense to consolidate things and use the flashback to reveal the killer to be the primary villain of the movie. It does give the movie a sense of momentum going into the third act that it wouldn't have had otherwise. I can totally see the argument for why it was done, but it's just not my preferred take on the characters' relationship.

I think it might be happier with it if Batman just never acknowledged it to Joker, and they never had the "I made you, you made me first" exchange. I'm saying keep the "Dance with the devil" line, keep the flashback sequence...but maybe keep the face of the gunman more in the shadows, and it could almost be left up to interpretation whether or not it really was Napier that gunned his parents down or if The Joker is just a reminder of the the evil he glimpsed on the night his parents died. The audience would probably still assume that it really was Napier, but I think never acknowledging that would've felt more in keeping with Keaton's "silent badass" Batman. And I think keeping that entire angle more in the subtext rather than so in your face could've been more satisfying and haunting.

 

[regwec]

It's clear that Burton and co wanted to integrate the two antagonists closely, and to give complete closure at the movie's end. That conflicted with the comicbook lore, but it is only fair to reflect that B89 was made at a time when comicbook movies were Superman movies starring Christopher Reeve, and when most people knew Batman from the TV show Adam West. The point is that there was little precedent for making an unashamed genre movie without much sop to broader audiences, and selling Batman as a dark and mysterious hero was tough. If Burton took an off-the-peg action-thriller rivalry, and draped Batman and The Joker around it, he can hardly be blamed.

 

[BatLobster]

Very true. It's very easy for us to pick this stuff apart in retrospect, and this is me looking back on the movie after years of my personal tastes developing and my likes/dislikes for the character, etc. But for its time, it really can't be understated how much the original film did in terms of progressing the character for the general public.

Luckily, I can very easily take off my critical hat and love the movie for what it is when I'm actually watching it.

 

[Decepticonus]

I was roughly 5 years old when I saw the movie and again this was my introduction to Batman and with the lack of Internet back then I was completely unaware of the negative reaction of long-time fans to Joker killing Batman's parents. Nonetheless, I strangely did not pick up on it at all. To me it was oh hey journeying back in time to see his parents get shot by some young creepy, smiley guy who said the same thing the Joker did. Flashback over, turn back to Nicholson's Joker grin paused on screen :GASP: it's him. Either I was too young or too stupid to connect it. Furthermore, I also didn't buy it. So you saw this guy murder your parents roughly 20 some odd years ago and you pause the screen on this guy and suddenly realize it's the same guy + saying the same line and referred to as Jack when Jack is a rather common name. Oh and it's the same guy you've been going after, how convenient. Overall, it just felt too convenient. You actually remember his face that well? You can tell with 20 years difference he would look like "that". Hell, my wife seeing for the first time mocked it as "yeah that's totally a young Jack Nicholson."

Yeah, he did say "I made you, you made me first" which held no baring on me as child, made no sense cause I took "made" too literally as in - he made a paper airplane or something. Plus, Batman's very low, subtle voice making it difficult to hear. Plus, I assumed Joker & Batman were of the same age, when clearly Nicholson is much older than Keaton. Most of the time, the hero and his villain are of the same age, usually though not all the time.

Catching up with the mythos and coming back to it later, I understand the negative reaction to it and part of is still saying "oh how convenient" I'm not buying this for Joker killing Bruce's parents. I am actually OKAY to some degree with him murdering his parents as a different story, if DC tomorrow wanted to publish a Elseworlds tale of Batman's parents being killed by The Joker (with nothing else being borrowed from '89) then I would totally pick it up and read it cause I love that stuff. Would I want it as pure, main, official canon? Nope.

And yes, there are problems with this. Batman owes his existence to Joker!?!?!?!? Personally, I'm not even a fan of Joe Chill, I prefer the killer being random and never identified. I always felt find Joe Chill/Joker kill them or bring them to justice, end of story. It makes more sense in his complete war on all crime because they all have to pay for this if he can't find that one who murdered his parents.

Going further I did not appreciate Burton's approach through to this whole debacle. Watch the commentary as he discusses it, but he did it to bring the two closer since they share no common ground, no history (damn it, butchering this just watch the commentary) but all in all that is what makes Joker & Batman so interesting as a feud. Look at other comics - Magneto & Xavier were friends but that went sour or Doom & Richards went to college together. You have no shared history with these two before their alter egos, nothing, no similar origin or goals or backgrounds in their upbringing, social class, culture or whatever. But despite all of that they come off as so close together as if who knows maybe one did do something to the other or they were brothers, but nope, none of that at all. Because of great writers, creators and artists these two have been able to portray a classic feud for ages.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I still love many aspects of the 89 Batman movie but that "Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents" plot twist remains tacked on and pointless. What did it add to the Batman/Joker rivalry outside of giving Batman a convenient excuse to kill Joker and mow his goons down Rambo style in the third act? Why was that necessary for the story? It adds nothing substantial and Burton ultimately did nothing with it.

It's too bad the writing and storytelling didn't match the greatness of the "look" and "feel" of Batman 89 in terms of production design, costuming, and music. Burton nailed those aspects perfectly. It's the storytelling that is the biggest weakness of the 89 movie and always has been.

 

[Naked Shia]

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.

.

That's called "trusting your audience, regardless of their knowledge of comics".

I don't need to have read year one, or the man who falls, or blind justice to understand this scene is supposed to show Wayne is more than meets the eyes.

In batman 89, we can assume Wayne has weapon training, and he went all over the world to train. We see his parents being killed. We see him honoring them, and we know he does that every year. We see he's a loner, who's afraid of getting close to people.

All those elements tell a lot of things about him. It's not in your face, but it's here, and it's true to the character.

It's not to your liking, I get that. That doesn't mean it's not well done.

Both Burton's and Nolan's take are valid and can work. I love both.

 

[regwec]

And, again, Burton was not making the movie in an era where everything was milked to death in the name of creating a "franchise". It is perhaps ironic that he gave birth to that era, but at the time he did not have the luxury of an "origin movie" with the certainty of a sequel, or the option to make a "prequel" to the movie for which he was hired. In B89 he had to introduce both Batman and his greatest nemesis, create a deadly rivalry between them, and conclude that story in a satisfactory manner. He does so extremely well, even if he does re-wire the comicbook mythology to create a more tightly closed narrative circuit.

Incidentally, I think Bruce's international travels and training are referenced by his possession of a samurai armour, and his statement that he "bought it in Japan". The audience is left to draw a connection between that and Batman's evident prowess in hand to hand combat. We don't need a ten minute flashback montage, or a monologue of dreary exposition from Alfred.

 

[Naked Shia]

And, again, Burton was not making the movie in an era where everything was milked to death in the name of creating a "franchise". It is perhaps ironic that he gave birth to that era, but at the time he did not have the luxury of an "origin movie" with the certainty of a sequel, or the option to make a "prequel" to the movie for which he was hired. In B89 he had to introduce both Batman and his greatest nemesis, create a deadly rivalry between them, and conclude that story in a satisfactory manner. He does so extremely well, even if he does re-wire the comicbook mythology to create a more tightly closed narrative circuit.

Incidentally, I think Bruce's international travels and training are referenced by his possession of a samurai armour, and his statement that he "bought it in Japan". The audience is left to draw a connection between that and Batman's evident prowess in hand to hand combat. We don't need a ten minute flashback montage, or a monologue of dreary exposition from Alfred.

also, taking liberties with the mythos is not that bothering, because the mythos was really inconsistent back then. Granted, Year one etc made it clearer, but before crisis, the only attempt to really develop the mythos was the untold legend of batman, and it was way different.

Burton didn't betray batman's spirit: he's a dark vigilante of the night, a millionaire who fights crime dressed as a giant bat because his parents were murdered in front of him when he was a child. That's what batman is about.

Batman 89 has done a lot for the comic book genre. And it's still to this day a magnificient movie, done with heart and talent. Unlike a lot of other comic book movie, it will stand the test of time.

 

[Havok83]

to be honest, origin stories are my least favorite comic movie cliche. Its why I tend to prefer the sequels over the originals in most comic franchises. I dont feel its always necessary and Batman didnt need that for his first outing

 

[Naked Shia]

Origins can be a bore. Batman begins managed to be great and never boring.

 

[Cain]

Another thing to remember contextually. This was the third movie by an extremely introverted director and his first major blockbuster with lots of cooks in the kitchen dictating **** to him.

Dude was on set like a deer staring at headlights most of the time trying not to slip up and withstanding tons of verbal abuse from Jon Peters and pressure from WB execs. Burton has said many times what helped him get through the shoot was things like Nicholson standing up for him against Peters. He also had to deal with a writers strike so his original writer couldn't even properly handle the revisions which is even more pressure for the director and why you have other writers mitts noticeably on the script throughout the movie.

Considering all that it's amazing the movie even came out the way it did as opposed to a complete and total mess. It actually makes it more impressive to me knowing how chaotic the behind the scenes really was on this production. I'm sure if it was a situation where he had more trust from the studio and producers during production it probably would've been more focused on his part.

He has implied as much basically stating that his hands were always tied at the whim of others on the first and that's why he feels that it's half baked when he sees it. Where as the experience he had on the follow up was the exact opposite which is why Returns seems more focused and personal.

 

[shauner111]

I still love many aspects of the 89 Batman movie but that "Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents" plot twist remains tacked on and pointless. What did it add to the Batman/Joker rivalry outside of giving Batman a convenient excuse to kill Joker and mow his goons down Rambo style in the third act? Why was that necessary for the story? It adds nothing substantial and Burton ultimately did nothing with it.

It's too bad the writing and storytelling didn't match the greatness of the "look" and "feel" of Batman 89 in terms of production design, costuming, and music. Burton nailed those aspects perfectly. It's the storytelling that is the biggest weakness of the 89 movie and always has been.

Spot on.

 

[The Shape]

I was roughly 5 years old when I saw the movie and again this was my introduction to Batman and with the lack of Internet back then I was completely unaware of the negative reaction of long-time fans to Joker killing Batman's parents. Nonetheless, I strangely did not pick up on it at all. To me it was oh hey journeying back in time to see his parents get shot by some young creepy, smiley guy who said the same thing the Joker did. Flashback over, turn back to Nicholson's Joker grin paused on screen :GASP: it's him. Either I was too young or too stupid to connect it. Furthermore, I also didn't buy it. So you saw this guy murder your parents roughly 20 some odd years ago and you pause the screen on this guy and suddenly realize it's the same guy + saying the same line and referred to as Jack when Jack is a rather common name. Oh and it's the same guy you've been going after, how convenient. Overall, it just felt too convenient. You actually remember his face that well? You can tell with 20 years difference he would look like "that". Hell, my wife seeing for the first time mocked it as "yeah that's totally a young Jack Nicholson."

Yeah, he did say "I made you, you made me first" which held no baring on me as child, made no sense cause I took "made" too literally as in - he made a paper airplane or something. Plus, Batman's very low, subtle voice making it difficult to hear. Plus, I assumed Joker & Batman were of the same age, when clearly Nicholson is much older than Keaton. Most of the time, the hero and his villain are of the same age, usually though not all the time.

You must have been a very unique 5 year old. Not only did you not understand a plot point and some dialogue from a decidedly mature movie (because you were 5), but you also didn't "buy" it and felt that it was too convenient of a plot device. Fascinating.

 

[Indy Flash]

Origins can be a bore. Batman begins managed to be great and never boring.

Yeah I agree not boring.

 

[Penguin]

Origins can be a bore. Batman begins managed to be great and never boring.

Oh yeah, Begins is one of my favorites because of that.

 

[The Joker]

What exactly did Kane plagiarize? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but do either of you have some evidence of this?

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/391/

http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-164-bob-kane-is-just-the-worst/

http://www.thebatsquad.net/billfinger.html

http://www.newsarama.com/17867-author-fights-for-bill-finger-to-get-batman-creator-credit.html

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/08...-did-it-all-carmine-infantino-on-bill-finger/


And if you're interested there was some threads here on SHH about it, too;

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=313808

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=72964

I was roughly 5 years old when I saw the movie and again this was my introduction to Batman and with the lack of Internet back then I was completely unaware of the negative reaction of long-time fans to Joker killing Batman's parents. Nonetheless, I strangely did not pick up on it at all. To me it was oh hey journeying back in time to see his parents get shot by some young creepy, smiley guy who said the same thing the Joker did. Flashback over, turn back to Nicholson's Joker grin paused on screen :GASP: it's him. Either I was too young or too stupid to connect it. Furthermore, I also didn't buy it. So you saw this guy murder your parents roughly 20 some odd years ago and you pause the screen on this guy and suddenly realize it's the same guy + saying the same line and referred to as Jack when Jack is a rather common name. Oh and it's the same guy you've been going after, how convenient. Overall, it just felt too convenient. You actually remember his face that well? You can tell with 20 years difference he would look like "that". Hell, my wife seeing for the first time mocked it as "yeah that's totally a young Jack Nicholson."

Yeah, he did say "I made you, you made me first" which held no baring on me as child, made no sense cause I took "made" too literally as in - he made a paper airplane or something. Plus, Batman's very low, subtle voice making it difficult to hear. Plus, I assumed Joker & Batman were of the same age, when clearly Nicholson is much older than Keaton. Most of the time, the hero and his villain are of the same age, usually though not all the time.

Catching up with the mythos and coming back to it later, I understand the negative reaction to it and part of is still saying "oh how convenient" I'm not buying this for Joker killing Bruce's parents. I am actually OKAY to some degree with him murdering his parents as a different story, if DC tomorrow wanted to publish a Elseworlds tale of Batman's parents being killed by The Joker (with nothing else being borrowed from '89) then I would totally pick it up and read it cause I love that stuff. Would I want it as pure, main, official canon? Nope.

And yes, there are problems with this. Batman owes his existence to Joker!?!?!?!? Personally, I'm not even a fan of Joe Chill, I prefer the killer being random and never identified. I always felt find Joe Chill/Joker kill them or bring them to justice, end of story. It makes more sense in his complete war on all crime because they all have to pay for this if he can't find that one who murdered his parents.

Going further I did not appreciate Burton's approach through to this whole debacle. Watch the commentary as he discusses it, but he did it to bring the two closer since they share no common ground, no history (damn it, butchering this just watch the commentary) but all in all that is what makes Joker & Batman so interesting as a feud. Look at other comics - Magneto & Xavier were friends but that went sour or Doom & Richards went to college together. You have no shared history with these two before their alter egos, nothing, no similar origin or goals or backgrounds in their upbringing, social class, culture or whatever. But despite all of that they come off as so close together as if who knows maybe one did do something to the other or they were brothers, but nope, none of that at all. Because of great writers, creators and artists these two have been able to portray a classic feud for ages.

Well said

I still love many aspects of the 89 Batman movie but that "Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents" plot twist remains tacked on and pointless. What did it add to the Batman/Joker rivalry outside of giving Batman a convenient excuse to kill Joker and mow his goons down Rambo style in the third act? Why was that necessary for the story? It adds nothing substantial and Burton ultimately did nothing with it.

It's too bad the writing and storytelling didn't match the greatness of the "look" and "feel" of Batman 89 in terms of production design, costuming, and music. Burton nailed those aspects perfectly. It's the storytelling that is the biggest weakness of the 89 movie and always has been.

Exactly.

 

[Rodrigo90]

What a big bad man Kane was. Damn him for copying other people's work! I would rather have no Batman than a, a, a - COPYCATMAN!

 

[Cain]

This is why you should always thank Crom for Bill Finger.

 

[Rodrigo90]

You must have been a very unique 5 year old. Not only did you not understand a plot point and some dialogue from a decidedly mature movie (because you were 5), but you also didn't "buy" it and felt that it was too convenient of a plot device. Fascinating.

Decepticonus aged 5

 

[Keehar]

That's called "trusting your audience, regardless of their knowledge of comics".

I don't need to have read year one, or the man who falls, or blind justice to understand this scene is supposed to show Wayne is more than meets the eyes.

In batman 89, we can assume Wayne has weapon training, and he went all over the world to train. We see his parents being killed. We see him honoring them, and we know he does that every year. We see he's a loner, who's afraid of getting close to people.

All those elements tell a lot of things about him. It's not in your face, but it's here, and it's true to the character.

It's not to your liking, I get that. That doesn't mean it's not well done.

Both Burton's and Nolan's take are valid and can work. I love both.

Nope it's called neglecting your audience of a good character story. It ain't the first movie that's done it. Under written characters are a common prob.

You can't assume nothing in Bats 89 because he's a rich guy. Rich people are like famous for buying foreign junk like the stuff Keaton Wayne had there. It don't mean they were off travelling around getting trained. No sir.

He doesn't even seem like a loner who's afraid to get close to folk because he meets that Vale woman for like what 2 minutes, then next thing he's got her over for a date, she's drunk after a few bottles of plonk, and he's in the sack with her on the first date. Fast mover.

Even comic Bruce doesn't move that fast on a woman. He was even gonna tell her that he's Batman and he hardly knows her. They had like only one flipping date. The sex must have been real good if he was ready to spill the beans after that short time haha.

I wish I could love both but I'm a guy who likes to learn about the hero. Didn't get much of that with Burton's version.

but that "Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents" plot twist remains tacked on and pointless. What did it add to the Batman/Joker rivalry outside of giving Batman a convenient excuse to kill Joker and mow his goons down Rambo style in the third act? Why was that necessary for the story? It adds nothing substantial and Burton ultimately did nothing with it.

It's the storytelling that is the biggest weakness of the 89 movie and always has been.

Too right. Really gave Batman the short end of the stick.

What a big bad man Kane was. Damn him for copying other people's work! I would rather have no Batman than a, a, a - COPYCATMAN!

That sarcasm? Kane was a louse for doing that. You're a fan fic writer ain't you? How would you like some hack to rob your ideas and say they were his, and get rich and famous off them.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well, I'd be mighty pissed if someone did that to me.
But all ideas have to be born from something. It's not like Bob stole Batman from another writer (that I'm aware of). He just put together ideas that were inspired by something else. It was 1939, the superhero concept was just being born. He didn't know if Batman would've been successful or not.
Yes, he may have done some dubious things, took credit for other work. But I don't think he deserves all the mud that he gets thrown at him.