The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[The Joker]

Payaso, I am stunned that a poster of your usual high caliber is constructing this strawman argument. The people of Gotham City would have to have been blind, deaf, and stupid not to know The Joker was a dangerous murderous criminal of the highest caliber. He not only was mass murdering Gotham's citizens, but he was flaunting it on TV and laughing in their faces about it. It was all over the news when the deaths started happening, too, and it was being attributed as "The Joker's deadly weapon".

The writing is on the wall, mate. Gotham City knew all too well Joker was a bad guy through and through.

All the newspapers did was report the cracked poison code that Batman solved. Nothing more. It wasn't a statement from Batman saying Joker's a bad guy. It was a public announcement as to what products people should avoid if they want to live.

 

[Godzilla2014]

The Joker is loud, boisterous, and flamboyant. It could be argued he's one big over the top satire on corruption.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think his scheme could be more of a satire of 1980s consumerism.

Not to mention, it's totally different to make a satire almost a decade after the 80s happened, it's another thing to subtly critique the very people who are bankrolling, and watching, your movie.

Batman did the latter.

True.

 

[ALP]

It makes no sense that Joker is even allowed to have a parade in the middle of Gotham. But he does. It's the hyper stylized tone of the movie that's used to get the message across. It's police corruption and peoples greed/desperation turned up to 11 for the purpose of satire.

If you think Burton and co weren't aware of the ridiculousness of those plot points and did then unintentionally... well, I don't know what else to say.

THIS!!!

How do some people just not get it!? Burton's Batman movies don't take place in the real world. They're riddled with "this wouldn't happen in reality" type stances when you pick them apart. They're not meant to be looked at that way. It's silly to even ask "Why are the people showing up to Joker's parade?" because it totally ignores the foundation of the fact that if it were real life, there is no way in hell a serial killer like the Joker would have even been able to hold a parade in the first place. And what's more? It's not like Joker just came out of nowhere with some poisonous parade floats and the police were totally unaware and had to scramble to help the people. Why? Because the Joker gave away the exact time and location he would be holding the parade!!! Why didn't the police stop him? "In real life" Gordon and his team would have been there to arrest the Joker the moment he even attempted to run a 5 mile per hour float through the city.

 

[conan69]

The 89 Batman wasnt intended to take place in fantasy land.

It takes place in the real world that the technology of the time allowed. Gothams look is based on Burtons style and a creative decision as they chose to film on set instead of location. Theyre creative choices about style and production, not ones made to sell the reality the film exists in. Had the film been shot in NYC on location(which almost happened), I think people wouldnt be so quick to say it exists in a fantasy world.

As far as the Joker parade,I think Hamm always kept in mind that he was still writing a comic book movie. I remember reading the novelization before the film came out and was suprised how much, while reading it, it reminded me of the books from the 70s. Yet, that didnt come across in the film. At all. In the "real world" its true Joker would have never even gotten on a float, but IMHO its simply a oversight on their part, as it would have been easy enough to mention Joker goons were keeping police occupied elsewhere or away from where the floats were. Is it poor writing? Well, yea, but again, its also 80's comic book movie writing.

I read alot of interviews with Hamm in magazines and such at the time and he actually had made comments about "the reality of Batman existing". Nothing he said would hint to a his Batman script taking place in a otherworld. In fact, the opposite. He hated that Batman wore a cape and felt that it was "stupid" for a person running around on rooftops to have one - so he wanted a scene where the cape fouled Batman up.

The original ending Hamm wanted to the 89 film had Batman chasing Joker through the subway. While avoiding a train, Batman presses against the wall, but his cape flares out and gets snagged on the train, where hes dragged along and severly injured. Joker gets away and the film ends with Bruce Wayne is shown in Wayne Manor recovering with Joker still on the loose and Wayne more commited than ever to stop him.

Burton interviews were everywhere at the time - all over tv and in magazines, I dont remember satire ever being mentioned as a theme or intention of anything going on in the film. I believe Hamms script was trying to capture the spirit of the character from the 70s.

 

[Fudgie]

THIS!!!

How do some people just not get it!? Burton's Batman movies don't take place in the real world. They're riddled with "this wouldn't happen in reality" type stances when you pick them apart. They're not meant to be looked at that way. It's silly to even ask "Why are the people showing up to Joker's parade?" because it totally ignores the foundation of the fact that if it were real life, there is no way in hell a serial killer like the Joker would have even been able to hold a parade in the first place. And what's more? It's not like Joker just came out of nowhere with some poisonous parade floats and the police were totally unaware and had to scramble to help the people. Why? Because the Joker gave away the exact time and location he would be holding the parade!!! Why didn't the police stop him? "In real life" Gordon and his team would have been there to arrest the Joker the moment he even attempted to run a 5 mile per hour float through the city.

This is what I've been saying. None of it makes any sense and it could never happen.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, because that's not deliberately misconstruing what I meant.

I thought you wanted someone providing 1 and/or 2 answers, instead of just quoting every other sentence in this post, point-for-point?

This is now like The Official Sarcastic and Evasive Non-answer Thread.

Sarcasm is part of SHH, evasive non-answer too.

Basically, calling anything satirical or whatever is a matter of opinion. Not even directors should necessarily be aware of everything their movies could/should/would/will be called.

Certainly satire is not defined by what reviewers say about a movie.

What makes Mars Attacks specifically a satire about the 50s, rather than simply (for lack of a better word) a comedic homage to corny 50s sci-fi? Honest question. I haven't seen that movie since the late 90s or something.

And this is a matter of names.

This way next time someone says "I loved that comedy" I can come and argue: I wouldn't call it a comedy but a movie sparkled with funny remarks and physical comedy. A good formula to argue about many things.

Payaso, I am stunned that a poster of your usual high caliber is constructing this strawman argument.

AH, expectations vs reality. I myself am stunned that posters organizing this B89 bashing of its tiniest things that could ever be called flaws are not, at the very least, taking it to the right thread. But here we are.

The people of Gotham City would have to have been blind, deaf, and stupid not to know The Joker was a dangerous murderous criminal of the highest caliber. He not only was mass murdering Gotham's citizens, but he was flaunting it on TV and laughing in their faces about it. It was all over the news when the deaths started happening, too, and it was being attributed as "The Joker's deadly weapon".

The writing is on the wall, mate. Gotham City knew all too well Joker was a bad guy through and through.

So you didn't read my post. Ok, here I go again: he wasn't mass-murdering as much as he was killing models and people from the fashion world that usually use a lot of beauty products. Did he make everyone in Gotham nervous? Yes, he did, but not everyone died, not "a mass of people" (until the end of the movie, that is). And he achieved a goal: people from TV stopped looking all gorgeous because they weren't using any make-up and stuff. He explains this (for all spoonfeeding speeches lovers everywhere) when he meets Vicky at the museum. He's against the popular liking of people for everything that's conventionally beautiful. Hence: he kills people who are conventionally beautiful. The rest of mortals are there and even when they could have been horrified by his actions, in the end they weren't killed and the money was falling from the sky. Not the first time I've seen people adoring someone who has killed human beings.

All the newspapers did was report the cracked poison code that Batman solved. Nothing more. It wasn't a statement from Batman saying Joker's a bad guy. It was a public announcement as to what products people should avoid if they want to live.

Newspapers starts to wonder whether Batman is a hero or not presicely because he cracked that code. Apparently they were attaching the word 'hero' to the one who's against Joker?

This is what I've been saying. None of it makes any sense and it could never happen.

Yeah, because B89 was trying to convince people 'this could happen, you know, in real life.' You completely got the movie right man.

 

[The Joker]

AH, expectations vs reality. I myself am stunned that posters organizing this B89 bashing of its tiniest things that could ever be called flaws are not

For starters whether they are flaws or not is entirely subjective to the viewer. Some people expect a level of intelligence when watching a movie, like a whole city having the mental cop on to know that someone who kills innocent people by poisoning their products is a bad guy, whether it's set in a fantasy world or not.

at the very least, taking it to the right thread. But here we are.

If you want to split hairs, it was TheMorningStar who decided to start talking about Batman 1989 for some reason. Several others, including you and I, joined in.

So if you're going to start that line, you're just as much to blame as the rest of us. Nobody forced you to start talking about Batman 1989.

So you didn't read my post. Ok, here I go again: he wasn't mass-murdering as much as he was killing models and people from the fashion world that usually use a lot of beauty products.

I read your post. My point still stands.

How do you know it was only models he killed? Just because the first two victims were? Another one was a newscaster. Then the next news report said another 6 deaths were reported. Where in the movie was it specified that it was models that died there? As if models and news reporters are the only ones use deodorant, lipstick, baby powder etc lol.

Did he make everyone in Gotham nervous? Yes, he did, but not everyone died, not "a mass of people" (until the end of the movie, that is).

I cannot believe this line of argument. This is absurd, man. The Joker in TDK didn't manage to kill all of Gotham either, but he made Gotham just as nervous.

Since when do you have to have come close to killing all of Gotham to make them:

1. Fear you
2. Know you are murdering psycho and a complete bad guy

Nicholson Joker was a murdering psychopath who poisoned Gotham's products with a lethal toxin. The body count he managed to rack up is completely irrelevant. He was a murdering psychopath and he flaunted it on TV. He forced Gotham to go on a fast for fear of being killed, too.

And he achieved a goal: people from TV stopped looking all gorgeous because they weren't using any make-up and stuff. He explains this (for all spoonfeeding speeches lovers everywhere) when he meets Vicky at the museum. He's against the popular liking of people for everything that's conventionally beautiful. Hence: he kills people who are conventionally beautiful.

"You know how concerned people are about appearances. This is attractive, that is not. Well that is all behind me. I do what other people only dream. I make art til someone dies. I am the world's first fully functioning homicidal artist"

Where in that dialogue do you get the message that he only targets people who are conventionally beautiful? That newscaster is a prime example. She was anything but conventionally beautiful:

She's just someone who uses beauty products like lipstick, hairspray etc. Like thousands of other Gothamites.

Newspapers starts to wonder whether Batman is a hero or not presicely because he cracked that code. Apparently they were attaching the word 'hero' to the one who's against Joker?

Newspapers don't start to wonder any such thing. The newscaster on the TV news is the one who said Gotham City itself are wondering what to make of Batman.

Batman wasn't sending or trying to send any message about the Joker being a bad guy. That was as obvious as they come.

 

[babbage]

El Payaso, you misread (willfully or not I can't even tell anymore): I asked if someone could provide an answer to the (1) and/or (2) bullet points in my post. This whole thing is just getting bizarre now.

A satire is a very specific thing. It's NOT just a matter of semantics. I can call Die Hard a farce, Caddyshack a burlesque, and The Terminator a parody, but that doesn't make it so. A random reviewer saying it doesn't make it so, either, but that's not what I was arguing. I would literally enjoy reading something that actually analyzed Batman 89 in light of its social criticism/irony, for example. Something showing precisely how the movie works as a satire. The examples provided earlier in this thread were way too ambiguous uphold Batman 89s as a satire by any fair standard. Just give me something that shows it is what you claim it is. It would be enlightening and great to read, doubtful as I am.

However, to be honest, when I first read someone in here seriously calling Batman 89 a satire, their statement was mixed up with other sentiments like "I'm tired of people saying Burton's first Batman wasn't deep," and "At least Burton's versions don't SPOONFEED you like the new Batman ones do." My first thought was, "Okay, SOMEONE's feeling insecure. Seems as though it's stemming from what I think is misguided fanboy loyalty, and they are way overcompensating for it." But I decided to give the notion of Batman 89 being a satire the benefit of the doubt, because I like the movie, I like Batman in general, I like learning things, and I like re-learning things, too.

The notion of Batman 89 being a grand satire wouldn't make me like Batman 89 any more or less, or make me Burton any more or less than I do. I don't particularly think "satire" is necessarily synonymous with "deep," anyway. But hey, I wouldn't mind re-examining Batman 89 as a satire... maybe I just never paid enough attention or, like the general public initially does with truly great satirical works, I took the movie at face-value for a simple comic booky action movie.

So I've kept coming back to this thread, looking for answers, but no one has provided anything of substance to back up their claims. I've gotten some snark, a lot of circular arguing, a lot of dodging and (maybe purposefully) obtuse replies.

So, in conclusion, this whole "Batman is a biting satire so well-executed that only a select few of us really see it for what it is; the rest are sheep!" thing is just more and more starting to sound like a lot of hot fanboyish nothing. Just saying, that's how I think it looks to anyone not invested in Batman 89's reputation. Anyhow, I am sick to death of typing "satire" and "Batman 89" over and over. And I hope someone at any point can actually post something of informative value vis-a-vis Batman 89 (ugh) as a satire (**** again).

 

[GothamAlleys]

The 89 Batman wasnt intended to take place in fantasy land.

It takes place in the real world that the technology of the time allowed. Gothams look is based on Burtons style and a creative decision as they chose to film on set instead of location. Theyre creative choices about style and production, not ones made to sell the reality the film exists in. Had the film been shot in NYC on location(which almost happened), I think people wouldnt be so quick to say it exists in a fantasy world.

As far as the Joker parade,I think Hamm always kept in mind that he was still writing a comic book movie. I remember reading the novelization before the film came out and was suprised how much, while reading it, it reminded me of the books from the 70s. Yet, that didnt come across in the film. At all. In the "real world" its true Joker would have never even gotten on a float, but IMHO its simply a oversight on their part, as it would have been easy enough to mention Joker goons were keeping police occupied elsewhere or away from where the floats were. Is it poor writing? Well, yea, but again, its also 80's comic book movie writing.

I read alot of interviews with Hamm in magazines and such at the time and he actually had made comments about "the reality of Batman existing". Nothing he said would hint to a his Batman script taking place in a otherworld. In fact, the opposite. He hated that Batman wore a cape and felt that it was "stupid" for a person running around on rooftops to have one - so he wanted a scene where the cape fouled Batman up.

The original ending Hamm wanted to the 89 film had Batman chasing Joker through the subway. While avoiding a train, Batman presses against the wall, but his cape flares out and gets snagged on the train, where hes dragged along and severly injured. Joker gets away and the film ends with Bruce Wayne is shown in Wayne Manor recovering with Joker still on the loose and Wayne more commited than ever to stop him.

Burton interviews were everywhere at the time - all over tv and in magazines, I dont remember satire ever being mentioned as a theme or intention of anything going on in the film. I believe Hamms script was trying to capture the spirit of the character from the 70s.

Actually the movie itself tells us it takes place in fantasy world/different reality. Its confirmed to be 1989 on the police WANTED papers, at the same time all the political events of 1947 take place, Truman is still president (check the headlines), Aleman is still president of mexico etc

As far as the satire debate, I personally dont believe its a satire. Burton s one of the most original directors ever, he has his own style and genre and his movies are pretty much live action cartoons. Theyre never meant to be taken literally, meaning we cant translate them to real life. For example I always chuckle when I see an image and sound of a duck on Batman's sonar. But thats naturally intentional, its always the cartoony over the top style

 

[nogap87]

I never got the impression that posters were "bashing" '89 Batman. People, including myself, were just pointing out what they felt were flaws in the story. Whether the movie takes place in the real world or fantasy land, Joker holding a parade after doing the crap he did is complete nonsense. It's cool if folks disagree but I hope the thread dials down the snark.

 

[The_Fire_Rises]

I'll glady take Batman Forever over both Burton films anyday.

 

[Fudgie]

I'll glady take Batman Forever over both Burton films anyday.

Me too.

 

[GothamAlleys]

On the issue of reality and plot points:

Anton Furst: Tim Burton and I inevitably got together because he is firm in his opinion that film must have it’s own reality. The more you explain the more you have to explain. If you start explaining you have to explain loads and that gets off the event you’re actually reconstructing.The strength of your graphic imagery is incredibly important. You must really ram it home hard and fast ‘cause you ain’t got time to go to it like in a book. It’s a two hour job, it ain’t a couple of days. Kubrick never takes film and says, I’m producing reality. He says I’m producing a movie which will describe the point I’m trying to ****ing well make with everything I’ve got, visually, dramatically, cinematically, and graphically to get through major points—the frailty of the human condition or whatever. It’s purely an event.

http://bombsite.com/issues/31/articles/1294

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Thats a great quote from Furst, Id like to read more articles with what he had to say about the film, the man didnt win an oscar for nothing.

 

[Thoix]

I think it's just right down the middle between "good" and "bad", but slightly leaning towards good.

On one hand: It's a fun watch, enjoyable without having to really make fun of it. Val Kimmer was decent as both Batman and Bruce Wayne, but he showed almost no expression as either Batman or Bruce (except for that Batman smile, meh). I really liked where the friendship/partnership was heading with Bruce and Dick (and one of the very few parts I liked about B&R, minus Dick's constant whining). Michael Gough's Alfred was still good, but he really needs to stop letting people into the the batcave (Vicki, Dick, and "Barbra").

On the other hand: It has the abomination of Two-Face as a character, I still think Tommy Lee Jones could have been an excellent Two-Face. Jim Carrey's Riddler was better, but a little to Jim Carrey. It also continues the Burton-films Gordon, who was almost useless in those films, and makes him even more useless here. I really did not like the inclusion of so much songs either, they make film feel too '90s and not age well.

I still think it's enjoyable but only because of nostalgia, yet I just can't call it a bad movie. It has a decent story and I like where they were going with a lot of things. So, I would say it is "decent".

 

[Merkel]

I've just seen this anouncement on La La Land Records Facebook page (the same company that released the expanded editions of the first two scores):

"La-La Land Records
RIDDLE ME THIS. . .

What is 2 cds long, contains music composed by the brilliant Elliot Goldenthal and is coming out from La-La Land Records on January 3, 2012?

BATMAN FOREVER: EXPANDED ARCHIVAL COLLECTION - 2 CD SET
MUSIC BY ELLIOT GOLDENTHAL
LLLCD 1189
RETAIL PRICE: $29.98

Produced by Elliot Goldenthal
Produced for La-La Land Records by Neil S. Bulk and Dan Goldwasser
Mastered by James Nelson at Digital Outland
Liner Notes by John Takis
Art Direction by Dan Goldwasser

What better way to kick off 2012 (and La-La Land's 10 year Anniversary) by unleashing an expanded version of Elliot Goldenthal's mind blowing score to the 1995 smash hit BATMAN FOREVER?!

Containing over 150 minutes of music this jam packed 2 disc set features additional music, newly remastered sound, detailed liner notes by resident "BAT-EXPERT" John Takis and wonderful art direction by Dan Goldwasser. As an added treat the entire production was produced and supervised by the composer himself, making this not only a must for Batfans, but a great listening experience as well.

The cd goes on sale Jan 3, 2012 at 1 pm pst at www.lalalandrecords.com and other fine online establishments.

Merry Christmas!"


It is limited to 3500 copies and I reckon there should be a bigger interest for this release than for the previous two (much more unreleased music)

 

[Spoonman]

I really liked Batman Forever's score, will get this definetely.

 

[AnneFan]

I'm a sucker for Batman music and can separate the music from the film. While not on the same level of Elfman, Goldenthal's Forever score is pretty good. La La Land did a great job with the B89/BR releases, so I'll pick this up as well.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Agree with Ann. Naturally not as good as Elfman by any means, but the music itself is I believe actually pretty good. Im a big soundtrack guy and I LOVE Goldenthal's score for Alien 3 and Pet Sematary

 

[Elevator Man]

I'm a film score guy myself. To me Goldenthal's score is the highlight of BF, imo. Though I think the film is decent and good popcorn entertainment. But I'll have to wait for this in February. I got a lot on my plate next month. Though I want this score badly. I've been waiting for this re-issue all year. I missed the original album release for this as well. Hope it doesn't sell out before February.

 

[AnneFan]

Hope it doesn't sell out before February.

You'll be safe. B89 and BR's limited edition expanded scores (5000 units and 3500 units) are still available for purchase on their site.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

It's a great score. Since Batman Forever is a more kid-friendly movie, we got a better score than expected.

 

[Merkel]

It's now available for purchase

http://www.lalalandrecords.com/BatmanForever.html

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

While I do enjoy this score I wont be purchasing this for my collection.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Totally nabbed this, along with returns. I'll get 89 later. Sucks that batman and robin shares the same fate as SM3's score though, aka Never gonna happen.