In retrospect, Batman(1989) is really baadd

[dru]

It's not "bad" but it doesn't hold up in light of Batman Begins.

I was a teenager when Batman (1989) came out and liked it more than now. I loved the production design by Anton Furst and still do. Nicholson's Joker is worse at time goes on.

Dark Knight was a crappy follow-up to Batman Begins and eventually people will wonder what they ever saw in it.

The Schumacher films were unwatchable even when new.

Batman Begins, Batman (89), Batman (66) and even Batman & Robin (49) all worked for me.

 

[Set Harth]

Also, didn't he kill Two Face in "Dark Knight"? I haven't seen it in awhile but doesn't Bats knock him off a cliff and he falls to his death?

Yes, in the film this can be seen as the culmination of the Joker's intent to have Batman break his one rule, as expressed during the interrogation scene.

 

[the G-man]

But wasn't killing Harvey an accidental thing?

 

[Malformed]

I missed the Batman bringing the Joker back to life thing. Glad I did that just seems way over the top.

Comics-wise I thought the "Legends of the Dark Knight" series that came out was the best they ever did, both art and story, for the first few years of that run.

 

[Trekker4747]

But wasn't killing Harvey an accidental thing?

For the most part it was and it was done in the heat-of-the-moment in order to save an innocent life. Were it you or I who did that, and the reputation of the other guy not needing protection, we wouldn't ever see a court-room.

 

[Mr Light]

I'm pretty sure Bats resurrected Joker in Legends of the Dark Knight. That, or in Shadow of the Bat. It wasn't a main title.

 

[RAMA]

I don't think the Nolan Tumbler is "definitive" but it sure makes a hell of a lot more sense than the comic book vehicle.

RAMA

Honestly, I think we're dealing with two very different aesthetics here, and your comment there gets right to the heart of it.

Some people want Batman to make "a lot more sense than the comic book" version. And seem to think that the more realistic and less comic-booky the better.

And then those people don't even realize that the Nolan movies are at least as goofy. Microwave guns on trains that activate fear gas? Evil nurses in clown makeup who have the time and wherewithal to set up demolitions in a 100,000 square foot hospital unnoticed?

Absolutely realistic!

I believe I made this argument earlier....Batman Begins etc, while more realistic is still a comic book film...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4872969&postcount=90

I HATE the Ra'sh Al Ghul character, and its to it's credit I was able to tolerate the version shown in Batman Begins. I also hate the Lazarus pit idea period.

RAMA

 

[Myasishchev]

I always liked "This is why Superman works alone." It's a pretty good line--in another story.

 

[Trekker4747]

I always liked "This is why Superman works alone." It's a pretty good line--in another story.

Eh, it was too campy of a Bronze Age DC comics line, in fact pretty much the whole movie, and the previous one, were.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I always liked "This is why Superman works alone." It's a pretty good line--in another story.

That would have been a great line, if it was then immediately followed by George Clooney running over Chris O'Donnell with the Batmobile.

When Michael Gough died TMZ (which is how I found out about it) had a note about how he was only the actor in "Batman and Robin" who "Didn't make a complete ass of himself." I like that, and it's true. "Batman and Robin"'s sole saving grace is a great performance by Gough.

I'm interested to see what happens to Batman Begins and TDK in twenty or so years. If people will regard them as classics or if it will be split between people who love them and those who can't believe how stupid they seem in the present.

 

[Trekker4747]

Ah Alfred, a man so dedicated to his family he knew his niece's exact measurements enough to make a skin-tight leather suit for her that showed off her curves. He loved her so much he wanted her to routinely go out and kick the ass of hardened criminals.

Hell of a guy!

But, seriously, no bat-nipples on her costume? Bullshit.

 

[Shazam!]

I quite like Batman Forever in a there-was-a-60's TV series-called Batman-and-30-years-later-they-decided-to-make-a-film kinda way.

 

[Gojira]

I quite like Batman Forever in a there-was-a-60's TV series-called Batman-and-30-years-later-they-decided-to-make-a-film kinda way.

Although the 1989 Batman was supposed to be camp-free and to the most part it was I do agree that Batman Forever was a step in the direction toward the camp of the TV series. I actually like Batman Forever best out of the franchise which Burton began in 89.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Camp and bat-nipples aside, it's arguable that of those four movies, Batman Forever is the most faithful.

I was going to pop in and point out that Amazon was selling the set of all four movies on Blu-ray for $27, but it looks like that sale's over.

 

[Trekker4747]

Camp and bat-nipples aside, it's arguable that of those four movies, Batman Forever is the most faithful.

The one with the over-the-top Riddler and the in no way the dark, tortured, character he's supposed to be Two-Face?

How was that one the most "faithful?"

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Riddler's been over-the-top before, and there have been several iterations of Two-Face. The characters as played by Carrey and Jones might not have been my preferred versions, but the movie didn't take them as far off the rails as they did with, say, Bane or Batgirl. Or even Catwoman.

The big one that it has over the Burton films is that Batman is a moral character while still being his tortured self. Not only does he not kill anyone in Forever (Keaton's Batman killed bad guys in both Burton movies), but he tries to keep Dick Grayson from doing the same.

The movie may have been goofy, but if you boil it down to comic book elements, it's a lot closer to the spirit of the comics through the ages than any of the other three films. Arguably even more so than Nolan's movies.

I think Batman and the two Nolan movies are better films, but that's a different argument.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Ah Alfred, a man so dedicated to his family he knew his niece's exact measurements enough to make a skin-tight leather suit for her that showed off her curves. He loved her so much he wanted her to routinely go out and kick the ass of hardened criminals.

Hell of a guy!

But, seriously, no bat-nipples on her costume? Bullshit.

Didn't he admit to making Robin's hideous purple costume too? I think Batman asks, "who's your tailor?" and he nods or something when Robin first appears in the costume. Robin would have been better off going out in his circus costume without a cape (I actually liked how he looked in that one scene when he wears it to pull Batman out of some muck).

All kidding aside, I'm happy to see some praise for "Batman Forever" especially for Batman showing some morality in trying to prevent Robin from exacting vengeance on Two-Face. As I've said before, I'd call that the best part of the movie.

It shows how, at times, this movie had its heart in the right place (especially compared to the first two Batman movies). It just suffered from some very shoddy execution in direction, writing, production design, acting...hell, everything! B for effort, though!

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

All of that seems to be due to the script, which was written before Schumacher signed on as director, I believe. If that script would have been put into the hands of a different director, Forever would have been a really good Batman movie.

Heck, I think it'd be interesting to see how it would have turned out if Keaton and Burton had remained aboard. We'd have gotten different actors for the villains, and probably a much scarier Two-Face.

 

[Silvercrest]

Would they have kept Billy Dee Williams?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I suspect not, but I guess that wouldn't be too scary.