Is the Tim Burton Batman on it's Way to Being Forgotten

[STP Swallowthispill]

The Burton "Batman" was ok but what I hated about it was the Joker shoots down the Bat Plane with a long barreled pistol! That ruined it for me!
I thought "Batman Forever" was a good film I think Jim Carrey's Riddler was really good and Two face was done good.
I thought "Batman and Robin" should have been called "Mr.Freeze" he stole the show and what is with the idea that when someone finds the bat cave that it should announce "Intruder Alert,Intruder Alert" and all the bat gadgets come on and Bat Mobile rises up what a stupid intruder detection device!

Charles

[Batman65]

The Burton "Batman" was ok but what I hated about it was the Joker shoots down the Bat Plane with a long barreled pistol! That ruined it for me!
I thought "Batman Forever" was a good film I think Jim Carrey's Riddler was really good and Two face was done good.
I thought "Batman and Robin" should have been called "Mr.Freeze" he stole the show and what is with the idea that when someone finds the bat cave that it should announce "Intruder Alert,Intruder Alert" and all the bat gadgets come on and Bat Mobile rises up what a stupid intruder detection device!

Charles

Completely agree

[BatBrain]

I just got done re-watching Batman 89 a couple hours ago. I made it a point since I hadn't seen it in probably five years, and I was still pretty young. I was surprised at how much I overlooked/forgot! So, to reassess the film fairly, I have to say that I love it. Joker shooting the Batplane down with the long barreled pistol WAS indeed pretty low though! Then the issue with Bruce's history being twisted a bit, making Jack the murderer. I didn't mind that in all honesty, I don't think it really got in the way of anything. So, overall, a very good film in my book, despite not having aged the greatest and having a couple minor hiccups. On to Batman Returns very soon...

[SprangFan]

The "Joker killed the Waynes" thing ruined it for me, because it turns the whole film into a "Death Wish"-like revenge story. Once Bruce finds his parents' killer and kills him (!), there's no real reason for him to continue on in the suit.

Since this is obviously not the "real" Batman but an alternate take anyway (what with all the killing he does), I thought the way to make this work would be to go all the way and make him truly nuts. When a couple years later he catches up to the Penguin, he should grab him and snarl, "You killed my parents!" Indeed there should be a flashback in "Returns" where he "remembers" Cobblepit committing the murder. And so on through the series, so we know, "this guy's lost it!" He thinks EVERY crook did it.

Of course, that's kind of ruined by Napier saying, "I was just a kid when I killed your parents," even though he doesn't know who Batman really is, and its doubtful they were the only people he iced over his career.

Like all Burton films,the Batmans can be pretty to look at, but there's no saving the plots.

[BatBrain]

That is a very good point about the murder twist Sprang! Never thought of it in that sense. As with any opinion though, it is an opinion, and I did very much enjoy the film. I enjoyed watching it even more than I remembered as a kid. I will add that I just re-watched Batman Returns last night. I basically feel the same about that one as Batman. IMO, a very solid film, a nice alternate Batman (as you said), and Keaton is great in the role. I also noticed several references to 60s Batman in the movies! I do believe that the movies have their drawbacks, they are definitely not "perfect", and sure haven't dated the best, but I will remember them as great films in the Batman legacy.

[cammy85]

+1 on the Joker twist. I keep watching for that in other incarnations even though on one of them it was Joe Chill. Gotham still hasn't solved it correctly so I don't know their story.

It's still a great movie unlike what came after in the series.

[robinboyblunderer]

It's a terrible movie. Boring, slow paced, the action scene in the chemical factory is dull. Batman seems stupid, plunging back down to the street and nearly getting unmasked is just one example.

Having the Joker die is fine, but since this Batman kills, it should've been more dramatic and triumphant than him holding onto a ledge, while the gargoyle drags him down. The gun shooting the batplane was stupid.

The pacing felt off, Batman's introduction is flat, someone pointed out how he should've prevented the mugging but he didn't. Still, "better" than Returns, which outside of Catwoman is a horrible movie where Batman stands around at the end while the climax happens in front of him.

Terrible movies.

[robinboyblunderer]

Oh yeah, the music is annoying as well, particularly in the chemical factory where it just doesn't fit the scene and tries and fails to elevate what the audience is seeing.

Even the badly done The Dark Knight Rises is better than Burton's Batman movies.

[robinboyblunderer]

I guess that was a bit harsh but I think it deserves it; not because the movie was a darker Batman and attempted to erase the '66 version from pop culture, but because it was so slow moving. Not in a thoughtful, philosophical way, making points about the human condition using comic book characters as metaphors, but from simple story telling.

Also, Knox is a terrible character, like a grown up obnoxious Jimmy Olsen; he just doesn't fit. As a romantic competition for Vicki, he's no match, and since she's investigating Batman, he's redundant. Remove him from the movie and what changes?

Gordon was cast well but there's no relationship developed.

Alfred does a good job but I think letting Vicki in was a bad and undramatic choice for something as huge as her learning his identity. That's fine, but it could've been done in a more exciting way.

Burton used the characters to do another version of the outsider story he did in Edward Scissorhands, except now you have a good one and a bad one doing battle but both are damaged in different ways. That doesn't sound that bad abut again, the story was uninteresting, to me.

Probably the best thing about this movie is the trailer, someone edited together the languid scenes and flat action into something dramatic and exciting.

[SprangFan]

I think you almost had to see this movie in 1989 to really appreciate it (assuming you did at all).

In 1989, Batman had been reduced to more or less an historical footnote. Whether you loved the '66 series or loathed it, the fact is it was the last time Batman registered at all in the public consciousness. By the early 80s, the comics were back to being weak sellers and Dick Grayson's adventures in "The New Teen Titans" were much more popular than his former guardian's adventures in Batman and Detective Comics. In fact, when Batman started a sort of watered-down version of the Titans called "The Outsiders," THAT book was more popular than the main ones.

Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" got comic fans excited again and grabbed a few headlines, but really as late as 1989, Batman was still "yesterday's news" to the general public.

In that context, Burton's film was a BIG deal; it put Batman back on the map again for the first time in decades. In the Summer of 1989, it was THE movie everyone was talking about (Star Trek V was largely ignored in comparison --- probably just as well, though -- and the James Bond movie "License to Kill" came and went without a lot of people even noticing! James Bond!). You couldn't turn around without seeing Batman on a magazine cover, a t-shirt, a billboard, a toy shelf. It was like 60s Batmania all over again.

If you saw it that summer, then, it was hard to separate the film from the excitement surrounding it, and that made it more fun than maybe it really is on its own. Plus, if you were, like me, one of the many fans who worried a great deal that a comedy actor had been picked for the lead, with a (til then) comedy director in charge, there was a good deal of relief in simply seeing that the film wasn't as bad as it might have been. Objectively, it was pretty good, but compared to what we expected, it was wonderful.

Also, I'd imagine that for all those people who did only remember the TV show, it was a revelation to see a Batman that was dark, kind of twisted and pretty creepy. The public is always on the lookout for something different, and this certainly qualified.

If you're looking at it for the first time now, though, I think your perspective would be considerably different. By now, a majority of people expect Batman to be dark and brutal; if anything the Burton films are merely "quirky" and odd compared to Nolan's entries (not that I love them, either). Without the extra boost the film got from being part of a cultural moment, it has to judged on its own merits, and it is, yes, a bit slow in points, and a bit of a mess plot-wise. The Joker is the star of the film, with Batman a much less compelling supporting character (in keeping with Burton's tendency to celebrate the flashiest oddball in each of his films) and certain scenes just don't sit well (like Batman sending a remote-controlled batmobile to kill scores of enemies while he watches from a safe distance). Also while Anton Furst's designs for Gotham City are fascinating and clever, ultimately they make the movie feel incredibly set-bound and hence "cheap" in spite of the huge budget.

In other words, it's not a bad movie, but it's not a great one, either. It was fun enough in 1989, but I really think to get the most out of it, "you kind of had to be there."

[Progress Pigment]

I think you almost had to see this movie in 1989 to really appreciate it (assuming you did at all).

In 1989, Batman had been reduced to more or less an historical footnote. Whether you loved the '66 series or loathed it, the fact is it was the last time Batman registered at all in the public consciousness. By the early 80s, the comics were back to being weak sellers and Dick Grayson's adventures in "The New Teen Titans" were much more popular than his former guardian's adventures in Batman and Detective Comics. In fact, when Batman started a sort of watered-down version of the Titans called "The Outsiders," THAT book was more popular than the main ones.

Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" got comic fans excited again and grabbed a few headlines ....

To that point you are right. Nearly. It grabbed EVERY headline -- certainly in comics fandom, and was huge! "The Dark Knight Returns" brought Batman back in the same way the TV series brought Batman back in 1966 and saved the "Batman" title (Detectives Comics was to continue) from cancellation. In every Justice league comic for the next couple of years Batman dominated the covers. But prior to the 1989 debacle, "Batman" was revitalized already. Without "Dark Knight" the film would never have been made. It was an afterthought. Albeit a very successful one. It was badly made (the suit weighed 50 pounds & Keaton couldn't move his head!) and only successful because people were hungry for Batman. It really showed how hype can sell a movie. The constant commercial tie-ins and the actually brilliant Prince soundtrack certainly helped. I saw tons of kids wearing Batman T-shirts well before the film came out. They were waiting for something, and sadly, this mess was what they got.

[SprangFan]

I agree DKR is likely what got the film made, after a decade in limbo, but I still say the world of 1989 was largely like that of today, in that the vast majority of humanity does NOT read comics. They do, however, go see movies, so while Miller's work may be artistically superior, and even the impetus for the film, until he showed up on a movie screen the darker version of Batman didn't exist for "Joe Sixpack."

I will grant you, though, that the marketing was a much bigger deal, and more masterful production, than the film it promoted. And that by the time it came out, it no longer mattered whether the film was good or not. And more's the pity, as this campaign proved the blueprint for pretty much every major release that's followed. (Although in fairness, plenty of them have failed anyway)

[LizardKing]

The movie just doesn't hold up over time. It sucked and was boring. Kim Basinger was in her prime and that doesn't even help.

[Mr.Freeze]

"only successful because people were hungry for Batman"

Not really true , I think it was successful cuz it was good , it certainly impressed me and my buddies.....I don't remember the hype prior to it coming out (I was 8-9) but it did make me a batfan for life (same with TMNT a yr or so later)

[robinboyblunderer]

I understand your point about that moment in time, SprangFan. My opinion is separate from the 2nd time "Batmania" hit the country, and isn't based on expectations.

Batman can be campy, can be moody and dark, etc. What counts is the story that's told, regardless of which Batman type is used. For me, Batman and Batman Returns are boring movies.