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

[TP-6597]

No chance of it being forgotten with me, as it's one of the only two I own or care to watch. I'm a Batman nerd since the 1960s TV show, my introduction to the character. I'll let my post in another thread explain my views on what & who represent Batman to me.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4921#p47641

[Bat Username]

I'm not so sure it is. Most of the posts here read as if the question was "Did you personally like the `89 Batman?", which is a completely separate discussion. It underscores that the real problem with Batman `89 today seems to be that it's still the only real contrast for the Nolanverse when people discuss modern Batman films. Fans tend to either gravitate towards the grounded realism of Nolan's world or the more imaginative take from Burton.

Ultimately, I think the latter is what has allowed Burton's version to still be part of the conversation nearly 30 years later. Whatever its failings as a "definitive" comic adaptation- and, no, not everything about it works- Batman `89 did do several things that were very smart in retrospect. For one, the film's time period is undefined. The soundtrack may feature Prince, but the majority of the film is an odd mixture of art deco and Gothic design. Whereas Nolan wanted to create a world that evoked 1970s crime thrillers, Burton's effort veers much closer to the mythic quality of a fairy tale.

No doubt that's what has helped lead to the film's second built-in advantage- the degree to which it influenced and shaped subsequent Bat incarnations. I'm not referring to the Nolan films, but everything from the animated series to the Arkham Asylum video games. For anyone who loves the darker tone of the latter projects, Batman `89 is still the closest we have to a live action version.

Nolan's version was obviously hugely influential as well, but it's still very much defined by a specific time and era. We've already seen how readily audiences are able to move on from its post-9/11 aesthetic in the ease with which Ben Affleck's portrayal was embraced by critics and fans alike. (This, despite the fact that, A) It was Ben Affleck and, B) His character was surrounded by a film that was soundly thrashed.) Affleck retained the grittiness of Nolan's world, but returned it to the more imaginative tone of Burton. His is a Batman who could credibly enter an Arkham Asylum ripped straight from the comics, whereas Christian Bale's Batman is limited to the kind of asylum that would look more at home in an episode of Law and Order.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying I believe myth and imagination endure. Just as Batman `66 continues to capture the imagination of the viewer, there will probably always be a place for productions such as Batman `89 or the animated series that were willing to forego realism in favor of mythology.

[TP-6597]

No doubt that's what has helped lead to the film's second built-in advantage- the degree to which it influenced and shaped subsequent Bat incarnations. I'm not referring to the Nolan films, but everything from the animated series to the Arkham Asylum video games. For anyone who loves the darker tone of the latter projects, Batman `89 is still the closest we have to a live action version.

Nolan's version was obviously hugely influential as well, but it's still very much defined by a specific time and era. We've already seen how readily audiences are able to move on from its post-9/11 aesthetic in the ease with which Ben Affleck's portrayal was embraced by critics and fans alike. (This, despite the fact that, A) It was Ben Affleck and, B) His character was surrounded by a film that was soundly thrashed.) Affleck retained the grittiness of Nolan's world, but returned it to the more imaginative tone of Burton. His is a Batman who could credibly enter an Arkham Asylum ripped straight from the comics, whereas Christian Bale's Batman is limited to the kind of asylum that would look more at home in an episode of Law and Order.

Excellent points, well put. In my earlier post in another thread, I touched on how the Bale & Nolanverse haven't aged well (for me). I'm very much part of your example of how people have readily moved on from the Nolanverse. It's dark to the point of being exhausting. For me, it's work to get through one.

Also well put on how Affleck's Batman was embraced in spite of the film. I'm really looking forward to his Batman-only film. He seems to understand what moves us and draws us to the character.

[SprangFan]

I agree it was a canny move for Burton to make his Gotham a "timeless" world where fashions and vehicles looked antique while other elements were futuristic, even if it is undone a bit by Bassinger's "80s hair" and even more so by Keaton's cheesy perm (although it did achieve the intended goal of adding to his height).

However I think that while it helps the 89 film as a singular work, it proved over time to be a short-sighted strategy for a franchise. Burton's Gotham is SO stylized it's impossible to imagine it in the context of the larger world, so the universe of the 80s-90s movie Batman begins and ends at the Gotham City limits. Unable to open up his world to wider vistas, the only alternative is to make Gotham progressively more outlandish, until we end up with Schumacher's goofy neon playground of gargantuan statues that tower over skyscrapers (and along which car chases are staged, like kids racing Hot Wheels up and down their arms and legs).

[BatMite]

I thinks it's fairly safe to say the biggest fans of the '89 Batman movie are fans of Tim Burton in general. There are some very nice touches in the film, but it could have been and should have been so much better. Burton may be a "visionary", but it's not a vision that all Batfans share.

[Bat Username]

However I think that while it helps the 89 film as a singular work, it proved over time to be a short-sighted strategy for a franchise. Burton's Gotham is SO stylized it's impossible to imagine it in the context of the larger world, so the universe of the 80s-90s movie Batman begins and ends at the Gotham City limits.

I'm not sure that's a failing of the film's world so much as a by-product of the era in which it was conceived. The goal was to create a stylized world of escapism, not one that audiences were meant to associate with the "real world" of 1989.

However, we do get references to Metropolis in the Burton-inspired series and it's quite easy to imagine a larger, comic-based world of superheroes existing outside of Gotham's city limits. Had the planned Superman Lives project gone forward- or world-building in general been a more popular concept in Hollywood back then- it would not have been unusual to see Keaton's Batman appearing in a Superman film. By Nolan's own admission, the same cannot be said for Bale's version of Batman- even when Nolan is the one in charge of producing the Superman film.

What's interesting is that the Nolanverse is isolated in exactly the opposite manner, as it too only works when viewed as existing within a vacuum. You eventually have to set aside all preconceived ideas about Batman and accept Bale's Bruce Wayne as its own unique creation, otherwise all credibility goes out the window when the character decides to quit after a year and a half.

The franchise spawned by Batman `89 was doomed by the same lack of studio vision that failed to deliver on the promise of Donner's Superman, but this topic is only concerned with their value as a singular work. I'm sure one day we'll have a new version of Superman that is considered the "definitive" version- and likely an even more faithful adaptation of Batman- but people will still view the Donner and Burton contributions as essential parts of the equation. It's unavoidable, especially considering how much Batman `89 contributed not only to the superhero genre, but to the way modern blockbusters are marketed both theatrically and on home media.

[TP-6597]

I thinks it's fairly safe to say the biggest fans of the '89 Batman movie are fans of Tim Burton in general. There are some very nice touches in the film, but it could have been and should have been so much better. Burton may be a "visionary", but it's not a vision that all Batfans share.

In the interest of polling (not that anyone is) I'm a huge fan of the 89 film, yet hate nearly every other thing Burton has ever done - including the sequel, which I saw only once and have since forgotten. Honestly, I can't stand his work and haven't bothered with any of it since the sequel.

[SprangFan]

@Bat Username:

I didn't mean to suggest that I prefer a Gotham that fits into a larger "DCU." In fact I prefer my cinematic (and TV) Batman and Superman to be separate, as the existence of one undermines (for me) the believability of the other.

What I was getting at is that I grew up reading about a globe-trotting Batman whose coolest adventures happened not only in the streets of Gotham but also in the fog-shrouded hamlets, dark backwoods and creepy small towns of America, not to mention the deserts, mountains, islands and castles of the world at large. However awesome Anton Furst's Gotham was, it was no consolation for losing all that. (It was a weakness of the TV show, too, but at least there we knew it was a budget thing).

On the other hand, we got the "James Bond globe trotting" with the Nolan films and somehow it only reinforced how ridiculous the concept of a "Batman" really is, in anything close to "the real world." At least every nook and cranny of Burton's world is designed to remind us "this is another universe where anything could happen." Much as I like Keaton and consider him a brilliant performer, the ONLY way I can buy him physically as Batman is if the normal rules of reality do not apply. Burton's genius was that he made sure they didn't.

The reality is, for me anyway, no one's ever gotten Batman 100 percent right (even in 66) and on your terms, I have to admit Burton's approach of "stacking the deck" with a whole world designed to help us swallow the impossible, is the smarter one. If they'd left it alone and not attempted sequels, it might rate higher with me. But maybe not, as the bigger issue for me has always been that it's "Joker: The Motion Picture, With Special Guest Star Batman."

Back the original question: I don't think the '89 film will be forgotten by those who lived through it, but I do think that every reinterpretation that comes along (and right now they seem endless) makes it less and less significant. Whatever its actual merits, '66 Batman benefited enormously from being the "last word" in Batman for two whole decades. Now that Batman is a "product" that will never be allowed to disappear from the shelves, even briefly, the cultural impact of any one iteration is much more limited.

[TP-6597]

...we got the "James Bond globe trotting" with the Nolan films and somehow it only reinforced how ridiculous the concept of a "Batman" really is, in anything close to "the real world." At least every nook and cranny of Burton's world is designed to remind us "this is another universe where anything could happen."

That's exactly what I was trying to say in another thread (albeit less eloquently) when I wrote; "Michael Keaton. I thought he was a fantastic choice. He kept the character grounded, brought in a touch of realism, yet he still kept one foot in the comic book world which I think is an absolute must for the character to work."

That's why I struggled with the Nolanverse. It was too real. Batman doesn't work in that environment (for me). Below is one of the times during the Bale films where it felt like a parody to me. When I was in the theater, my first thought was it looked like two cosplayers meeting outside a venue before they stand in line to get Conroy’s autograph…

"We’re over at the Marriott. Rooms are pretty nice, plus they have an airport shuttle"
"I’m at the Hilton across the street. Cable selection is crappy, but free continental breakfast"

I don't think the '89 film will be forgotten by those who lived through it, but I do think that every reinterpretation that comes along (and right now they seem endless) makes it less and less significant. Whatever its actual merits, '66 Batman benefited enormously from being the "last word" in Batman for two whole decades. Now that Batman is a "product" that will never be allowed to disappear from the shelves, even briefly, the cultural impact of any one iteration is much more limited.

Another excellent point. Having started my Batman journey in the 60s, by 1989 there were only two Batman entities for film. That certainly made the 89 film a very big deal. You could embrace the new film or you could try to catch low-res, edited-for-time reruns of the TV show.

Fortunately for me, both coexisted just fine and my Batman world grew by a film. That wouldn't be the case with its sequel or the Schumacher films, so it was another very long stretch until something else came out that I liked. These day, it's still just 66 and 89 for me, and no complaints what so ever. When I do venture outside of that, it's Beware The Batman (animated). I bought all the episodes. Huge fan.

I think your point is well made that Batman is now product. There are so many incarnations that everyone can find some version of the character that speaks to them.

[Progress Pigment]

"We’re over at the Marriott. Rooms are pretty nice, plus they have an airport shuttle"
"I’m at the Hilton across the street. Cable selection is crappy, but free continental breakfast"

That pic looks like a definite pause in the action. A coffee break? I thought the two fight scenes between Batman & Bane were among the most exciting & well staged I've ever seen in any non-superpowered super-hero movie. Only Watchmen's fight scenes were as good. They harken a bit to the Batman TV series fight scenes in a way, that I tend to love even in the bad episodes.

[TP-6597]

@ Progress; It's almost certainly a break. I couldn't find a screen-grab of the actual scene, where it's a bit further back. To me, in the film they looked even more silly. No doubt the fights are well choreographed and shot. There are plenty of things in all three Nolan films that I like, just not enough to own and watch them with any regularity.

That said, I agree with SprangFan. In the real world, the idea of Batman is ridiculous. It only works (for me) in a comic book world, which 66 - 97 all were, as were all the animated series. I don't know when I turned on the Nolanverse, but it was much quicker than I expected. It just hasn't aged well for me. That's why I'm looking forward to an Affleck Batman-only film. Plus I'm not a fan of multi-superhero films or stories, e. g. Avengers, Justice League.

[Bat Username]

Now that Batman is a "product" that will never be allowed to disappear from the shelves, even briefly, the cultural impact of any one iteration is much more limited.

Yes, that's definitely a very good point and one that will undoubtedly affect all modern franchises moving forward. For example, The Wizard of Oz has outlasted dozens of films that were considered more serious or respectable over the decades, largely on the strength of its ability to capture imaginations. However, would that impact have been as dominant if there had been a new Oz sequel or remake every 3-5 years?

That's why I struggled with the Nolanverse. It was too real. Batman doesn't work in that environment (for me). Below is one of the times during the Bale films where it felt like a parody to me. When I was in the theater, my first thought was it looked like two cosplayers meeting outside a venue before they stand in line to get Conroy’s autograph…

I agree with both you and SprangFan in this regard. As a general rule, I think the more you try to explain how Batman could work, the less likely it begins to feel. I also felt Bale looked too much like a cosplayer whenever he was photographed in the light- which was far too often. That may be why Nolan created a world where apparently no one had ever heard of comic book characters. As we've seen in real life, anyone appearing like that in public is more likely to incite mockery and physical abuse rather than anything resembling fear. (see: Phoenix Jones)

Batman does work best when at least one foot remains rooted in fantasy, which may explain why Adam West is still the only live action portrayal that actually works in broad daylight. Or why Keaton's batsuit is still so highly regarded, despite the fact that in reality he could barely move around in it. Bale's suit may have been more practical but it ultimately made him look far too vulnerable to be considered a menacing physical presence, imo.

[Larry A.]

Bat Mite, You might wish to rephrase Your last comment about Burton as it might be misconstrued as slander.
While I didn't always agree with Mr. Burton's choices, it kept Batman in the public eye, much as the 66 series kept the comic from going under. I even have to admit that as much as I liked the original Planet of the Apes movies, Burton's take was a LOT closer in some respects to Boulle's original novel "Monkey World" aka "PotA".
Personally, as much as it was panned, I liked Shumacher's " Batman and Robin" if only because it combined humor from 66 with some of the Dark Knight ideas!!!!!
Bat Mite, I mention this not to criticize You, but to help keep You out of hot water. When You say something like Your last comment about Burton, it's ALWAYS a good idea to preface such a statement with IMHO ( In My Humble Opinion) which will make it a statement of Your opinion as opposed to an apparent statement of fact which could, as I started off with, construed as slander, and that would possibly bad for not just You, but for all of us.

Cheers,

[Jim K, Bat fan]

Here's some news that may answer this question with a big "NO" - it's not forgotten:
Cinemark is featuring the 1989 film as part of its "Classic Series" this summer:

http://www.cinemark.com/cinemark-classic-series

[Progress Pigment]

Bat Mite, You might wish to rephrase Your last comment about Burton as it might be misconstrued as slander.
While I didn't always agree with Mr. Burton's choices, it kept Batman in the public eye, much as the 66 series kept the comic from going under. I even have to admit that as much as I liked the original Planet of the Apes movies, Burton's take was a LOT closer in some respects to Boulle's original novel "Monkey World" aka "PotA".
Personally, as much as it was panned, I liked Shumacher's " Batman and Robin" if only because it combined humor from 66 with some of the Dark Knight ideas!!!!!
Bat Mite, I mention this not to criticize You, but to help keep You out of hot water. When You say something like Your last comment about Burton, it's ALWAYS a good idea to preface such a statement with IMHO ( In My Humble Opinion) which will make it a statement of Your opinion as opposed to an apparent statement of fact which could, as I started off with, construed as slander, and that would possibly bad for not just You, but for all of us.

Cheers,

YIKES!! That sounds awful. Let's see here ...

I thinks it's fairly safe to say the biggest fans of the '89 Batman movie are fans of Tim Burton in general. There are some very nice touches in the film, but it could have been and should have been so much better. Burton may be a "visionary", but it's not a vision that all Batfans share.

Huh?! Am I missing something? Since when is calling an artist a "visionary" slander? PLEASE, somebody slander me! No "In my humble opinion" required! Call me a visionary anytime you want! Say it all day long!