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

[Bookworm]

Today is the 25th Anniversary of the release of Tim Burton's Batman. I've read some retrospectives about it today, but what I have not seen much of for years is love. Personally, for uber-serious Batman, I preferred Christian Bale's version. I thought it would be interesting to compare the version that was originally marketed as "not the 1960s Batman" with the actual 1960s Batman, which seems destined to eclipse it in the public's memory.

[Dr. Shimel]

It might be, in part, because Jack Nicholson's Joker completely overshadowed Michael Keaton's Batman, so much so that nobody really remembers the latter.

[robinboyblunderer]

SPOILERS FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN THE KEATON BATMAN MOVIE:

I think the potential to have a good movie was there.

Well, actually, I think Michael Keaton did a really good job as Batman and Bruce Wayne, he seemed eccentric enough that he could be the Dark Knight. I liked that he wore glasses as well, an interesting touch.

The sets were good; but the story was terrible.

The pacing was off, too much time was focused on the Joker, no rising tension, things just seemed to happen.

Batman was way too ineffectual, falling off the line, getting shot down by the Joker, beaten by the thugs and worst of all, just hanging onto the ledge for what seemed like forever.

About the only thing I liked was the death of the Joker.

I think it might be too early to say if it's on it's way to being forgotten. The 60s show was incredibly popular, then fondly watched in reruns while being distanced from the character; now the show is back in vogue. The same could happen with the 89 Batman.

It was such a flat, disappointing movie.

[BatMite]

I agree. It was/is completely disappointing but it's a masterpiece compared to the other three films. I liked Nicholson's Joker and Keaton's take was commendable. The Bat costume was horrid, as was the "is it the '40s or is it the '80s?" hybrid setting. I think Nolan's films would be accepted in any era, while Burton's is a complete capsule of its time.

[Lou Szabo]

Like many, I thought Keaton was too small to play the role. But he was great.
Where I had trouble with both the movie and the book (yes I read it), was a "joker parade"
How in the "largest city" does a villain hold a parade without some Swat team taking him out. (Déjà vu with the third Nolan film). The cathedral scenes at the end were great, and everything up through the art museum was plausible.

I also could not get past Jack playing the Joker. I think an unknown or lesser know actor may have been worked better, but who to put in that role? On the plus side, he was arguably as unstable as Nolan's Joker.

That movie also moved the meter from Batman toward "the Dark Knight". Nolan moved it farther, but did not peg the meter. A stronger Bane would have helped.

[SprangFan]

I had a few big problems with the '89 movie:

(1) As noted, Nicholson's Joker dominates the film, with Batman in a supporting role. This isn't surprising as the Joker character fits better into the standard Burton (anti) hero mode (as a weird-looking, flamboyant oddball like Pee-Wee, Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, ad nauseum) but it was still pretty disappointing after an over 20-year wait for live-action Batman. Nicholson's casting has its pluses and minuses, but I understand and accept it as a business move; attaching his name ensured a greenlight from the studio, just as Hackman and Brando's involvement was key to getting Superman off the ground (so to speak).

(2) Anton Furst's Gotham is cool-looking and probably essential to making a Burton Bat-film work (Burton has never been able to tell stories in the "real" world) but ultimately it's limiting. One of the few things I like about Nolan's take is that Bruce/Batman can travel to other locales; Burton's "Disneyland as Hell" version of Gotham exists in its own reality and the character is totally confined to its corporate limits.

(3) And this is the BIG one: Making the Joker the Waynes' killer ruins the whole concept of Batman. It reduces the whole thing to "Death Wish in a cape." Once Bruce has had his revenge on Napier, it feels like he ought to just hang up the costume. The whole movie feels like he's trying to work out his guilt and anger, and in the end he's done both, and found a girlfriend. Why keep going? But more than that, Batman has to be about something more than revenge or he's not a hero at all.

and

(4) the body count. Batman kills here, and it's only going to get worse later on.

Having said all that, I think the movie will continue to be remembered by people of a certain age -- it was a pretty big deal -- but every new "big deal" that comes along makes it a more distant memory. I don't think it will have the legs of the '66 show because (1) the show had over 100 episodes and Keaton had only 2 films, (2) the Burton films were followed immediately by the Schumachers and, after a break, the Nolans, with a new interpretation on the way, whereas the TV show was the only live-action Batman anyone could see for more than two decades. For the last 25-years it's been "Batman du Jour" with us currently on our fifth actor in the cowl, whereas for the 25 before that it was West, West, West, West. Even *after* the Burton film, if I said "Batman" people went "na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na!"

Plus, I think the show, love it or hate it, provides a very unique take on the character; it is 100% what it is. The movies are less singular, IMHO: the individual Burton/Schumacher/Nolan entries are "a little more this" or a "little less that" but they're all pretty much of a piece, IMHO. It's all rubber suits and growly voices and gadgets, with a grim, haunted hero at the center. There's a "through line" with all the movie Batmen, but the show stands alone.

[Gleeps, it's Batman]

Entertainment Tonight did a story on the Keaton Batman movie last night, and while mentioning the other movies, no mention of the 66 version at all, despite Nancy O'Dell saying "Holy retweet, Batman" when they were talking about reaction to Ben Affleck. I guess our show has staying power, despite not being mentioned, just because everybody and their mother still uses the "holy ... !" exclamations.

I haven't seen the Keaton movies, except maybe bits and pieces of the Penguin/Catwoman one way back when on tv. I remember being disappointed that Adam wasn't in them, so really had no interest in them at the time, nor the ones that followed. I must admit that I did see the final Nolan one last year when I had a coupon for a free movie from Redbox and nothing appealed to me. I was partially lost since it was the third in a line of movies, and not really entertained by a dark growly Batman since I'd just discovered the Bright Knight again on MeTV a few months before seeing the Dark Knight Rises.

[Gleeps, it's Batman]

Found the ET video online:

http://www.etonline.com/media/video/5_t ... index.html

I found it interesting that a 19 year old Kiefer Sutherland was asked to play Robin before the part was scrapped.

[Pengy]

I've never been impressed by Burton's Batman movies. They felt like freak shows for the villains, while Batman felt like a bland secondary character in his own movies.

[bat lugosi]

I enjoy most incarnations of Batman including Batman 89. Perhaps It's a feeling of nostalgia, I was 12 going on 13 in 1989 and Batman was everywhere, I couldn't wait to see that movie and can't think of any other time that I was that hyped to see a movie. It has problems though, all Batman movies IMO have problems ( well, maybe not The Dark Knight ).

My only real big problem with Batman 89 is that it's 'The Joker Show', the movie might have had better narrative if the Batman character had more to do. Still, I am a fan, I think Keaton is great, Jack is a lot of fun, I love the atmosphere, love the sets and the gothic look of it, the music is great, the costumes are interesting - I love all that stuff. I like Batman 89 and Batman Returns for that matter for different reasons than say Batman the Animated Series, or the Nolan Trilogy or our classic Batman 66.

Batman 89 forgotten? I hope not, I have grown fonder of Batman 66 more and more as I get older to the point where it may be my favorite interpretation, and it has a feeling of full circle as Batman 66 is where it all started for me. However, it's Batman 89 that really got me interested in the character and I may not have come back to Batman 66 without it.

[High C]

I've never been impressed by Burton's Batman movies. They felt like freak shows for the villains, while Batman felt like a bland secondary character in his own movies.

Plus 1,000,000

What Burton did to Penguin in the sequel was an abomination.

I don't like Burton's movies. Puts everything into his own weirdo blender.

[marvelbloodhound]

I concur, but we STILL talk about his version. I didn't know villains were SUPPOSED to be well-adjusted. Batman vs. Joe Carroll, now THAT would be fun...

[robinboyblunderer]

Batman Returns is everything I disliked about Batman on steroids. Or Venom.

Here's Penguin running for mayor with not one/tenth of the wit of the 60s episode. Did you enjoy ineffectual Batman from the first one? Here he is again, in time to rip his rubber cowl off and get shot by Shrek. Who? I don't recall that Batman villain. Oh, don't worry, it's just an actor hamming it up, named after the actor who played the vampire in Nosferatu. We can't just have the Penguin, we have to have a grotesque penguin.

Were there a few good moments? Sure. Was Michelle Pfeiffer a great Catwoman? Yes. Was the Ice Princess cute? Yes. Was the movie terrible? Yes.

I forget these movies exist until something like this forum post.

[Bama-Bat]

I love the Tim Burton's Batman. The 3rd was good, But I believe it drooped in quality as the movies changed directors. Not dising the Batman series. But it was good as a Dark Knight movie. And the costumes were great.

Man I miss my Michael Keaton Mask

[BatMite]

I've never been impressed by Burton's Batman movies. They felt like freak shows for the villains, while Batman felt like a bland secondary character in his own movies.

Plus 1,000,000

What Burton did to Penguin in the sequel was an abomination.

I don't like Burton's movies. Puts everything into his own weirdo blender.

Agreed. Burton's a hack. He destroyed Planet of the Apes as well.