Batman '89

branie2

Unfortunately, I missed it when it came out in the cinema

Sad Professor

jaxxx wrote: »

That's the one thing I didn't like about the Nolan trilogy. Anyone that knows the real character of Bruce Wayne knows that he would continue fighting until his very last breath. The idea of a normal life is alien to him. Even people are almost alien to him. He pushes people away: Dick, Tim, Barbara, etc, pretty much everyone except Alfred, whom btw would NEVER just walk out on Bruce like he did in TDKR.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I had many, many problems with TDKR, but that convenience probably irritated me the most. It just felt unnatural with what came before. It's my pet hate though, characters acting out of character for expedience. Having said that I'm glad they didn't kill him off either.

Bruce walking away makes sense in the context of Nolan's trilogy. Watch the scene on the plane in Begins. Bruce's plan to save Gotham and create an everlasting symbol of justice is built on the recognition that he's just one man and can't be Batman for more than a few years at most never mind forever. This was part of Nolan's conception of the character from the beginning and you can see it in Begins by the way Bruce goes straight to the source of the problems in Gotham rather than wasting time taking down petty crooks. He knows his time is limited. But by TDKR he realises that Batman is part of the problem (the theme of escalation), so fakes Batman's death in an attempt to end the cycle whilst still handing over the mantle to someone else just in case. Yeah, this wouldn't have happened in the comics or the Burton films, but Nolan's Batman is a very different character.

The Late Late Show

Sad Professor wrote: »

Bruce walking away makes sense in the context of Nolan's trilogy. Watch the scene on the plane in Begins. Bruce's plan to save Gotham and create an everlasting symbol of justice is built on the recognition that he's just one man and can't be Batman for more than a few years at most never mind forever. This was part of Nolan's conception of the character from the beginning and you can see it in Begins by the way Bruce goes straight to the source of the problems in Gotham rather than wasting time taking down petty crooks. He knows his time is limited. But by TDKR he realises that Batman is part of the problem (the theme of escalation), so fakes Batman's death in an attempt to end the cycle whilst still handing over the mantle to someone else just in case. Yeah, this wouldn't have happened in the comics or the Burton films, but Nolan's Batman is a very different character.

While Burton's and Nolan's Batman have much in common, there are distinct differences. Burton's version of the character and subsequently Schumacher's too was there for the long haul whereas Nolan's was more a reluctant Batman. A theme in many Batman films is Batman and the villain are mirror images of each other. This is best shown in the first film with Keaton's Batman and Nicholson's Joker and their meeting with Kim Basinger's Vicki Vale (remember when Batman says the Joker is crazy to her and she answers that some people say the same about you). Batman and the villain then later were admitting to each other that they created each other. There was a great chemistry between the 3 main characters in 1989's Batman.

The Late Late Show

branie2 wrote: »

Unfortunately, I missed it when it came out in the cinema

It was a great experience seeing it in the cinema as I noted. The whole thing (the film, the atmosphere, and talking to my dad and then my mam about it) was magic and are as vivid now as they were at the time.

Event cinema like this is rare today and certainly none of the superhero films made in the last few years would generate the same hype Batman 1989 did. Now, if there are still people out there who never saw this film, do yourself a favour and watch it. It is a real treat.

If one is to look back from now to then, the film market seemed more unique and of a better quality then. Each film was able to differentiate itself from others. With today's never ending selection of superhero films (with cliched sounding titles like Antman), it is hard to believe things weren't always like this. Batman kickstarted the trend but no film lived up to the same hype. Certainly not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or any of the modern films of the last few years.

valoren

It hasn’t aged well. I love how vindicated the casting of Keaton was considering 50,000 protest letters were sent to Warner Brothers. He was perfect for what was a dual role and it's a pity his career never coincided with what would be Nolan's grittier take on Batman. I love aspects of the original Batman but feel that Nicholson and his over the top and rather generic performance sullies it. Nicholson for all his talents just doesn't have the comedic timing for the Joker. Consider the scene in the Dark Knight with the Joker 'negotiating' with the mobsters. He has the perfect  nuance, humour and searing insanity whereas Nicholson would ham it up in a "Hey, I'm crazy" while laughing like a maniac after delivering his lines.

His performance overshadowed that of Batman. Consider how in Superman you never got the impression that a big name such as Gene Hackman or even Brando were taking the piss out of it. Basinger also gives a weak performance where a Michelle Pfeiffer would have had the requisite gusto to Vicki Vale's sexiness. A match for a weirdo Bruce Wayne instead of a billionaires arm candy.

The look and feel of the 1989 film threads a fine line between Nolans urban grot and grittiness with Schumacher's comic book and it never seems to find the correct balance. It's a film with excellent bits but as a collective film it has always been unsatisying. I've always preferred the sequel as the main players aren't over shadowed by a big name villain, it has a straight ahead plot and it's also incredibly dark "Hi Max! Remember me! I'm Fred's hand!" It was too gothic rather than 'toyetic' and thus we got the third which in fairness to Keaton he, disappointingly, refrained from reprising his role knowing the way it was going with "Bat nipples" and lost a massive pay day for himself. He knew per Nolan what the "Dark Knight" should be about. Oh to have the Nolan films with Michael Keaton in his late thirties as Batman instead of the pretty boy hulk that was Christian Bale with his gruff 'yank' accent. Ah well, can't have it all.

Kunkka

I watched it again last night and enjoyed it. However, Nicholson 100% takes the lead role and this is how the makers wanted it to be perceived as he is the first name on the starting credits before Keaton! I think its easy to criticize Nicholson's jokers after seeing Ledger's, but for the time when the Batman genre was a bit of an unknown I felt he did a great job showing a dark lunatic, albeit a cheesy one.

The Late Late Show

Kunkka wrote: »

I watched it again last night and enjoyed it. However, Nicholson 100% takes the lead role and this is how the makers wanted it to be perceived as he is the first name on the starting credits before Keaton! I think its easy to criticize Nicholson's jokers after seeing Ledger's, but for the time when the Batman genre was a bit of an unknown I felt he did a great job showing a dark lunatic, albeit a cheesy one.

100% agree. I feel that Nicholson's Joker was excellent and was able to combine the madness and the comic relief well. He is as good as Ledger's Joker but they are different. But like Ledger's, the mob connection and highly intelligent maniac credentials are there.

Batman Returns, the sequel which I will enjoy tomorrow night, I feel was a precursor to Nolan's trilogy. The Penguin character was very complex and one didn't know if you were to feel sorry for him or hate him. On the strength of the first film, Returns was able to successfully hone into the darker dystopian elements even moreso.

SirLemonhead

I watched it again the other night too because of this thread. Keaton is still fantastic - that scene with the fireplace poker where he goes crazy being standout, and Nicholson is always great (though he's no Health Ledger when it comes to playing the Joker).

Gotham feels so tiny though, with the Monarch Theatre featuring in the background of most outdoor scenes. You really feel like everything in the movie is taking place in the same tiny street, with the batmobile chase scene almost as if they're just going around in circles. There's some great photos online of the Gotham set which really highlights this.

I thought the Prince music was naff back when I was a kid and I still feel the same way unfortunately. It's the one thing that really dates the movie for me.. that and maybe Keaton's hairstyle

Clareman

Nicholson just turned the dial up on Cesar Romero's performance up to 11 for the Joker but I thought his performance a Jack Napier was very good, especially when he knew he was being setup.

SirLemonhead

SirLemonhead wrote: »

You really feel like everything in the movie is taking place in the same tiny street, with the batmobile chase scene almost as if they're just going around in circles. There's some great photos online of the Gotham set which really highlights this.

The batmobile was the best car I had ever seen at the time! It was put to better use in the second film though.
I absolutely love the tumbler from Nolans films but the Burton batmobile is still the best.

The Late Late Show

valoren wrote: »

It hasn’t aged well. I love how vindicated the casting of Keaton was considering 50,000 protest letters were sent to Warner Brothers. He was perfect for what was a dual role and it's a pity his career never coincided with what would be Nolan's grittier take on Batman. I love aspects of the original Batman but feel that Nicholson and his over the top and rather generic performance sullies it. Nicholson for all his talents just doesn't have the comedic timing for the Joker. Consider the scene in the Dark Knight with the Joker 'negotiating' with the mobsters. He has the perfect  nuance, humour and searing insanity whereas Nicholson would ham it up in a "Hey, I'm crazy" while laughing like a maniac after delivering his lines.

His performance overshadowed that of Batman. Consider how in Superman you never got the impression that a big name such as Gene Hackman or even Brando were taking the piss out of it. Basinger also gives a weak performance where a Michelle Pfeiffer would have had the requisite gusto to Vicki Vale's sexiness. A match for a weirdo Bruce Wayne instead of a billionaires arm candy.

The look and feel of the 1989 film threads a fine line between Nolans urban grot and grittiness with Schumacher's comic book and it never seems to find the correct balance. It's a film with excellent bits but as a collective film it has always been unsatisying. I've always preferred the sequel as the main players aren't over shadowed by a big name villain, it has a straight ahead plot and it's also incredibly dark "Hi Max! Remember me! I'm Fred's hand!" It was too gothic rather than 'toyetic' and thus we got the third which in fairness to Keaton he, disappointingly, refrained from reprising his role knowing the way it was going with "Bat nipples" and lost a massive pay day for himself. He knew per Nolan what the "Dark Knight" should be about. Oh to have the Nolan films with Michael Keaton in his late thirties as Batman instead of the pretty boy hulk that was Christian Bale with his gruff 'yank' accent. Ah well, can't have it all.

Keaton was perfect in the dual role playing Bruce and Batman. I would love to see Keaton and Kim Basinger as Thomas and Martha Wayne in a future film. It would be a good way of including them.

There is always going to be the debate between Nicholson and Ledger but the reality is both are different. I loved both and I think Nicholson was the bridge between Cesar Romero's 1960s version and Heath Ledger's 2008 version.

I liked Kim's portrayal of Vicki Vale and she was depicted as the nice, innocent person wrapped up in all this and despite seeing horrors in Nicaragua's (called Corto Maltese here) civil war and then Gotham's criminal underworld as a photographer, she remained level headed and stable. Kim nailed that character 100%. That's why she would be a great Martha Wayne too (with Keaton as Thomas) in a new Batman film.

Michelle then played the more complex unstable character to a tee as Selina Kyle aka Catwoman in Returns. Vicki and Selina are studies in contrast but yet are both attracted to Bruce Wayne and Batman. Selina of course belongs more in Batman's world and Vicki would belong in Bruce's more ideal world if Thomas and Martha had lived.

MOR316

Saw someone mention Returns there...

Not to go off topic but...Still adore this scene. Amazing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS_mGeTCQWc

smurf492

MOR316 wrote:

Not to go off topic but...Still adore this scene. Amazing!

Brilliant stuff..

The Master

valoren wrote: »

Nicholson for all his talents just doesn't have the comedic timing for the Joker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39pTkWqej-E

pixelburp

MOR316 wrote: »

Saw someone mention Returns there...

Not to go off topic but...Still adore this scene. Amazing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS_mGeTCQWc

Not the scene(s) I remember most; I was a teenager when Batman Returns came out, and one element of the sequel opened up some ... interesting, hitherto unconsidered, ideas

Sleepy

Just re-watched it last night and was surprised at a few things I'd forgotten: Batman in this movie both kills people (by dropping them from heights) and uses guns (in the Batmobile and Batwing).

Still a whole lot of fun and has a much more comic-book feel than the modern incarnations of superhero movies.

The Late Late Show

Sleepy wrote: »

Just re-watched it last night and was surprised at a few things I'd forgotten: Batman in this movie both kills people (by dropping them from heights) and uses guns (in the Batmobile and Batwing).

Still a whole lot of fun and has a much more comic-book feel than the modern incarnations of superhero movies.

It is a great film and good fun. It kept a good balance between the dark dystopian world it existed in and a fun comic book style action thriller. The excitement around it at the time has rarely been repeated and this film is the counterbalance to the either too serious or too silly superhero flicks we have seen of late.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Just re-watched it last night and was surprised at a few things I'd forgotten: Batman in this movie both kills people (by dropping them from heights) and uses guns (in the Batmobile and Batwing).

Still a whole lot of fun and has a much more comic-book feel than the modern incarnations of superhero movies.

It's the reason that I laughed at the tools calling for a Batfleck boycott. ZOMG Batman never kills!!!
Ummm 1989 Bats did


Super ZOMG: Superman killed Zod, Supes absolutely never kills.
Ummm Supes killed Zod in Donner's film by throwing a de-powered, basically human, Zod down a crevasse.

Clareman

The whole "I don't kill" thing is more that he isn't judge, jury and executioner, he won't kill people as a form of justice but if they die while he's fighting them then so be it, that rule has been very loose for a number of movies, namely Batman Returns where Batman smiles after stuffing a bomb down a guys trousers or Batman vs. Superman when

he's saving Marta.

I also always thought that Superman's "no killing rule" was just for humans, if he was up against someone he saw as an equal then they were fair game.

The Late Late Show

Clareman wrote: »

The whole "I don't kill" thing is more that he isn't judge, jury and executioner, he won't kill people as a form of justice but if they die while he's fighting them then so be it, that rule has been very loose for a number of movies, namely Batman Returns where Batman smiles after stuffing a bomb down a guys trousers or Batman vs. Superman when

he's saving Marta.

I also always thought that Superman's "no killing rule" was just for humans, if he was up against someone he saw as an equal then they were fair game.

This is what I see too. Plenty people die in Batman (and Superman) movies. The survival of villains is common in Superman films (General Zod and the aliens being an exception in Superman II, the best Superman film so far). In Batman films, it's 50/50: Joker (Nicholson), Penguin, Schreck, Al Ghul, Two Face, and Bane all being killed in action. On the other hand, Riddler, Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Joker (Ledger) survived.

Ferajacka

I always thought of it as no guns thing with Batman. Sure he has them on the bat mobile but doesn't walk around with one.

The Late Late Show

Ferajacka wrote: »

I always thought of it as no guns thing with Batman. Sure he has them on the bat mobile but doesn't walk around with one.

That is true. One of the rare times Batman/Bruce Wayne carried a gun was to the court when he planned to kill Joe Chill for murdering his parents in Batman Begins. Ultimately, he didn't use it as someone in the Mafia got Chill first.

The Late Late Show

It was very sad to hear of the sudden and unexpected death of actor Karl Shiels. Karl is best known for playing Robbie in Fair City these days but he also featured in Batman Begins, the first of the Nolan trilogy of Batman films.

The Late Late Show

August 12th 1989. The opportunity to see the film I had been waiting for all summer had arrived. So, me and my dad went off to see Batman. I had heard from a friend that we were advised to go early as there were to be queues and sure enough, that's what we got.

Back in 1989, cinema attendance and film releases were much more events than they would be today. But queues like this were rare then and Batman 1989 was the only one this big I saw. The cinema was packed and for the 2 hours from around 8.30 to around 10.30, we were glued to the big screen.

Going home that night, I remember the excitement talking about it with my dad, pretending the car was the Batmobile and looking out at the moon and thinking of the Batwing! I remember telling my mam all about it when I got home. I remember collecting everything Batman-related after it like the Prince soundtrack album, a computer game, a novelisation, a how it was made book and (eventually) the video copy of the film in 1991.

What is harder to believe is all this was between 28 and 30 years ago. I remember it all like it was yesterday and was watching Batman 1989 a few times over the summer to celebrate its anniversary. Despite 30 years, I still find it as enjoyable as ever and it most certainly entertained one as few films have done since.

Back in 1989 as someone going to school, the summer and what the cinema had to offer was something one looked forward to. 1989 delivered a lot of good films but Batman stood above everything else that year. Mid August was the last part of the summer holidays one could enjoy before the dreaded back to school loomed large in those final days of the month. Batman came out at the right time to end the summer on a high.

As back to school approach, the back to school blues kicked in and the best way to blot them out was to go see Batman again. It was the first and one of the very few films I went to see more than once in the cinema.

This experience of going to see Batman and the excitement it created will never be repeated. TV series like Breaking Bad, The Handmaid's Tale, Love/Hate and Game of Thrones have become more obsessions with people these days than films in the cinema. There is a reason for this too: these TV dramas are in fact giving audiences exactly what Batman gave them in 1989 - something very different to the norm. Today's films in cinemas in contrast often feel generic and are sequels to well known franchises inclusive of Batman.

The debate always goes on about what was the best Batman film and who was the best Batman, Joker, etc. What is very clear though is Batman 1989 created the biggest excitement and without it, all the others would not have been possible.

Mr E

You posted the same to the Batman '89 thread two months ago (at the US anniversary)

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057631454

Tammy!

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Going home that night, I remember the excitement talking about it with my dad, pretending the car was the Batmobile and looking out at the moon and thinking of the Batwing!

That's cute

Going to see Batman is one of my earlier memories too. I was around 6. My mother took me and my brother and we each brought one friend who were also brother and sister.

I remember my friend and i talking to each other during the film and saying we both wanted to be Vicki Vale.

loyatemu

watched the 2 Burton films recently with the kids, they still stand up well and the kids liked them. Very different pace and atmosphere to modern superhero movies.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

That was nice to read! I was only a kid when it came out but watched it over and over fondly on VHS.

This may interest you.

yourdeadwright

This is the first fil I remember seeing In the cinema went to see it with my da brother ,cousin and uncle ,

It really was great movie,

Also we went the to Cinema in Fairview Dublin which is now long gone think it closed in the early part of 1990 ,

The Late Late Show

Tammy! wrote: »

That's cute

Going to see Batman is one of my earlier memories too. I was around 6. My mother took me and my brother and we each brought one friend who were also brother and sister.

I remember my friend and i talking to each other during the film and saying we both wanted to be Vicki Vale.

Going to see this film is a great memory for a lot of people. It was common people wanted to be the characters in this film after watching it! They were played perfectly by the actors involved.

loyatemu wrote: »

watched the 2 Burton films recently with the kids, they still stand up well and the kids liked them. Very different pace and atmosphere to modern superhero movies.

Very true. These 2 films still stand up well for sure and are way superior to the cliched modern superhero films that seem to constantly come out today. Batman always has been more of an event than the other superhero films and especially in 1989.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

That was nice to read! I was only a kid when it came out but watched it over and over fondly on VHS.

This may interest you.

This is a very interesting account of the buildup to the film.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

This is the first fil I remember seeing In the cinema went to see it with my da brother ,cousin and uncle ,

It really was great movie,

Also we went the to Cinema in Fairview Dublin which is now long gone think it closed in the early part of 1990 ,

Yes, everyone has great memories of seeing this film. It was an event and a major part of one's life at the time. Great memories for sure.