Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   The most influential movie of the last 25 years was made in 1989, starred Michael Keaton and more people hated it at the time than loved it: "On June 23rd, 1989 Batman arrived and nothing has ever been the same since"   (flickeringmyth.com) divider line 182
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4493 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Jun 2014 at 11:43 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-17 09:20:54 AM  
I have to say, he had a bit of a point:  I don't remember any movie, before or since, whose marketing
pervaded all of popular culture.  EVERYONE was wearing Batman-themed shirts and clothing, and there
was the incessant playing of the BATDANCE video on MTV and jokes on late night TV.  Hell, there was
even a 'Batcave' nightclub in NYC (I believe it was Le Magique rebranded for a few months).

The thing is:  the movie itself has aged very badly, especially Jack Nicholson's by-the-number-for-him
performance aided and abetted by Tim Burton's indifferent direction and Prince's very late 80s music
style.  A classic case of an 'artiste' who latches onto something and decides to put his 'stamp' on it, and
the only reason its watchable at all is that Keaton, in the end, made a decent Batman, and in much the
same way ALIEN and BLADERUNNER stopped visual innovation in SF design cold for a generation,
Burton's BATMAN stopped innovation in comic book movies cold in a way that we still haven't quite gotten
past.
 
2014-06-17 09:39:13 AM  
No. The movie that changed everything came out 1 year prior, and that movie was Bloodsport.

OK USA!
 
2014-06-17 10:07:50 AM  
38.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-17 10:31:55 AM  
I never understood the casting. I can see Kim as Vicki Vale, but Keaton and Nicholson? Never clicked with me.
 
2014-06-17 10:34:57 AM  
The thing is: the movie itself has aged very badly, especially Jack Nicholson's by-the-number-for-him
performance aided and abetted by Tim Burton's indifferent direction and Prince's very late 80s music
style. A classic case of an 'artiste' who latches onto something and decides to put his 'stamp' on it, and
the only reason its watchable at all is that Keaton, in the end, made a decent Batman, and in much the
same way ALIEN and BLADERUNNER stopped visual innovation in SF design cold for a generation,
Burton's BATMAN stopped innovation in comic book movies cold in a way that we still haven't quite gotten
past.


I can't really argue with that. I will, however, offer some defense of that. Comics have always evolved in their aesthetic and tone. Today's "Batman" comics differ enormously from the "Batman" comics of the 1940's, 1950's and so on. The 1989 "Batman" was an enormous departure from the camp that had defined it in the Adam West TV show. At the time, being a huge comic collector, I was pretty thrilled to see a serious take on the source material. And yet, for as much as they played it straight, the sets and costumes gave you the sense that this place was in a different reality. The Nolan "Batman" films are more set in reality than Burton's film, in which you couldn't even get a firm idea on which decade that movie was supposed to be taking place. Again, that was by design, I think, and seemed to reflect the tone of many of the comic material, including Miller's DKR. Audience tastes have evolved, as have their expectations, but I think Burton's film was the right fit for when it came out. Comics are still pop culture, and I'll cut the movie versions some slack for not being "timeless" in their own right.

And we can all agree it was nowhere near as bad as the subsequent sequels.
 
2014-06-17 10:36:14 AM  

strangeguitar: I never understood the casting. I can see Kim as Vicki Vale, but Keaton and Nicholson? Never clicked with me.


I thought Keaton made a fine Bruce Wayne. I think he was an awkard Dark Knight when the costume came on. Nicholson was just chewing scenery.
 
2014-06-17 10:41:56 AM  

Nabb1: strangeguitar: I never understood the casting. I can see Kim as Vicki Vale, but Keaton and Nicholson? Never clicked with me.

I thought Keaton made a fine Bruce Wayne. I think he was an awkard Dark Knight when the costume came on. Nicholson was just chewing scenery.


Y'know. I think I agree about Keaton. The Wayne persona was pretty good.
 
2014-06-17 11:01:41 AM  
Wait'll they get a load of me.
 
2014-06-17 11:02:16 AM  
Never got the hate for the movie.
It remembers that, oh yeah, Batman is there to kick ass, not make bad jokes like Adam West did.
 
2014-06-17 11:12:26 AM  

Nabb1: The thing is: the movie itself has aged very badly, especially Jack Nicholson's by-the-number-for-him
performance aided and abetted by Tim Burton's indifferent direction and Prince's very late 80s music
style. A classic case of an 'artiste' who latches onto something and decides to put his 'stamp' on it, and
the only reason its watchable at all is that Keaton, in the end, made a decent Batman, and in much the
same way ALIEN and BLADERUNNER stopped visual innovation in SF design cold for a generation,
Burton's BATMAN stopped innovation in comic book movies cold in a way that we still haven't quite gotten
past.

I can't really argue with that. I will, however, offer some defense of that. Comics have always evolved in their aesthetic and tone. Today's "Batman" comics differ enormously from the "Batman" comics of the 1940's, 1950's and so on. The 1989 "Batman" was an enormous departure from the camp that had defined it in the Adam West TV show. At the time, being a huge comic collector, I was pretty thrilled to see a serious take on the source material. And yet, for as much as they played it straight, the sets and costumes gave you the sense that this place was in a different reality. The Nolan "Batman" films are more set in reality than Burton's film, in which you couldn't even get a firm idea on which decade that movie was supposed to be taking place. Again, that was by design, I think, and seemed to reflect the tone of many of the comic material, including Miller's DKR. Audience tastes have evolved, as have their expectations, but I think Burton's film was the right fit for when it came out. Comics are still pop culture, and I'll cut the movie versions some slack for not being "timeless" in their own right.

And we can all agree it was nowhere near as bad as the subsequent sequels.


The success of Frank Miller's "The Goddamn BATMAN!" characterization in the most successful
of the Batman films (Burton's and Nolan's) has had an outsized impact on how the Warner Brothers
machine puts together their superhero films, and they have been appying it to almost any hero
regardless of how appropriate that approach is to that particular hero (MAN OF STEEL comes
immediately to mind).

Burton did try to make his BATMAN timeless (the 1930s era architecture & design of Gotham, having
Bruce Wayne drive a 1978 Volare sedan to go memorialize his parents' deaths, and I know this because
I drove the same goddamn car back in the day), but in the end it didn't work for me, possibly because of
what I like to think of as the "STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN" effect:  you have a work that, taken on its own
merits, has a certain amount of artistic value and influence.  But through repeition, pastiche and
parody, said artistic value is continually degraded to nearly nothing.  I also think that Burton relied too
heavily on Miller's TDKR style as storyboarding, which locks it for me as a comic fan into the particular
late 80s visual mode despite Burton's efforts to 'Burtonize' the resultant product.

And then there's the physical design of the Batman suit:  the whole tick rubber/kevlar/latex bodysuit
construction style has completely permeated every subsequent superhero movie design even down to
Captain America's suit in THE WINTER SOLDIER, and juding from some of the designs for upcoming
DC hero movies that trend will only continue.  Prior to the '89 BATMAN, every superhero had a gaudy
outfit, but every superhero after is basically wearing either a monochromatic jumpsuit or has the colour
palette of their suit muted significantly (IRON MAN's armour springs to mind immediately here, and even
Adrienne Palecki's costume from that horrible WONDER WOMAN pilot).

I do agree that the one thing that strongly informed Burton's BATMAN has been removed:  a basic
respect for the material.  Burton's take on the movie seems to have been to see how he could 'Burtonize'
it:  that is, make it self-aware of its own quirkiness and hit you over the head with "This is supposed to be
WACKY and PARODIC!", and while it turns out that Miller's version of Batman was very compatible with
Burton's vision, in the end he tinkered with the very foundation myth of the character (I mean, if you think
about it: after the events of the movie, Bruce Wayne has no real reason to continue being Batman, an
artistic choice that absolutely would not fly these days).
 
2014-06-17 11:14:46 AM  
(what I meant to say at the end was that, unlike Burton, subsequent superhero movies seem to have more
of a basic respect for the material, and for that I actually credit Christopher Nolan).
 
2014-06-17 11:15:02 AM  
I do still like the movie, but I'm also someone who was thirteen when it came out, in the low end of the target demo but still there.  Not to mention its revival of Batman also led pretty directly to the creation of THE best Batman of all time.
 
2014-06-17 11:26:30 AM  
How anyone can biatch about a movie with a Prince soundtrack is beyond me.

/liked the 1989 Batman
//and the second one
///the other 2 sucked major ass
 
2014-06-17 11:44:07 AM  

xanadian: How anyone can biatch about a movie with a Prince soundtrack is beyond me.


"Purple Rain" was a pretty flawed movie and "Under the Cherry Moon" was downright horrible. Both albums were spectacular, though.
 
2014-06-17 11:52:20 AM  
so this is what we blame for the incessant superhero crap that parades as "film".
 
2014-06-17 11:54:16 AM  
Actually, the most influential movie of the last 25 years is "Die Hard" -- just think of how many "lone warrior thrust into unfamiliar situation he must overcome with many guns and catchphrases" movies have come since.

But "Batman" was by far the most influential promotionally.
 
2014-06-17 11:55:20 AM  

FriarReb98: I do still like the movie, but I'm also someone who was thirteen when it came out, in the low end of the target demo but still there.  Not to mention its revival of Batman also led pretty directly to the creation of THE best Batman of all time.


This.

With Michael Keaton (and Jack Nicholson) we get Kevin Conroy (and Mark Hamill).
 
2014-06-17 11:55:25 AM  

Nabb1: strangeguitar: I never understood the casting. I can see Kim as Vicki Vale, but Keaton and Nicholson? Never clicked with me.

I thought Keaton made a fine Bruce Wayne. I think he was an awkard Dark Knight when the costume came on. Nicholson was just chewing scenery.


Yeah I thought Keaton absolutely nailed Bruce Wayne. I mean, the guy is clearly insane. He really nailed the hidden crazy part of the character. Too bad he couldn't have been around for:

state-lines.com
 
2014-06-17 11:55:45 AM  

Rev.K: No. The movie that changed everything came out 1 year prior, and that movie was Bloodsport.



Gymkata was filmed in 1985.

/The Skill of Gymnastics, the Kill of Karate
 
2014-06-17 11:56:54 AM  
CSB: I remember when this came out (I was in summer camp) and it was a huge big deal everybody was talking about. MAD even did a cover specifically about it. When I went to the movies to see it I saw UHF and picked that instead and saw Batman second.

/no regrets
 
2014-06-17 11:57:50 AM  

FriarReb98: I do still like the movie, but I'm also someone who was thirteen when it came out, in the low end of the target demo but still there.  Not to mention its revival of Batman also led pretty directly to the creation of THE best Batman of all time.


Came here to say that.

The 1989 film itself aged poorly. But its animated successor will endure for a very long time... and helped convince TV writers, filmmakers, and even the comic writers themselves that their audiences respond well to smart stories and well-developed characters.

WB didn't initially learn that lesson... which led to the Schumaker Batman films and Superman Returns (the latter was completely inexplicable given Smallville's reception). On the other hand, Marvel picked up on it right away... compare the writing of early 90s X-Men animated series to, say, the nonsensically childish Secret Wars books just a few years prior. It's hard to believe that both media were intended for the same audience.
 
2014-06-17 11:59:36 AM  

strangeguitar: I never understood the casting. I can see Kim as Vicki Vale, but Keaton and Nicholson? Never clicked with me.


There's a pill for that.

DjangoStonereaver: (what I meant to say at the end was that, unlike Burton, subsequent superhero movies seem to have more
of a basic respect for the material, and for that I actually credit Christopher Nolan).


Respect for the material isn't a plus.


*******

Michael Keaton could have and should have played both roles.
 
2014-06-17 12:01:16 PM  
i291.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-17 12:02:34 PM  

FriarReb98: I do still like the movie, but I'm also someone who was thirteen when it came out, in the low end of the target demo but still there.  Not to mention its revival of Batman also led pretty directly to the creation of THE best Batman of all time.


That's my Batman.
 
2014-06-17 12:04:16 PM  

Nabb1: The thing is: the movie itself has aged very badly, especially Jack Nicholson's by-the-number-for-him
performance aided and abetted by Tim Burton's indifferent direction and Prince's very late 80s music
style. A classic case of an 'artiste' who latches onto something and decides to put his 'stamp' on it, and
the only reason its watchable at all is that Keaton, in the end, made a decent Batman, and in much the
same way ALIEN and BLADERUNNER stopped visual innovation in SF design cold for a generation,
Burton's BATMAN stopped innovation in comic book movies cold in a way that we still haven't quite gotten
past.

I can't really argue with that. I will, however, offer some defense of that. Comics have always evolved in their aesthetic and tone. Today's "Batman" comics differ enormously from the "Batman" comics of the 1940's, 1950's and so on. The 1989 "Batman" was an enormous departure from the camp that had defined it in the Adam West TV show. At the time, being a huge comic collector, I was pretty thrilled to see a serious take on the source material. And yet, for as much as they played it straight, the sets and costumes gave you the sense that this place was in a different reality. The Nolan "Batman" films are more set in reality than Burton's film, in which you couldn't even get a firm idea on which decade that movie was supposed to be taking place. Again, that was by design, I think, and seemed to reflect the tone of many of the comic material, including Miller's DKR. Audience tastes have evolved, as have their expectations, but I think Burton's film was the right fit for when it came out. Comics are still pop culture, and I'll cut the movie versions some slack for not being "timeless" in their own right.

And we can all agree it was nowhere near as bad as the subsequent sequels.


Agreed and I'd like to elaborate: I have to give Batman 89 credit for at least TRYING to take the material somewhat seriously. In the popular mind, Batman was still Adam West and the sort of fellow that did guest shots on Scooby Doo. Superhero stuff was ENTIRELY for kids, and see how it worked out with the sequels in that vein that became more and more kiddy cartoony. Other than Superman, who, let's face it, is truth justice and the American way and almost more of a national icon than Uncle Sam, directors and actors pretty much knew they were slumming it with dumb kid's stuff. Comic book movies were ALWAYS corny. If they weren't, they were entirely gutted of the comic book and the character just happened to have the same name as a comic book character.  We take it for granted in the wake of Blade, X-men, Spider-man, and Nolan Batman that comic books were something to be taken seriously (and still not everyone does) but back then, EVEN THOUGH COMICS GOT GRIM AND DARK in the 1980s and 1990s it was seen as buff fellows in spandex smacking each other around. It would be years before something like Watchmen would permeate into popular culture outside of comic nerds, for instance.

The word chum is nowhere to be found, and a guy dressed in suit beating up thugs is considered crazy and unbalanced. And it leaks over to Bruce Wayne. This isn't old style West, where essentially it's like a boy and his little brother playing crimebuster in their treehouse with their kindly older neighbor helping them in the fun. This Batman doesn't rassle like captain kirk in a leotard with biff and bam accompanying every punch - he's a buzzsaw of murder to hapless criminals. Now, there are also problems with this, which I'll get to as the thread develops.
 
2014-06-17 12:05:58 PM  
static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-06-17 12:05:58 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Actually, the most influential movie of the last 25 years is "Die Hard" -- just think of how many "lone warrior thrust into unfamiliar situation he must overcome with many guns and catchphrases" movies have come since.


Yeah, I especially like all those wannabe action films that came after Die Hard... like First Blood I and II, Commando, Big Trouble in Little China, Delta Force, Iron Eagle, Running Man, Action Jackson...

Within the context of its genre, Die Hard was probably more like Batman Begins than Batman.
 
2014-06-17 12:07:10 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: FriarReb98: I do still like the movie, but I'm also someone who was thirteen when it came out, in the low end of the target demo but still there.  Not to mention its revival of Batman also led pretty directly to the creation of THE best Batman of all time.

This.

With Michael Keaton (and Jack Nicholson) we get Kevin Conroy (and Mark Hamill).


Jack Nicholson was probably the WORST Joker, because he was just Jack in greasepaint, toned down a little even. But damned if Mark Hamill we didn't get the BEST Joker (sorry Heath, although your one time performance was awesome, the format of Batman:TAS allowed us to see the many facets of Joker.  Joker's Favor and Laughing Fish come to mind)
 
2014-06-17 12:07:17 PM  
To some people *shrug*
 
2014-06-17 12:08:00 PM  

dslknowitall: CSB: I remember when this came out (I was in summer camp) and it was a huge big deal everybody was talking about. MAD even did a cover specifically about it. When I went to the movies to see it I saw UHF and picked that instead and saw Batman second.

/no regrets


Did anyone get to drink from the firehose in Batman?

We both know which of those two movies will remain a classic 50 years from now.
 
2014-06-17 12:10:26 PM  
Michael Keaton is the second best Batman/Bruce Wayne. He did a good job in both roles. But Batman is the mos influential fim in the last 25 years? I'd pick either Pulp Fiction or The Matrix over Batman regardless of how much either of those films are hated.
 
2014-06-17 12:12:44 PM  
First thing I thought of when I first read the headline was My. Mom.
 
2014-06-17 12:15:32 PM  

dslknowitall: CSB: I remember when this came out (I was in summer camp) and it was a huge big deal everybody was talking about. MAD even did a cover specifically about it. When I went to the movies to see it I saw UHF and picked that instead and saw Batman second.

/no regrets


images.media-allrecipes.com

Good move.
 
2014-06-17 12:16:37 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: I have to say, he had a bit of a point:  I don't remember any movie, before or since, whose marketing
pervaded all of popular culture.  EVERYONE was wearing Batman-themed shirts and clothing, and there
was the incessant playing of the BATDANCE video on MTV and jokes on late night TV.  Hell, there was
even a 'Batcave' nightclub in NYC (I believe it was Le Magique rebranded for a few months).

The thing is:  the movie itself has aged very badly, especially Jack Nicholson's by-the-number-for-him
performance aided and abetted by Tim Burton's indifferent direction and Prince's very late 80s music
style.  A classic case of an 'artiste' who latches onto something and decides to put his 'stamp' on it, and
the only reason its watchable at all is that Keaton, in the end, made a decent Batman, and in much the
same way ALIEN and BLADERUNNER stopped visual innovation in SF design cold for a generation,
Burton's BATMAN stopped innovation in comic book movies cold in a way that we still haven't quite gotten
past.


Star Wars, you dolt!
 
2014-06-17 12:16:45 PM  

W.C.fields forever: First thing I thought of when I first read the headline was My. Mom.


"Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud to the 'Batman' movie thread. Dr. Freud, please report to the 'Batman' movie thread. Dr. Freud..."
 
2014-06-17 12:17:46 PM  

W.C.fields forever: First thing I thought of when I first read the headline was My. Mom.


www.worldtennismagazine.com

You're not the only one, buster!
 
2014-06-17 12:18:27 PM  

xanadian: How anyone can biatch about a movie with a Prince soundtrack is beyond me.



"Vicki Waiting" is classic Prince, "Arms Of Orion" is also classic.  "Electric Chair" pretty good, but everything else is really bad.  "Batdance"?  Come on, man.

the movie hasn't aged well at all, which i know folks are saying.  it kinda sucks.  but that said i think Keaton was the best Batman.  caveat:  i haven't seen the last two Batman movies.  i saw the first one with Gareth Bale, where he hiss-mumbled everything (and with that Joker dude who pasted before for the movie came out) but i think they made two other ones which i didn't see.  not a huge comic book movie guy.
 
2014-06-17 12:18:44 PM  

Fano: OtherLittleGuy: FriarReb98: I do still like the movie, but I'm also someone who was thirteen when it came out, in the low end of the target demo but still there.  Not to mention its revival of Batman also led pretty directly to the creation of THE best Batman of all time.

This.

With Michael Keaton (and Jack Nicholson) we get Kevin Conroy (and Mark Hamill).

Jack Nicholson was probably the WORST Joker, because he was just Jack in greasepaint, toned down a little even. But damned if Mark Hamill we didn't get the BEST Joker (sorry Heath, although your one time performance was awesome, the format of Batman:TAS allowed us to see the many facets of Joker.  Joker's Favor and Laughing Fish come to mind)


Seconded.  BTAS gave us many nuanced versions of comic book characters we wouldn't see on screen.  Additionally it revitalized characters like Mr. Freeze by giving them a new history that turned them into tragic figures.  It was good enough that those became the histories of the figures in the comics themselves and gave us the character of Harley Quinn.
 
2014-06-17 12:21:07 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: (what I meant to say at the end was that, unlike Burton, subsequent superhero movies seem to have more
of a basic respect for the material, and for that I actually credit Christopher Nolan).


I agree completely. Batman killing the Joker at the end of the movie was strange and out of character, as was Batman blowing up people with dynamite in the sequel.

Nolan's movie used the origin story as a vehicle to examine the character of Bruce Wayne; not only do we know why he's an orphan, we know why he decided to take the path he did, the way he did. Beautiful thematic storytelling, memorable, fleshed-out characters, and a deeper understanding of who Batman really is.
 
2014-06-17 12:23:00 PM  

clkeagle: The 1989 film itself aged poorly. But its animated successor will endure for a very long time... and helped convince TV writers, filmmakers, and even the comic writers themselves that their audiences respond well to smart stories and well-developed characters.



They got the animated series right in setting it in an indetminate time period. Unlike the movie it never ages because it wasn't set in a specific time period. Like Archer it works because it has elements of all 20th century culture. The architecture is 30s, the vehicles are all 40s, the technology is 80's and beyond, nobody questions that the police have female officers, and the science is truly mad.
 
2014-06-17 12:24:20 PM  

Orgasmatron138: DjangoStonereaver: (what I meant to say at the end was that, unlike Burton, subsequent superhero movies seem to have more
of a basic respect for the material, and for that I actually credit Christopher Nolan).

I agree completely. Batman killing the Joker at the end of the movie was strange and out of character, as was Batman blowing up people with dynamite in the sequel.

Nolan's movie used the origin story as a vehicle to examine the character of Bruce Wayne; not only do we know why he's an orphan, we know why he decided to take the path he did, the way he did. Beautiful thematic storytelling, memorable, fleshed-out characters, and a deeper understanding of who Batman really is.


A little boy in a playsuit, crying for mommy and daddy?
 
2014-06-17 12:24:32 PM  

Nabb1: W.C.fields forever: First thing I thought of when I first read the headline was My. Mom.

"Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud to the 'Batman' movie thread. Dr. Freud, please report to the 'Batman' movie thread. Dr. Freud..."


Oh dear.I am groggy
 
2014-06-17 12:24:47 PM  

lasercannon: DjangoStonereaver: I have to say, he had a bit of a point:  I don't remember any movie, before or since, whose marketing
pervaded all of popular culture.  EVERYONE was wearing Batman-themed shirts and clothing, and there
was the incessant playing of the BATDANCE video on MTV and jokes on late night TV.  Hell, there was
even a 'Batcave' nightclub in NYC (I believe it was Le Magique rebranded for a few months).

The thing is:  the movie itself has aged very badly, especially Jack Nicholson's by-the-number-for-him
performance aided and abetted by Tim Burton's indifferent direction and Prince's very late 80s music
style.  A classic case of an 'artiste' who latches onto something and decides to put his 'stamp' on it, and
the only reason its watchable at all is that Keaton, in the end, made a decent Batman, and in much the
same way ALIEN and BLADERUNNER stopped visual innovation in SF design cold for a generation,
Burton's BATMAN stopped innovation in comic book movies cold in a way that we still haven't quite gotten
past.

Star Wars, you dolt!


STAR WARS started the 'ragged future' design trend, to be sure, but it was amplified by ALIEN (which
also gave us the 'biomechanical' design aesthetic for creatures that still persists to this day) and
completely canonized by by BLADERUNNER.
 
2014-06-17 12:25:22 PM  

Fano: But damned if Mark Hamill we didn't get the BEST Joker


Agreed.  Overall, I've liked Batman:TAS the most of any attempt to put Batman on the screen.  It is dark without being moody like the Nolan productions or campy like the Burton productions.

But one of the biggest pluses are the characters.  Joker and Mr. Freeze are spot on.  I especially liked the development of Harley Quinn.
 
2014-06-17 12:28:45 PM  
the film had mostly good casting (Pat Hingle as Gordon? wtf?) really great art direction, AMAZING Set design by the late Anton Furst (all versions of Gotham since are based or heavily influenced by Fursts work)...an amazing score by Danny Elfman...then it got hamstrung by a HORRIBLE script from Sam Ham and some stupid touches by Burton (Batman doesn't self indulgently brood like an Emo self cutter...he doesn't have time for that shiat) and slapped on a bunch of awful Prince songs (I like Prince...but those songs were clearly shoehorned in and just bad)....but mostly it was the script that was terrible... The Joker killed Batmans Parents? WTF? No.  Joe Chill killed Thomas and Martha Wayne... making Joker do it implies that by the time he and Batman square off The Joker is in his mid50's to early 60's...yeah THAT'S a fight for the ages.

I didn't think I could hate anything more than the laytex makeup on Nicholson (so limiting that when he made expressions you could see his real mouth under the laytex) until I saw the bullshiat they pulled on Heath Ledger.


/CSB: out of high school I worked for Diamond Comics. after the Batcraze started to die off, we had so many unsold Batman t-shirts, that we had an entire wing of our warehouse to store them...in giant truck sized open boxes sorted nominally by style. On days when the weekly truck was running late (at the time the comics came in from Canada and were sorted at a hub in Sparta IL  and to the other warehouses from there) we'd often barter the batman shirts for free pizzas from nearby deliver places.  after awhile that stopped working as we ran out of different styles to offer in trade.
 
2014-06-17 12:34:07 PM  
I was only 8 when it came out, so I wasn't actually allowed to see it until I was a little bit older. I do remember all the Batman toys that came out, though. Before the movie came out, my only exposure to Batman had been reruns of the old '60s TV show. The movie changed the public's perception of Batman, and it led to the creation of the animated series, which kept Batman in the public eye for a while. I remember Batman was very popular when I was a kid, and my brothers and I had lots of Batman toys because we grew up watching the animated series.
 
2014-06-17 12:36:58 PM  

Orgasmatron138: DjangoStonereaver: (what I meant to say at the end was that, unlike Burton, subsequent superhero movies seem to have more
of a basic respect for the material, and for that I actually credit Christopher Nolan).

I agree completely. Batman killing the Joker at the end of the movie was strange and out of character, as was Batman blowing up people with dynamite in the sequel.

Nolan's movie used the origin story as a vehicle to examine the character of Bruce Wayne; not only do we know why he's an orphan, we know why he decided to take the path he did, the way he did. Beautiful thematic storytelling, memorable, fleshed-out characters, and a deeper understanding of who Batman really is.


IndigoMontoya.gif


If by that you mean, MASSIVE inelplical potholes, story points that make no farking sense, characters that resemble NOTHING of their 70+ years of developed history...then sure.
If you'd said "lots of SPLOSIONS , Nonsensical gadgets, and quick editing to substitute for genuine tension"
then I might have agreed with you.
 
2014-06-17 12:45:16 PM  
Batman was everywhere in 1989. Star Wars had mostly disappeared, and for a few years kids had a bunch of different properties vying for their attention - Masters of the Universe, GI Joe, Transformers, ThunderCats, every time you turned around there was a new set of toys to buy and characters to learn.

Then came Batman 89.

Suddenly you had a property that parents understood just as much as the kids. Oh sure, this was a darker version, but the parents knew who Batman and the Joker were. There was history. There was also tons and tons of merchandising. Everything you could possibly slap a bat-logo on existed. Watches, t-shirts, cups, bedding, backpacks, breakfast cereal, you name it, it had a bat on it. Star Wars had done similar, but not quite as ubiquitous merchandising earlier in the decade. Batman, though, was farking everywhere, man. I remember bat-logo cotton candy at the country fair, for fark's sake. And it was because everyone got Batman - he wasn't new, he wasn't something different, he was something kids and parents alike could grasp and there was tons of stuff you could easily identify as bat-swag.

Oddly enough, this is really what inspired the Star Wars Episode 1 merch-mania that included things like Jar Jar tongue lollipops. So yeah, Batman '89 did change things...for the worse in the case of Star Wars.
 
2014-06-17 12:58:58 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-17 12:59:14 PM  
Keaton's batsuit didn't even have nipples!
Pffft!
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report