I thought I'd open up the floodgates and do a thread for each Batman movie. After Doc's "Fix the film" thread in the TDK Rises forum, I thought it was only fair to do something similar for every live action film- Burton, Schumacher, and Nolan.
So here it goes: If you had final rewrite on the movie (or even wanted to fix minor things), what would you have done differently? As with Doc's thread, you have to stick with the general framework of the film.
There is very, very little I'd change in this one, mainly a subtle costume change for the Joker so the fans wouldn't moan about him being "fat". I'd make the coat more of a zoot suit coat and give the vest pointed edges.
I'd probably amp up the action scenes just a smidge, but I'm overall happy with these scenes already.
I'd have maybe wanted more of Batman's martial arts prowess. The whole point of this stuff in my opinion is to nitpick a little bit but as cool as Batman's face off with the sword master was, it was pretty brief. The siege of the belfry already had a martial artist (or acrobat anyway) attack Batman and he went down pretty easily. I might've liked more of a pitched battle between him and Batman.
Minor things:
- Fix all the continuity errors and goofs, like Batman lowering his mic down but then see him having his hand up when Batmobile arrives.
- I'd give at least a short fight scene between Batman, the Joker and his goons during the museum scene.
- I'd have Batman fight Bob the Goon included in the film! 8) And have a few more fight scenes in the bell-tower scenes.
- ;D As funny as it was watching Batman failing to kill the Joker at point blank range with his Batwing, I'd redo it in a way where Joker would look like he is cowardly hiding back inside the cake, but then pops out with his gun and then shoot down the Batwing before Batman can react.
- I'd have that cancelled idea of Mayor Borg reacting in shock when he unveils the statue to commemorate Gotham's 200th Anniversary, only to look at the Joker's statue instead.
Major thing:After the Joker is killed, it's suddenly cut to the end without Batman's reaction to the aftermath. Batman got his revenge over the man who killed is parents, but we don't get to see him anymore after saving himself and Vicki. I'd have a scene where Batman feels relieved, albeit still feeling hollow, that the Joker is gone, but now he insists it's upon his duty to keep the streets safe - and then it cuts off to the public announcement and unveiling of the Batsignal at the end. What we've got in the original movie instead feels incomplete unfortunately. It might have to do with the Writer's Strike at the time and an urge to wrap up production as soon as possible.
I still like '89 out of all the Batman films the most, but I still can't refrain myself from honest criticism.
The only way I could think to improve the movie is to incorporate some of Craig Gardner's novelization's embellishments: adding the subplot of the Joker throwing fake money to the crowd at the end (that has his face), bringing back in the sunset action scene where Batman rescues the Mayor from the Joker, making it more clear that Vicki deduced Batman's identity and previously-establishing the final battle's thugs and also playing up Batman's Batwing-crash injuries more.
But truth be told, so much of what makes the novelization so grand is getting inside the character's heads... and you can't really do that on film without giving out Nolanistic dialogue.
There are few films I can call perfect as-is, but BATMAN is one of them.
I would make Harvey Dent a more proeminent character as I said in another thread. That's really all I'd like to change.
The hard thing about this particular topic is we're all thinking of sequels in the back of our minds whereas that thought didnt cross Burton's mind at the time; the concern was solely making a profitable film on what seemed like a huge risk at the time; the last 2 comic book films were colossal flops (howard the duck and superman 4) and there was negative backlash over Keaton from the start.
If we're talking the mindset of a single film, the only beef I have is the batwing getting taken down by a single bullet. I'd have had the Joker use a more powerful weapon such as a bazooka to do it or have batman land it himself.
The fake money idea is kind of cool, I havent thought about it but I probably like that better as it does seem odd the Joker would give away real money before poisoning the city.
If I do get to redo it with the knowledge a sequel is coming, I'd have improved the Harvey Dent character. Give him a slightly bigger role here, have him take the Shreck role in the second film before becoming a villain in the third.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug 2013, 06:52
The hard thing about this particular topic is we're all thinking of sequels in the back of our minds whereas that thought didnt cross Burton's mind at the time; the concern was solely making a profitable film on what seemed like a huge risk at the time; the last 2 comic book films were colossal flops (howard the duck and superman 4) and there was negative backlash over Keaton from the start.
If we're talking the mindset of a single film, the only beef I have is the batwing getting taken down by a single bullet. I'd have had the Joker use a more powerful weapon such as a bazooka to do it or have batman land it himself.
The fake money idea is kind of cool, I havent thought about it but I probably like that better as it does seem odd the Joker would give away real money before poisoning the city.
If I do get to redo it with the knowledge a sequel is coming, I'd have improved the Harvey Dent character. Give him a slightly bigger role here, have him take the Shreck role in the second film before becoming a villain in the third.
I still rate 'Batman '89' as my favourite Batman movie however, in many ways its success is as much a happy accident in which various partly commercially-driven, partly artistic-driven, were pulling in various directions to produce something that ended up feeling relatively fresh and spontaneous, in arguable contrast to the Nolan films which seem more contrived and predictable precisely because they are the work of a small handful of artists working in the same direction. From the Prince songs that were foisted upon Burton to Jacks Nicholson and Palace competing to see who can chew up the most scenery this is a great film because of various incidental moments which add together to make up an exceedingly satisfying whole and the changes I might have made at the time (such as casting a more dashing, classically handsome and imposing actor as Batman/Bruce Wayne and not giving Joker a back-story or making him the murderer of Bruce's parents) would almost definitely have resulted in a less enjoyable, less memorable movie.
However, one thing I do have to pick up on Riddler is your comment about Harvey Dent. As portrayed in the first film, Dent is clearly an idealist, albeit a harried and ultimately ineffectual one. Neither this version nor the classical comic-book version of Dent, as a fundamentally decent, crusading man who nonetheless harbours a dark-side he desperately tries to suppress, would fit easily with the Max Shreck character's modus operandi. Shreck is a cool, calculating character, an icy, unfeeling
sociopath rather than a repressed, ready-to-boil
psychopath, who is all about social-climbing and making money. Shreck is almost defined by his lack of emotions as much as Dent/Two-Face is defined by his inability to control his emotions. It's also men like Shreck that DA Dent has dedicated his entire career to putting away. I really don't see how one could attach the whole power-plant story to Dent, far less the relatively amiable, even heroic Dent we saw in 'Batman '89'.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug 2013, 07:10
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug 2013, 06:52
The hard thing about this particular topic is we're all thinking of sequels in the back of our minds whereas that thought didnt cross Burton's mind at the time; the concern was solely making a profitable film on what seemed like a huge risk at the time; the last 2 comic book films were colossal flops (howard the duck and superman 4) and there was negative backlash over Keaton from the start.
If we're talking the mindset of a single film, the only beef I have is the batwing getting taken down by a single bullet. I'd have had the Joker use a more powerful weapon such as a bazooka to do it or have batman land it himself.
The fake money idea is kind of cool, I havent thought about it but I probably like that better as it does seem odd the Joker would give away real money before poisoning the city.
If I do get to redo it with the knowledge a sequel is coming, I'd have improved the Harvey Dent character. Give him a slightly bigger role here, have him take the Shreck role in the second film before becoming a villain in the third.
I still rate 'Batman '89' as my favourite Batman movie however, in many ways its success is as much a happy accident in which various partly commercially-driven, partly artistic-driven, were pulling in various directions to produce something that ended up feeling relatively fresh and spontaneous, in arguable contrast to the Nolan films which seem more contrived and predictable precisely because they are the work of a small handful of artists working in the same direction. From the Prince songs that were foisted upon Burton to Jacks Nicholson and Palace competing to see who can chew up the most scenery this is a great film because of various incidental moments which add together to make up an exceedingly satisfying whole and the changes I might have made at the time (such as casting a more dashing, classically handsome and imposing actor as Batman/Bruce Wayne and not giving Joker a back-story or making him the murderer of Bruce's parents) would almost definitely have resulted in a less enjoyable, less memorable movie.
However, one thing I do have to pick up on Riddler is your comment about Harvey Dent. As portrayed in the first film, Dent is clearly an idealist, albeit a harried and ultimately ineffectual one. Neither this version nor the classical comic-book version of Dent, as a fundamentally decent, crusading man who nonetheless harbours a dark-side he desperately tries to suppress, would fit easily with the Max Shreck character's modus operandi. Shreck is a cool, calculating character, an icy, unfeeling sociopath rather than a repressed, ready-to-boil psychopath, who is all about social-climbing and making money. Shreck is almost defined by his lack of emotions as much as Dent/Two-Face is defined by his inability to control his emotions. It's also men like Shreck that DA Dent has dedicated his entire career to putting away. I really don't see how one could attach the whole power-plant story to Dent, far less the relatively amiable, even heroic Dent we saw in 'Batman '89'.
Actually Dent does show signs of dual personalities in the comics. Mostly he is a white knight but does possess a subtle dark side that he generally supresses. Once he gets scared, he gives it and lets the other side take over. An easy lead in for the second film would be to have him replaced as the D.A. Perhaps have an upstart beat him in an election or a scandal outside of his control happen (for instance one of his assistants come out corrupt). This could explain him backing the penguin for mayor; have Dent's image tarred to Gotham and force him to back the Penguin as a candidate.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug 2013, 07:47
Actually Dent does show signs of dual personalities in the comics. Mostly he is a white knight but does possess a subtle dark side that he generally supresses. Once he gets scared, he gives it and lets the other side take over. An easy lead in for the second film would be to have him replaced as the D.A. Perhaps have an upstart beat him in an election or a scandal outside of his control happen (for instance one of his assistants come out corrupt). This could explain him backing the penguin for mayor; have Dent's image tarred to Gotham and force him to back the Penguin as a candidate.
I never argued with Dent displaying dual personalities in the comic-books. On the contrary. But that dark side as far as I'm aware has nothing to do with building power-plants that suck energy out of Gotham, which would be a pretty contrived way for a politician to get his revenge against Gotham and makes more sense as the machinations of a wealthy businessman addicted to building upon his fortune ala Shreck.
Anyway, isn't Two-Face meant to be a tragic character. He becomes Two-Face in the pursuit of justice, in the middle of a court case during his take-down of Boss Maroni. Although he has a (suppressed) dark side he's not a full-blown villain until
after his 'accident'. Handing over Shreck's story to Dent robs him of his fundamental pathos by the time he becomes Two-Face. I'd rather keep Tommy Lee Jones' ham-fisted portrayal of a Two-Face, blink-and-you'll-miss-it origin and all, than give a pre-transformation Harvey Dent a full-blown evil background that goes completely against everything the character stands for.
This is unconfirmed as far as I know, but a book called The Batman Filmography claims that, before the insertion of the cathedral climax, Batman defeated the Joker by somehow sicking thousands of bats upon him. That is a beautiful operatic image, though it would have been difficult to pull off with the technology of the day.
I'd add a moment where it's made clear that the Joker poisoned the police department prior to his parade, and that the men Gordon brings are the few survivors he's been able to round up. I'd also have Harvey on the scene with Gordon.
Quote from: zDBZ on Mon, 9 Sep 2013, 00:31
This is unconfirmed as far as I know, but a book called The Batman Filmography claims that, before the insertion of the cathedral climax, Batman defeated the Joker by somehow sicking thousands of bats upon him. That is a beautiful operatic image, though it would have been difficult to pull off with the technology of the day.
This is in the original Sam Hamm draft:
QuoteINT. BELLTOWER
The JOKER makes a futile grab at the rope ladder, almost
losing his purchase on the archway parapet. He gestures
wildly for the copter to make another pass. 0:12 to go.
EXT. BELLTOWER
A maelstrom of swirling leaves. And now, among the leaves
-- roused from their resting place in the rotten rafters of
the old cathedral --
-- A HORDE OF SQUEALING, CHITTERING BATS!! Filling the air
like a black cloud, HUNDREDS OF THEM, taking flight in
blind uncomprehending fury --
INT. BELLTOWER
The JOKER leaps into empty space, grabs hold of the ladder,
cackles in mad triumph --
-- AND SUDDENLY THE BELLTOWER IS FULL OF BATS. A SCREECHING
SWARM, HIDEOUS, BLACK-WINGED -- SWOOPING THROUGH THE
ARCHWAYS DIRECTLY AT THE JOKER --
-- WHO SCREAMS IN TERROR -- LETS GO OF THE LADDER --
-- and plunges into the night.
http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/scriptdb/media/732.html
Quote from: zDBZ on Mon, 9 Sep 2013, 00:31
I'd add a moment where it's made clear that the Joker poisoned the police department prior to his parade, and that the men Gordon brings are the few survivors he's been able to round up. I'd also have Harvey on the scene with Gordon.
If I were to add something to B89, it would be this. A small scene of Joker's goons poisoning Gotham police officer's coffee, etc. And as the festival was called off, a small scene of them stealing the parade floats. The novlisisation has this stuff as background information, but actually seeing it wouldn't have hurt.
As for Joker's death - I find the gargoyle version superior.
Have Harvey Dent and Gordon be more involved in the story. They appear in the beginning but then the whole focus in on Joker and Batman. I usually get so wrapped up that at the end I'm like "Oh, Gordon and Dent were in this too". I don't think the movie suffers because of this, but having them to actually work with Batman to stop Joker would've been nice.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 13 Sep 2013, 11:52
but having them to actually work with Batman to stop Joker would've been nice.
Disagreed here in terms of B89's story. Batman doesn't earn Gotham's trust until the very end, during the signal reveal.
Well, Harvey Dent and the Commissioner were all talk. They didn't actually do anything to stop the Joker. Gordon even knew the Joker was supposed to be at the festival and yet he arrived late >:( ;D
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 13 Sep 2013, 14:45
Well, Harvey Dent and the Commissioner were all talk. They didn't actually do anything to stop the Joker. Gordon even knew the Joker was supposed to be at the festival and yet he arrived late >:( ;D
Good point Edd Grayson. I do agree with Dark Knight that Batman shouldn't be seen teaming up with Batman as an ally until the film's climax but the film might have benefited from more screentime featuring Gordon and Dent and the sense that they weren't merely ineffectual bluster. Plus, like you said, we should have seen Gordon at least trying, if failing, to maintain order at the 200th Anniversary parade.
just some random stuff i've thought of watching the film:
- keep Jack in his classic purple suit rather than the plaid pants (gave Joker a bit too much of a cartoony vibe i always thought)
- i probably would've spent a bit more time perfecting the batsuit, as classic as the 89 one is - just in terms of fit, really; the cowl was a bit loose on Michael & you can tell how much it had improved by Batman Returns a few years later
- (here's an obvious one) rather than having Alfred just bring Vicki into the batcave on a whim, have him inform Bruce that she's arrived, let Bruce deliberate over whether or not he should let her in; when he does let her in, tone down the romantic melodrama stuff
- tone down the cutesy/sentimental vibe when Bruce & Vicki are having a glass of wine with Alfred
- cut the music when Jack starts jumping around shooting Grissom in his office - it struck me recently that without humorous background music, that would stand as one of the most chilling scenes in any Batman flick
- (another obvious one) i probably would've cast a slightly younger, less benign Gordon (no disrespect to Pat Hingle), given him a larger part in the film and developed his and Batman's personal relationship a bit
- again, no disrespect to Billy Dee Williams, but with any number of actors in Hollywood in the late 80s who would've made a classic Harvey Dent, i would've gone with less adventurous casting & given the character a bigger part in the film
beyond those details, i find the film to be pretty much great - certainly the best batman film so far - other than the couple of Vicki/Bruce scenes i mentioned, the script is top-notch (one of the main strengths it maintains over the wordy silliness of the Nolan/Goyer films), the acting is generally strong & nuanced (again, something absent from the Nolan pictures), & Anton's Furst's dream-like sets are (& always will be) the definitive Gotham.