Sorry for two threads but I was originally going to add this to my "is this film getting devalued" thread but I felt it deserved it's own.
The other day at the supermarket, the checkout boy noticed my mom wearing a Batman shirt and asked her who the best Batman was. She answered "Michael Keaton" and he seemed stunned because I'd assume he was thinking "Bale or Affleck". He then replied "To me it's Bale, I've only seen that other one once". I've also seen a lot of people (even my age *26*) who have never seen the film. While I don't understand how it's possible it always catches me off guard. These are people who are big into comic films.
This has to be one of the most important comic films next to Super-man and the original Spider-Man (which is slowly becoming the new 89 Batman) and it makes me sad that it seems this movie is slowly being forgotten because newer adaptations exist. Even pre-internet and 89 Batmania brought a renaissance of the 66 shows, heck Dark Knigh and Rises brought interest in the 66 Batman. The only bump in 89 was when Birdman came out.
What do you think, have you noticed this? Do you think it will get worse when Batman vs. Superman comes out?
I can't say for sure, Most younger people aren't big on superheroes in Romania where I am from.
The older ones that watched the 1989 Batman or especially the 1976 Superman back in the day still remember them fondly. And the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man was quite popular too but that's another tale.
Some might have seen the Dark Knight and Batman Begins but aren't huge fans otherwise, and even fewer have seen the 90's Batman films. I think we all saw the cartoons but some may have moved on.
There are more enthusiast comic book movie fans too but a minority. Some prefer Nolan Batman, some prefer Burton, and most like to pick on Schumacher, usually the Nolan fans, tastes differ as always.
If Batman '89 is being forgotten that makes me feel sad and old. :(
When I went to see the new Star Wars the other day a kid was in front of me with his parents talking about Batman films (not surprisingly those bloody irritating Nolan ones, ugh!). He proclaimed the "one with Heath Ledger" as....(drum roll!!)...."the second Batman film"......Of course I wanted to politely tap the little guy on the shoulder (or is it smack him on the head? lol) and point out that a certain Burton picture will ALWAYS have the honor of being proclaimed as "Batman 2".
But the little guy probably hasn't been introduced to them yet. You can't quite blame kids. This is "their" Batman era right now and like it or not their Batman is going to be either Bale or Affleck. We in our hearts know they are quite wrong to do so of course but we must respect their introduction. Bless. I think though you guys are getting a little overly naive. I happen to know a friend of my dad who has a kid into Batman and he hasn't yet seen a single Batman movie. Not one. Yet he loves the new animated series. I also know of other kids who began with Bale but have had the brain to go backwards and discover a whole other series of film's from the past. In some cases their now loving the Burton pictures more.
The mega popularity of the esteemed Nolan pictures is also quite over the top. It's a brutal silly war of comic nerds after all who need to shout loudest for their precious Nolan films to forever rule supreme. All I will say is that each and every Burton Hot Toys item sold like lightning in my local comic stores whereas Bale Batman product remains something of a self warmer. Something's clearly still appealing. Adam West's Batman rose from the ashes of cruel disgrace some years ago. Who would have thought? Keaton's time will come around again. No Batman movie concept (Dark Knight or otherwise) rules entirely constant forever.
Quote
I've also seen a lot of people (even my age *16*) who have never seen the film.
I think that answers your question right there. But I think the real question is: Is Batman 89 being neglected in favour of new film interpretations?
I think that younger people might not have watched the Burton films because anything that comes out recently is taken first priority. For all we know, there may be younger generations now aren't taking any notice to Christopher Reeve's Superman, and may watch MOS instead. Or Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man gets further left behind in favour of Marvel's new take in a few years from now. It seems cyclical to me.
Otherwise, I don't believe B89 nor Batman Returns are being forgotten at all. If that were the case, you wouldn't find articles on the net practically giving testimonials to Burton and Keaton's legacy to the franchise.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 05:00
It's a brutal silly war of comic nerds after all who need to shout loudest for their precious Nolan films to forever rule supreme.
Let's forget whether we prefer this take on Batman over the other for a moment and remind themselves:
all comic book-based movies are different to the comics. They might be inspired or take influences from some storylines, but they still take plenty of liberties. For every moment they get something "right" like Joker falling into a vat of acid to become who he is today, or Joe Chill murdering Bruce's parents, they'll get something "wrong" e.g. Joker murdering Bruce's parents, Ra's al Ghul playing a part in Bruce's destiny to become Batman. Nothing is 100% faithful to the source material. Especially if one interpretation frames himself for crimes he didn't commit and only lasts for a year.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 05:00
All I will say is that each and every Burton Hot Toys item sold like lightning in my local comic stores whereas Bale Batman product remains something of a self warmer. Something's clearly still appealing.
Which is absurd as to why they haven't released a Penguin or Catwoman toy yet. They made numerous Batman AND Bruce Wayne collectibles for both Burton and Nolan films, and no doubt we'll see more Dawn of Justice Batman collectibles...but no word of the BR villains? Bloody hell.
One thing that Bryan Singer's 2006 superhero movie taught us is that Superman- The Movie isn't the classic or the icon that the True Believers wanted us to believe it was. Most people under the age of 30 (at that time) had never even seen it.
In relation to that and to B89, the downside of the proliferation of superhero cinema is that some iterations will come to be overlooked. Keaton was "unforgettable" even in the late early 2000's... but a ton of other superheroes, not least which was Bale's Batman, have reduced his standing significantly.
It's undesirable but also unavoidable.
The other way of looking at it though is that their favorite version of Batman will also be forgotten... and it will probably occur faster than it did for B89. I'm not necessarily in a major rush to forget about Bale... but he's not really my favorite either.
And frankly, B89 is 26 years old.
I'm not saying that as a negative because the film still holds up remarkably well. But it's only really going to be brought up when the franchise is discussed as a whole piece, and if someone decides to rent or download the movie because they feel like revisiting it.
Things aren't truly forgotten. Time just simply moves forward, and everything merges with the great ocean that is cinema. Waiting for people to discover it all for themselves.
Sorry I had to fix my post to fix my age, it's 26 not 16. I'm glad the hot toys are selling well. None of them are selling at my comic shops here..but that may just be the area.
Talking about the bigger picture is what bothers me tho and that's because no one seems to want to talk about the burton films because they either haven't seen it, or find that it hasn't aged well. I think there is loads more to talk about the Burton films because of how subtle they are. Every one seems to just want to talk about Ledger and thats is and I don't really understand that...I think you could talk way more about dent.
I guess it's hard because I feel the Burton films (manly 89) did alot more right as a Batman film then the Nolan films (with the exception of Begins) and it's tough to find anyone interested in them (which is why this forum rocks!)
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 20:45
Talking about the bigger picture is what bothers me tho and that's because no one seems to want to talk about the burton films because they either haven't seen it, or find that it hasn't aged well. I think there is loads more to talk about the Burton films because of how subtle they are. Every one seems to just want to talk about Ledger and thats is and I don't really understand that...I think you could talk way more about dent.
People have their own reasons to like something, and it may not necessarily be the same as what everybody else thinks.
For example, I have a good friend of mine whom I've known for years (he's around the same age as you by the way) say that B89 is his favourite
Batman film because Michael Keaton remains his favourite in the role. He describes Keaton as a "an actor who knew how to play a man with a damaged psyche and have that impression that he could be crazy enough to dress as a bat", and he always appreciated Burton's use of Art Deco design to portray Gotham City.
However, he says that he loved TDK because he thought Heath Ledger was the best Joker he's seen, and even goes far to describe it as "
Joker's movie". What he means is that version of the Joker was the one who stole the spotlight out of everyone; not necessarily because the story is completely focused on the Joker as the main character.
Now keep in mind: this buddy of mine otherwise does NOT like Bale playing Bruce/Batman, or Nolan's take on the character. He hated BB, and he only liked TDKR because of Bane and Catwoman. Like I said, Ledger's performance completely won him over, despite the fact that he even agrees with a lot of my criticisms about TDK as a story. I respect the guy as a friend, but I never understood his explanations and we used to debate about this quite often (especially because I really didn't think Ledger's interpretation was all it was cracked up to be). Personally, if I thought the plot was subpar, then I tend to think the movie is bad - regardless if I liked one character or the performance.
Of course, I'm not saying that his opinion is indicative to most TDK fans. All I'm saying there are some people who tend to like a bit of both Burton and Nolan for their own personal reasons. It's just that Nolan gets more talked about because it's a more recent interpretation.
There are some fans here that prefer Batman Returns for DeVito and Pfeiffer, can't really blame them for the second reason, others that prefer Batman 1989 for the story, and Nolan fans as well, for Ledger, for the "gritty realism", or other reasons.
And believe or not, my cousin, who is not a Batman fan much, confessed he liked "the Batman film with Arnold" best. :)
If you tend to focus more on visuals and atmosphere than plot and, for lack of a better word, "high stakes" and intense action, the type of action that modern kids enjoy, Burton's Batman is unbeaten.
It's okay to like a Batman movie for any reason. Hell, I think B&R has a very energetic, very action-packed opening sequence which almost perfectly sets the context for everything that follows.
Part of it is a generational. As some kids/people only want to acknowledge the most recent interpretations over something that was popular decades ago, and the other part, to me, is the lack of promotion the Burton films have received over the past number of years. In some ways, I think the Adam West Batman was in the same exact boat to some extent, but over the course of the last 2-3 years, that particular incarnation of Batman has enjoyed a renaissance in promotion and merchandise that, if anything, brought it back into the public's attention, and quite possibly at the same time, lessened that negative mindset that the Adam West version was better left out to pasture, which was just absurd.
I've seen some stuff from the Burton films pop up from time to time, like shirts and statues, but certainly not to the extent that we've seen from the Adam West show has enjoyed in recent years. Not sure if there's something prohibiting this, or it's just simply WB wanting to put their focus on what's current, which makes sense, but it's always possible Batman'89/Returns will get a bigger push somewhere down the road. But no, it doesn't really surprise me that kids tend to forget about those films. Relevance plays a role... The same can probably be said for the Chris Reeve/Donner Superman the longer Cavill plays the role too.
As long as batman-online is around as well as other Bat-sites dedicated to preserving the memory and wonder of Burton's Bat-films, it would never be forgotten. One of the reasons I like channels like TCM and others is that it refreshes our memories of past, great films.
Batman is a superb film in my opinion and is one of the godfathers of the modern superhero cinema.
Forgotten?......Nah :)
When I see photos like this....
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F30jlm68.png&hash=c2e458475d2da4c9f352f6c674d8e98b723221e2)
The B89 love is rekindled in a big way. They really nailed Batman.
^ You can admire the willpower Batman had in that scene. Injured and bloodied, and he still emerges out of the Batwing wreckage and climbs up the cathedral with the determination to stop the Joker once and for all.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 2 May 2016, 10:39
^ You can admire the willpower Batman had in that scene. Injured and bloodied, and he still emerges out of the Batwing wreckage and climbs up the cathedral with the determination to stop the Joker once and for all.
Still one of the best Batman moments put to film. It has everything. The warehouse fight scene in BvS would be in my second place.
the entire batwing segment is as epic a sequence in any superhero film;
-the joker parade to the prince music
-batman flying in on the batwing to save gotham
-"why didn't anyone tell me he had one of those things? ....bob. Gun. " BANG
-the batwing flying up and forming the bat signal on the moon. One of the most iconic shots in any bat film
I have full faith that kids today would enjoy the burton films far more than the Nolan ones. Tim Burton is fairly popular too so I'm sure plenty of non-batman fans enjoy it for the Burton factor.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 2 May 2016, 13:45
the entire batwing segment is as epic a sequence in any superhero film;
From the Axis destruction onwards, B89 is running on all cylinders. Batman has a clear purpose along with The Joker. Batman wants to take down Napier once and for all, and Napier's endgame is in full swing - planning to gas everyone into his own likeness. I also think it works so well because it's an evenly fought contest. Batman steals the balloons but Joker shoots down the batwing. Batman keeps moving up the stairs and into the belfry, but he's met by a bunch of goons and Ray Charles on steroids. He finally meets the Joker but he's then dangling off a balcony for his life. B89 is often called gothic, but when it comes down to it, the film is simply fun to watch. That's why it has endured for so long.
It's been 25 years and the film is still being celebrated. It will get brought up every time a batman film comes up as a comparative especially since it was the first dark one. Even the Adam west one is still celebrated 50 years later and the Burton ones are more popular. If anything I'd fear the Nolan films will be forgotten due to how unwatchable they are on a repeated viewing.
Just the other day, I kinda got into a comic book movie discussion with a female co-worker, we're about the same age, but she's married, has kids, and all that jazz, and upon me making the statement about being excited about Jared Leto's Joker after we started talking about Batman movies, she replied that even though her husband likes Heath Ledger's Joker the best, she still prefer's Jack Nicholson's Joker...
Kinda warmed my cold, black heart hearing that. :D
Good to hear. I think Nicholson brings to mind elements of Romero with a darker shade applied. Eg. before he vandalizes an art gallery he gasses everybody inside, except for the woman he's stalking.
While we're on the subject of B89 appreciation, here's this article dated from two years ago I just saw on this site's social media feed.
Quote
Why Tim Burton's Batman Is Still the Best
The man behind the bat, and Gotham, were weirder and more interesting
BY STEVE BRYANT
JUN 23, 2014
Tim Burton's Batman was released June 23, 1989, 25 years ago today, and it is the best mainstream comic-book movie ever made.
Not just the best Batman movie, but the best movie based on characters from the two major comic book publishers: Marvel, and "magazines published by DC Comics," as it says in the opening credits of Burton's film.
This is a near-heretical point of view among fanboys of funny-underwear films. Hell, it's probably a near-heretical point of view among guys named Michael Keaton, to judge from the premise of his upcoming Birdman, so please feel free to skip to the comments and batarang me with your contempt. As a friend said when I first volunteered my pro-Burton, pro-Keaton, pro-Nicholson-in-wackadoodle-whiteface opinion: "You're trolling, right?"
No, not trolling. Batman '89 is superior for several reasons, but two stand out: The Burtonverse is more richly nuanced than any other onscreen comic universe, and Michael Keaton is a better Bruce Wayne than his peers. He's the more compelling man behind the bat.
Back in '89, there was no joy in Mudville when Keaton was revealed as the Dark Knight. Here was a guy who was best known as Beetlejuice (grubby undead, lives in a train set) and Mr. Mom (feckless dad, lives in a diaper). As an actor chosen to play The Bat, Keaton didn't have what comic fanboys call a good origin story. I mean, we're talking about Bill Blazejowski here. His career was as weird as his eyebrows.
But the origin story — that essential background that provides the "why?" behind the "WTF?" — is exactly what Keaton and Burton (and scriptwriter Sam Hamm) got right.
The movie has an elegant and simple psychology: boy's parents killed, man seeks vengeance. It's a timeless storyline (see: Montoya, Inigo). And the brilliant part is that, in Burton's Batman, the audience is left to imagine exactly how Bruce Wayne grew into a weird, darkly obsessive, and deeply flawed man.
(That, by the way, is what we want from our heroes: They need to be flawed like us, but powerful beyond reckoning. Hence why we care about the infidelities of CEOs, and read Us Weekly to find out that "Stars — They're Just Like Us." The rich and famous are the closest we have to real-life superbeings, sadly.)
Keaton's Wayne is just like us. He's awkward at parties. He drives a 1978 Plymouth Volare. He invites Vicki Vale to dinner, then sits at the other end of the table. When Vale wakes up, he's doing Pilates.
But this! This is a guy who plausibly dresses up like a bat. Or, as Slaughterhouse Magazine wrote back in '89: "This Batman, you could believe, was insane."
By contrast, Christopher Nolan's Wayne is a narcissistic Boy Scout and a paragon of virtue, just like his do-no-wrong dad. There's no catharsis there. In '89 Batman, the stakes are that Bruce Wayne might be cuckoo. In 2005 Batman, the stakes are that Bruce Wayne might make Katie Holmes sniffle. Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale stripped Bruce Wayne of his dark side and turned him into a spoiled billionaire, like Tony Stark. Their movies suffer for it.
Speaking of Tony Stark: Iron Man (2008) is the only other mainstream comic film that holds a candle to '89 Batman. Jon Favreau got the origin story right, and Robert Downey Jr. was aces at being a frustratingly competent douchebag. But Iron Man has never been the most compelling hero. At the end of the day, he's a billionaire in an armored suit fighting other billionaires in armored suits. It's all very Robot Jox.
As for Spider-Man, X-Men, and The Dark Knight Rises: They're all competent movies, but each suffers from the Law of Too Many Villains. You could make a case that 2008's The Dark Knight is a great flick, but the only great part of that film was Heath Ledger. The series still falters on Bale's version of Wayne and Nolan's boring, glammed-out Gotham.
Which brings me back to my first point about '89 Batman: Burton created the most nuanced Gotham.
Look again at the details. The year on the newspapers is 1947, but the wanted poster for Jack Napier says 1989. Wayne Manor is gothic tudor, but Wayne's personal car is a Plymouth. Vicki Vale wears an '80s Parisian frock, but the other women dress like they're from the '40s. Villains use Tommy Guns. Newspapermen use flashbulbs. Gangsters dress like Al Capone's mob. This is a fully realized universe — it's almost as if a seedy 1947 existed inside a steampunk 1989.
Most superhero movies skip these details. They spend their ducats on SFX lasers and CGI villains. But it's the man behind the mask, and where that man lives, that make all the difference. 1989 Batman for the win.
Source: http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a29063/tim-burton-batman-the-best/
One of the reasons why I think Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck are the two best live action Batmen to date is because they both portray the protagonist as psychologically unstable. One is possibly arrested in development because he has no real close ties to anybody else other than Alfred, except for a few romantic relationships that end prematurely. The feeling that he has to go out there and do something about corrupt society shows how broken he is over his parents deaths, and can't move forward to live a normal life. The other carries mental scars of hopelessness, heartbreak and feeling like a failure despite all the good deeds he has done. He might live the facade of the playboy lifestyle, but the nightmares still haunt him.
In my opinion, a mortal man who could go outside every night to risk his own life would have some serious psychological issues, no matter how well-meaning he is. The same thing can be said about Oliver Queen in the first two seasons of Arrow, and Daredevil.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 19 May 2016, 12:39
One of the reasons why I think Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck are the two best live action Batmen to date is because they both portray the protagonist as psychologically unstable.
Agreed. I connect with that element anyway.
Don't forget Val Kilmer, he also had that psychological aspect.
Bale is the worst portrayal of the character, IMO.
Affleck and Keaton are deeply scarred by the murder. In B89, we see Bruce laying flowers at Crime Alley, remembering the murder itself via memories and asking Alfred for archive newspapers documenting the event. Affleck wakes up in a panic after having a graphic nightmare of his parent's crypt, and visits the crypt again for real later in the film. Flashing back to the murder at the utterance of Martha goes to show how ingrained it all is. Which I think is great. As soon as Batman gets over that traumatic childhood event, he ceases to be that haunted character we all know and love. With Affleck and Keaton, more than the others, I believe Batman is their true passion in life, and they will stay up at all hours like restless spirits. Their mind always ticking over and on task.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 20 May 2016, 14:25
Affleck and Keaton are deeply scarred by the murder. In B89, we see Bruce laying flowers at Crime Alley, remembering the murder itself via memories and asking Alfred for archive newspapers documenting the event. Affleck wakes up in a panic after having a graphic nightmare of his parent's crypt, and visits the crypt again for real later in the film. Flashing back to the murder at the utterance of Martha goes to show how ingrained it all is. Which I think is great. As soon as Batman gets over that traumatic childhood event, he ceases to be that haunted character we all know and love. With Affleck and Keaton, more than the others, I believe Batman is their true passion in life, and they will stay up at all hours like restless spirits. Their mind always ticking over and on task.
Couldn't agree more.