Batman Resurrections, set immediately after B89, is being released October 15.
Here's the synopsis:
QuoteThe Joker is dead, but not forgotten. Gotham City is saved, but it is still not safe. By night, its new symbol of hope, Batman, continues his fight to protect the innocent and the powerless. By day, his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, wonders whether there may someday be a future beyond skulking the city's rooftops or the cavernous halls of his stately manor alongside the ever-dutiful Alfred Pennyworth.
But even after death, the Clown Prince of Crime's imprint can be seen in more than just the pavement. Remnants from The Joker's gang are leading wannabes fascinated by his bizarre mystique on a campaign of arson that threatens the city—even as it serves greedy opportunists, including millionaire Max Shreck. And survivors of exposure to The Joker's chemical weapon Smylex continue to crowd Gotham City's main hospital.
To quell the chaos, Batman needs more than his cape and his well-stocked Utility Belt. Bruce Wayne is forced into action, prompting a partnership with a charismatic scientist to help solve the health crisis. But as he works in both the shadows and the light, Bruce finds himself drawn deeper into Gotham City's turmoil than ever before, fueling his obsession to save the city—an obsession that has already driven a wedge between him and Vicki Vale. The loyal Alfred, who had hoped Bruce's efforts as Batman could help him find closure, finds the opposite happening. Nightmares begin to prompt Bruce to ask new questions about the climactic events in the cathedral, and investigations by Commissioner Gordon and reporter Alexander Knox into the arsons only amplify his concerns.
Having told the people of Gotham City that they'd earned a rest from crime, Batman finds the forces of evil growing ever more organized—and orchestrated—by a sinister hand behind the scenes. The World's Greatest Detective must solve the greatest mystery of all: Could The Joker have somehow survived? And could he still have the last laugh against the people of Gotham City?
This sounds
way more appealing to me than the comics set after Returns. I especially love that it's going to be a novel, allowing the author to really dig in to the psychological elements and really flesh out details. Not showing costume designs or city aesthetics allows us to imagine them ourselves which I think has more power and a sense of authenticity, especially when the comics don't match up with what we think. I'll be keeping an eye on this.
Pre-order links here:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/750157/batman-resurrection-by-john-jackson-miller/
I'll definitely be picking this one up. I think a novel is the proper medium for this kind of story.
While the Burton films were masterpieces by themselves, they lacked continuity when looked at as a complete story. Here's a chance to really explore that period in between movies and create a smoother transition.
While my enjoyment of the story won't hinge on it, I'm curious if any of the previous Batman '89 continuities will be adhered to. Even if it's not an active thought, I predict it won't conflict with the comic or Batman Forever.
I'm in with that "Batman Resurrections" book.
Sounds like a fun read!
Quote from: Slash Man on Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 00:22While the Burton films were masterpieces by themselves, they lacked continuity when looked at as a complete story. Here's a chance to really explore that period in between movies and create a smoother transition.
The novel showing Vicki and Bruce breaking away from each other can give her absence in Returns more meaning. I like the Smylex poisoning victims clogging Gotham hospitals subplot, and I think Shreck will be introduced at some point in the story. It would be neat if he's behind these coordinated arson attacks, just as he used the Red Triangle Circus Gang to force a mayoral recall. A clean segue in to Returns would be good, or at least planting seeds to show where the story will eventually lead.
I like the idea of Max Shreck being expanded upon in this "Resurrections" book, as I think the author can really build upon what we saw out of Max in BR. We get the idea that Bruce and Max were acquainted with one another in BR, and we understand that the business relationship is contentious to say the least, but what led up to that? If, evidently, the aftermath of the Joker's smylex attack on Gotham City is going to be more elaborated upon (and this can go into some incredibly dark places if the author chooses so), I can easily see Max, being the opportunist that he is, swooping in with PR stunts to curry favor with the Gothamites for his own gain. Max was presented as nearly 'untouchable' in BR as far as lawfare goes, but what transpired between B89 and BR for Max to get to that level?
Going back to the aftermath of the Joker's attack on Gotham, I can't help but think of 1954's "Gojira", where following Godzilla's attack on Japan, we see images of people who survived the attack itself, but are now dying of radiation poisoning. With children crying and distraught over their parents slowly dying in front of them, ect. You just know the Joker's "Gotham Shopping Nightmare" had equally horrific outcomes. You made it thru? Great! Now how about every member of your family who lives in Gotham? Your friends? Co-workers? How many famous Gotham socialites perished? I can't imagine it was just models Candy Walker and Amanda Keeler whom unknowingly poisoned themselves with Joker's brand...
If Max was involved in criminal activity in Resurrection (likely) it'd be a neat touch to have him flush it down the drain, which ultimately Penguin shows him in shredded form when he's kidnapped.
It makes me wonder if the author will go as far as explaining Knox's absence in Returns. It's not entirely necessary, because he could absolutely still exist in Gotham but he just wasn't shown again in the films. Or he could've left town after a broken heart or maybe something more sinister happened.
I'd be interested to read about where Joker's body was taken and what they did with it. Perhaps that side of things is heavily obscured by the authorities which leads Bruce to question what really could have happened.
But there would have to be something highly convincing to make such a fall seem survivable if Bruce starts to believe he could still be alive. That's going to be where the story works or doesn't given it seems to be the main crux of this story.
What was done with the Joker's body will be interesting to read play out in the book, especially with the notion of there being remaining Joker goons still at large. Makes me wonder if there's going to be some sort of influence from Detective #64 "The Joker Walks the Last Mile"? Leading the reader to consider the possibility of a Joker return without making it necessarily concrete. I kinda like the idea that we will continually be primed to believe in the notion of the Joker's resurrection/survivial, only for there to be a twist where not all is what it seems. Sorta like a Keyser Soze/Andy Kaufman situation, where due to the Joker's legend and perception, even post-death, can leave someone to believe in something that normally one would consider highly improbable in pretty much any other case.
Honestly, with the whole "Return of the Joker" idea, I can't help but think of Sunsoft's video game sequel to their B89 game that came out back in 1991 I think. Even if it's just very tangentially. As I think the "Resurrections" book will greatly expand upon the idea of such a thing, where the video game was straightforward and very simplistic (I think in the Sega Genesis version, the Joker simply rises up from the Cathedral fall. lol).
I remember as a kid both Vicki and Knox being completely absent in BR was kinda glaring (was that purely coincidental or not? I guess the book will answer this?). Sorta makes me wonder how the book will address both characters. Not saying I want this to happen, but it could be very amusing if Vicki winds up entertaining Knox as a potential romantic interest. Especially following her eventual disillusionment with having a relationship with Bruce. Sure, it would very much be a Joe Jackson "Is she really going out with him?" type of situation for sure, but maybe simple and goofy becomes more appealing following a very complex relationship with Bruce? As much as we see Knox following Vicki around like a lost puppy dog, it's easy to decipher who would be the alpha in that relationship. ;D
Hi, just wanted to let everyone know that I moved this topic to its own thread. Having said that...
Wha?!
I have a sneaky suspicion that this novel is the direct result of the '89 comic book's success. As you know, the editor of the first mini series, Andy Khouri, let it be known to the public that the '89 comic sold "a ton" of books and was considered not only a success, but blew through expectations. Even the hardcover edition went into a second printing and then some. Considering that physical media is dead that is saying something.
What is clear is that customers are not just buying, but devouring new stories set in the Burton Universe, so somebody at WB pushed the button. This is the next step. I never thought I'd see the day when Burton's Batman got an expanded novel universe, but here we are.
The synopsis sounds like a great start. Max Shreck seems to be positioned as a big antagonist, maybe the puppet master. This was something I toyed with when I was trying my hand at fan fiction. Max Shreck ushers in a new era of villainy. Down goes the mob, the Empire of Grissom, in comes the corporation. Can't wait.
That's what you love to hear. On these "riskier" projects, I do tend to vote with my wallet and buy in person when it's new.
It's funny that the Batman '89 pitch was originally rejected in the wake of Batman '66's success. Did they miss out back then, or was this deliberate to help stagger the releases? It worked out with both series' having periods of renewed interest.
What's interesting is that the BTAS comic series was cancelled due to disappointing sales. It apparently lost when going head to head with Batman '89. I assumed BTAS had a larger fanbase, but more people were buying 89 (I was buying both).
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 15 Apr 2024, 14:49What is clear is that customers are not just buying, but devouring new stories set in the Burton Universe, so somebody at WB pushed the button. This is the next step. I never thought I'd see the day when Burton's Batman got an expanded novel universe, but here we are.
When I think about future Burtonverse novels, the immediate aftermath of B89 would be the holy grail. The only other project that could generate similar excitement for me would be a prequel to B89, detailing Batman's early appearances such as the Johnny Gobbs encounter. Throw in a side plot involving Grissom and his gang, with details about Bruce's travels and arsenal collection. If Resurrection is a success that's where I'd like the story to go. Anything that goes beyond Returns is hypothetical in execution - at least lead in content has connective tissue to lean on that can help enrich the films themselves. And whether I like it or not, the comics are handling that part of the timeline already.
One thing I want to share that's making me anxious:
I hope that the author, John Jackson Miller, does not make the mistake of losing '89 in pursuit of fan service, in particular the kind where he attempts to appease 'fans' by trying to make the '89 Batman 'more like the comics.' I mean no offense, but I think I'm allowed to speak frankly in this company, but if I want the 'comic book' Batman I need only pick up a comic. I want a story about the '89 Batman, where we find his voice, crawl into his head space, and take 'Earth-89' on its own terms. That's the right way: Bruce Wayne, charismatic in a distant and aloof sort of way, uncomfortable in his skin, and Batman, still, quiet, and when he does speak he is short, curbed, and to the point. Capture that. As much as I love Hamm's work, so much of what he's doing feels like he's trying to bring Back 'HIS' Batman from the pages of 1986, not deal with Batman as he appeared finalized on movie screens.
I don't think that's a controversial take. Ironically, I think it's when follow-ups are handled by the original creatives, they're more likely to take liberties and switch things up because the original isn't some kind of sacred cow to them.
Now part of my issue with Batman '89 departing from the source material was that the visuals were leaning way too hard into Batman TAS territory. It went beyond Easter egg territory to become distracting. They're similar in their tone and inspiration, but you can't just copy and past stuff without reason. Michael Gough, who has always been clean-shaven, suddenly grows a mustache. Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne suddenly wears a yellow and brown suit.
All of that is to say that I think it's actually ideal that a fan is writing this. They'd know the importance of adhering to the source; just the fact that this takes place between movies requires a significant appreciation of the films.
Quote from: Slash Man on Tue, 16 Apr 2024, 23:27Now part of my issue with Batman '89 departing from the source material was that the visuals were leaning way too hard into Batman TAS territory. It went beyond Easter egg territory to become distracting.
Agreed. It went too far in that direction. I'm all for expansion (it has to happen if more stories are to be told) but the comics smoothed the Burtonverse out to be something more conventional.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 16 Apr 2024, 10:21When I think about future Burtonverse novels, the immediate aftermath of B89 would be the holy grail. The only other project that could generate similar excitement for me would be a prequel to B89, detailing Batman's early appearances such as the Johnny Gobbs encounter.
Back to this. A novel set
immediately after Returns, not weeks or months later, would also interest me a lot too. Deal with Batman having his name cleared, the aftermath of Penguin's deception, what came of Max's company, Bruce longing for Selina (more sightings that amount to nothing) and perhaps the remnants of the circus gang. If the first book sells these projects become more of a possibility.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMNEomLXMAAvRQr?format=jpg&name=large)
This novel sounds promising and should make for ideal October reading in the run-up to Halloween. I'd prefer Miller to disregard Hamm's comics and craft his own canon. Mainly because I think there's a superior version of Billy Dee Two-Face to be written, and prose offers a better medium with which to explore Dent's psychological deterioration.
I'd also like Miller to address the immediate aftermath of the 1989 movie. Bruce was badly injured, the wreckage of the Batwing lay burning in the streets, and countless Gothamites had been murdered by the Joker. I'd like some insight into how Bruce and the city in general healed following the Joker's reign of terror.
I'd also like to read about the first proper meeting between Batman and Gordon. Gordon sees Batman during the battle at Axis Chemicals but doesn't speak to him, then we see them talking after the first Red Triangle Gang attack in Batman Returns. There's a missing stage in their relationship that should take place between those two conversations, and which could offer fertile ground for Miller to explore.
To echo what others have said, the author vitally needs to capture the idiosyncrasies of Burton's Batman, not simply write this as if it were the generic comic book version. Burton's Batman is distinct from other iterations, and the novel should respect those distinctions.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 4 May 2024, 19:06I'd also like Miller to address the immediate aftermath of the 1989 movie. Bruce was badly injured, the wreckage of the Batwing lay burning in the streets, and countless Gothamites had been murdered by the Joker. I'd like some insight into how Bruce and the city in general healed following the Joker's reign of terror.
I'd see no problem with the Batwing pieces being sold off as merchandise plotline being used here officially rather than remaining an unused script idea. Even if the author can somehow sprinkle in how the Batmobile's blueprints were eventually obtained.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 4 May 2024, 19:06I'd also like to read about the first proper meeting between Batman and Gordon. Gordon sees Batman during the battle at Axis Chemicals but doesn't speak to him, then we see them talking after the first Red Triangle Gang attack in Batman Returns. There's a missing stage in their relationship that should take place between those two conversations, and which could offer fertile ground for Miller to explore.
I'd like something like this too, but I'd prefer it to be handled very carefully. Their relationship seems more hands off and terse even in Returns. I can't imagine anything traditional like the 60s show, or even Nolan. I quite like the idea they communicate mostly with notes, with face to face meetings being very minimal.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 6 May 2024, 09:58I'd like something like this too, but I'd prefer it to be handled very carefully. Their relationship seems more hands off and terse even in Returns. I can't imagine anything traditional like the 60s show, or even Nolan. I quite like the idea they communicate mostly with notes, with face to face meetings being very minimal.
I can imagine Hingle's Gordon never quite losing his initial fear of Batman. He grows to trust him, yes, but he's still scared of him. Keaton's Bruce might intentionally cultivate that fear, even among his allies, in order to keep them at bay and prevent them from getting too close to him. That's obviously not what we see in the Schumacher films, where Batman and Gordon appear relaxed in one another's company. But compare that with their interaction in Batman Returns – where Batman doesn't stand still or even look at Gordon and responds tersely when speaking to him – and we see evidence of a more distant relationship between the two.
Maybe Batman kept walking in BR because he didn't want Gordon looking too closely at his face for fear he'd recognise him, similar to how he kept turning away from Vicki and keeping to the shadows when he took her to the Batcave in the 1989 film. Again, this novel needs to show us the Burton Batman, not the comic book version. Seeing how someone so secretive builds a trusting communication channel with his allies, while simultaneously trying to maintain his distance from them, is an intriguing avenue for the novel to explore.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 4 May 2024, 19:06I'd also like to read about the first proper meeting between Batman and Gordon. Gordon sees Batman during the battle at Axis Chemicals but doesn't speak to him, then we see them talking after the first Red Triangle Gang attack in Batman Returns. There's a missing stage in their relationship that should take place between those two conversations, and which could offer fertile ground for Miller to explore.
I never noticed that, but you're right. Perhaps this happened after the death of the Joker, but before the Bat-Signal was unveiled.
It should be noted that the synopsis has been updated and extended.
QuoteThe Joker is dead, but not forgotten. Gotham City is saved, but it is still not safe. By night, its new symbol of hope, Batman, continues his fight to protect the innocent and the powerless. By day, his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, wonders whether there may someday be a future beyond skulking the city's rooftops or the cavernous halls of his stately manor alongside the ever-dutiful Alfred Pennyworth.
But even after death, the Clown Prince of Crime's imprint can be seen in more than just the pavement. Remnants from The Joker's gang are leading wannabes fascinated by his bizarre mystique on a campaign of arson that threatens the city—even as it serves greedy opportunists, including millionaire Max Shreck. And survivors of exposure to The Joker's chemical weapon Smylex continue to crowd Gotham City's main hospital.
To quell the chaos, Batman needs more than his cape and his well-stocked Utility Belt. Bruce Wayne is forced into action, prompting a partnership with a charismatic scientist to help solve the health crisis. But as he works in both the shadows and the light, Bruce finds himself drawn deeper into Gotham City's turmoil than ever before, fueling his obsession to save the city—an obsession that has already driven a wedge between him and Vicki Vale. The loyal Alfred, who had hoped Bruce's efforts as Batman could help him find closure, finds the opposite happening. Nightmares begin to prompt Bruce to ask new questions about the climactic events in the cathedral, and investigations by Commissioner Gordon and reporter Alexander Knox into the arsons only amplify his concerns.
Having told the people of Gotham City that they'd earned a rest from crime, Batman finds the forces of evil growing ever more organized—and orchestrated—by a sinister hand behind the scenes. The World's Greatest Detective must solve the greatest mystery of all: Could The Joker have somehow survived? And could he still have the last laugh against the people of Gotham City?
The big additions are an unnamed 'charismatic scientist' and the inclusion of Alexander Knox.
Based on that outline, it sounds like this novel is making better use of Burtonverse lore than Hamm's comic did.
I've read the entire novel. My thoughts in brief are that it is a very solid book that is not in line with your typical tie in books, which are typically breezy, thin, afternoon novellas that can be devoured quickly. This book is much more in line with that of a proper novel, ambitious in its telling, embellishing the world and the head spaces of the main characters. However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned. He's much closer to the mark than Hamm's comic, but you still see it run off course. The novel stumbles when it needlessly tries to answer what it thinks are dangling questions from the first film, questions that frankly already had sufficient answers in the film or didn't need addressing.
I'd still give the prose and the crisp, professional hand of John Miller praise enough to give this a solid 7.5 out of ten and a hardy recommendation to ardent 89 fans.
Also, be on the look out for the just announced sequel, also penned by Miller, entitled BATMAN: REVOLUTION...spoiler likely a Riddler story.. That's all from me until we get into discussions.
I didn't know this was a thing. I may just buy it for my kindle.
Thanks for the heads up. 😎👍
Thanks for your thoughts, GK. My copy is yet to arrive. I'm expecting to feel similar to you. A decent read that generally does a good job, but not without niggles.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 16 Oct 2024, 14:15However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned.
Not surprising. Any Burton continuation that has a closer relationship with Gordon or has references to Arkham Asylum gets an automatic red mark against it from me. These things didn't happen in the first two films and I see no reason they would have in a third. I believe Resurrection features a scene of Batman in daylight, and while that was an unused idea for B89, it nonetheless didn't feature and I just can't imagine this incarnation doing that.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 17 Oct 2024, 12:21Thanks for your thoughts, GK. My copy is yet to arrive. I'm expecting to feel similar to you. A decent read that generally does a good job, but not without niggles.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 16 Oct 2024, 14:15However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned.
Not surprising. Any Burton continuation that has a closer relationship with Gordon or has references to Arkham Asylum gets an automatic red mark against it from me. These things didn't happen in the first two films and I see no reason they would have in a third. I believe Resurrection features a scene of Batman in daylight, and while that was an unused idea for B89, it nonetheless didn't feature and I just can't imagine this incarnation doing that.
Yes, TDK, you are correct. The scene would have played better if Bruce had to makeshift a disguise or put on a balaclava mask during this daylight scene. Instead it has to explicitly be a daylight batsuit with gray on it because gray is comic book. End spoiler.
As for Batman, I accept some of the character expansions because it does allow for understanding why the GCPD endorsed this version and the scene where it is most prominent involves children who are in need of rescue, so I can only complain so much. It really is a solid book that I'm anxious to discuss. Waiting on you guys!
To tell you the truth I would have liked Resurrection to feature no new villains at all and instead focus on Bruce's ruminations, the remnants of Joker's gang and the beginnings of Max Shreck's string pulling. I have no idea how much time the author is putting in between the two films but I never felt it was terribly large. I like the idea The Penguin being the second villain Batman faced after a period of relative calm following Joker's death. These books rewrite all that if readers are willing to consider them canon.
I'm a little over halfway through the book, and I would generally say it's a very good Batman story, but for a Burton Batman follow up, it does have some hiccups. Even as someone who is perfectly happy for Keaton's Wayne to become more like the comics version, for me it needs to be post-Returns to make the most sense.
(spoilers) His verbosity is less-than correct, while in a written format, you're going to be inside his head so I expected to "hear" more from Wayne (so to speak), I do feel he talks too openly to people. Also, he's a bit too-known around town, nor do I care for him having a relationship with someone else. Keaton's Wayne didn't feel like a playboy at all and more of a hermit. Miller pays lip-service at one point to Bruce having been more of a background character, but that falls off as we go on. I wouldn't have minded a small appearance from Julie Madison as someone trying to catch Bruce's attention (because comics easter egg and that's fun), but to me, if his relationship with Vicki is on-the-rocks, he should be a bit more reclusive in all aspects--not dating someone like he's comics Wayne.
I don't mind the daylight scene, as if I recall it takes place at dusk, and the idea of an alternate suit that's easier to conceal/put on being a different color is fine. The more niggling aspects that I don't like are the two moments where Miller feels the need to try to fill "gaps" in the film's logic, drawing direct attention to things that are sometimes whined about by certain fanboys. We don't need to bother drawing attention to where the goons in the cathedral came from, nor whether Napier knew Batman's identity when he said he "was a kid when [he] killed" the Waynes. That feels like pedantic fanboyism, the same that's all over Peter David's novelization of Batman Forever and it's tacky. (end spoilers)
As I said, I'm only a little over halfway and overall I'm pleased enough, but I'm also firmly of a personal mindset that the perfect follow-up to Burton's movies are Schumacher's, so things that feel like they want to further separate the two film eras or re-contextualize what the Schumacher films said for the continuity will always be kept at-arm's-length for me, so things in this that don't mesh perfectly with our understanding of this universe don't really offend me all that much. I just look at it as another branched timeline, like in The Flash. While I was hoping for a product that I'd be able to reconcile with the existing four film chronology, but if it doesn't, oh well.
I have to wonder if making Keaton's Wayne seem more like the standard Batman might be some kind of DC Comics mandate. I dunno if anyone on-high would really care if one particular Batman was portrayed as a bit more bloodthirsty and vicious (since variants like that still come up in Elseworlds comics), but with the weird washover Sam Hamm did on Keaton's Batman in his '89 comics ("I'm not a killer, Selina" -_-), it's making me wonder. Not that I think Keaton's Wayne sets out to kill primarily (like some fanboys want to pretend), but like the Golden Age version, sometimes he just don't give a damn.
Smaller observations aside, the portrayal of the villain so far is great, as I was worried they were going to go grounded with him, and his P.O.V. and tragic nature feels right at home in a Tim Burton-adjacent product. Tim would have definitely played with the same angle, I feel.
My expectations for the back-half of the book: (spoilers) I'm hoping that Bruce's emotional state starts to trend darker, and considering that we may be looking at Napier being alive (which better not turn out to be true since I think that's silly), that might make sense. Considering that a sequel novel was announced, that's further potential for Bruce to turn into the lonely, vicious wretch we saw in Returns, and for me to be overall satisfied with Jackson's work, it's going to have to get-us to a point that feels like it leads into the second film perfectly, otherwise, what was the point? Bruce being more verbose, trying to become more of a public figure and other questionable aspects of this novel will be forgiven by me if we end in the correct place.
The idea that Keaton's Wayne was superficially more like the comics version for a time before trending darker is acceptable to me, allowing for his redemption in Forever to really signify a shift in his overall character, like I personally read-into the final moments of Returns. Let's face it, aside from being very silent and a hermit, he isn't too off-model from the comics in '89 until he discovers who killed his parents--THAT's when he starts killing in the film, so I've always accepted that the sudden opportunity for vengeance warped him and his moral fiber.
Thanks for the overview, Doc. I've accepted that nothing will feel like a legitimate continuation of the Burton duology and we don't need connective tissue in between the films anyway. The questions Resurrections seeks to answer never perplexed me and we can already answer them ourselves. Bruce simply being reclusive and not spending enough time with Vicki is enough reason why they separated. Also, Joker saying "I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." I mean, how childish can you get?" can be taken at face value if we want. I'll still read the book (it's on the way anyway) but my expectations have been tempered.
Another huge spoiler I think will be a big topic of discussion: The Batman '89 comic is definitely canon, which is a tad odd considering that Miller went out of his way to say that it wasn't necessarily canon, but that Resurrection wouldn't step on its toes. Batman'89 is absolutely canon, as Drake Winston of Royal Auto has a cameo. Also, it should be noted that something the current run of the '89 comic has been hinting at now makes sense. '89: Echoes has referenced Hugo Strange several times as Crane's former mentor and Bruce keeps mentioning that Hugo worked for him in the past. This now makes sense and also explains why the comic has been delayed several times: These two stories overlap. Hugo did in fact work for Wayne...in Resurrection under the alias of Hugh Auslander and is the principle villain of the novel. So, yeah, these stories literally cross over with each other. I expect the final issues will lay this out.
Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"
Anyway it will be interesting to hear what people thing about that.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 15:14
Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"
LOL! I find this hilarious for some reason.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaxqHyiWkAA6mX0?format=jpg&name=medium)
Alfred Pennyworth. Not just a butler. He's also ahead of the curve.
Okay, here's my spoilery final thoughts about the book, having finished it (not bothering to blackout the text, so beware):
It's a good Batman novel, but a crappy Burton continuation. The story continuity is great, but the character continuity, as I stated before, is not great. Once Clayface starts impersonating the Joker (along with the possible mystery of whether Napier is actually alive), Bruce never starts becoming bitter or angry or especially more driven... basically making Napier as the murderer of his parents into something unimportant, when that's some silly B.S. because anyone could see how intense he was getting in the cathedral fight with the guy. If the bastard suddenly reappeared, you'd think this would stir something else in Wayne. Granted, from the beginning, Bruce has his doubts about the possibility (and was right, thankfully), he still ought to have some deep, dark internal reaction to the idea.
I like the idea of introducing Hugo Strange to the Burtonverse (especially since he's a proper monster-maker like the comics), but having to try to make him someone we actually saw on-screen for two seconds is just hilarious. Strange could have had the same effect on the story by having been a distant player in the background. His role as a mad scientist who was responsible for the chemical the Joker turned into Smylex was good enough and made fair sense (since, even though the film itself hardly says it, Napier did take an existing compound and adjust it). I suppose him being the Axis Chemicals scientist doesn't hurt anything, but it feels like some overreaching fanboy writing.
The biggest issue for me overall, though, goes back to what I've said before--Batman feels all wrong. He's too chatty and too open to the citizens, which doesn't line-up with Returns' portrayal of the character. The sequel novel has a lot of work on its plate to explain how he goes from feeling like a standard bronze age Batman to the guy we see in the 2nd film. Of course, I can make the same complaint with why he feels so different from the guy we saw in '89. Keaton's portrayal was just too quiet and emotionally restrained to line up with what Miller wrote.
It's a shame, because once we got to Act IV and Vicki came back, it started to give me what I wanted--a peak into the downfall of their relationship, and it felt pretty spot-on at first, but by the time it ends, they're basically cheerily saying goodbye to each other. Miller pays some lip-service to it being bittersweet, but he basically does nothing with it. At least Miller doesn't try to ignore Keaton's Wayne having killed. He doesn't kill in this book (and again, I don't wait for it), but Miller at least had a line about him being willing to go farther, hence the guns on his vehicles. Speaking of which, two new vehicles are added to the fleet (a strange hovering platform and a Batcopter), one is mentioned to have machine guns. Also, the final confrontation being at the cathedral again is just lame fan service, especially because there's no reason for it and it ends up having no effect on Bruce's mood--basically the only reason you'd care to revisit the location (and this is coming from a guy whose favorite movie location of all time is Gotham Cathedral!
It's so close to being great, but the things I mentioned before are the overall death-knell for it's rather boutique appeal: Bruce is very wrong and the random fanboy writing to explain things in '89 that didn't need it (goons in the cathedral/did Napier know). Those elements were brought up AGAIN at the end, with Bruce explaining that a prison snitch explained the thugs in the cathedral were placed there to watch for FBI interference into the parade (that's a pretty random thing for a criminal to be questioned about, dontcha think?)
It's a shame because there's tons of great stuff in the book. The fallout of Smylex, it having different variants with different effects (hence Clayface), the fall of the Vicki/Bruce relationship, thugs still worshiping the Joker, the rise of Max Schrek, the beginnings of a relationship with Harvey Dent and the early stirrings of the Red Triangle Circus Gang are all great things to explore and are mostly well done--but to paraphrase Michael Keaton himself, "if [my] character doesn't work, this [book] doesn't work." If Bruce just felt more on-model (and thus it could fit logically into the movie world), the other complaints would melt away.
We'll see if the next book changes how I feel.
I'm a slow reader, so I'll be posting some thoughts as I'm making my way through it.
It's apparent early on that Miller is a geek for continuity like the rest of us. I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)
There's also fixation on some points that some consider continuity errors. Funny enough, both seem to be the result of post-production changes. When Batman wonders why there are goons in the cathedral, this was probably a result of Jon Peters adding additional action scenes to the film, seeing as the sequence was not present in the novelization or later scripts. There's only one logical explanation though; they followed the Joker from the parade. The key is the presence of Philip Tan's character's presence in both the parade and the bell tower. I'm still not certain whether Lawrence was at the parade (I may have spotted him holding one of the floats, but I'm not positive). I'm pretty sure Clive Curtis was one of the professional stuntmen brought in for pick-up shots (like the scimitar fighter), so he wouldn't have been present in any previous scenes.
The Joker saying he was a kid when he killed Batman's parents seems to be the result of the scene being trimmed down. Batman explained early on how the Joker killed his parents when he was a kid, so he's just referencing that. I think less dialog is better for pacing in the final cut, even if Joker's line may not make the most sense under scrutiny. But one can ascertain that Joker was only killing random people's parents when he was still a lowly mugger.
Clayface is interesting, and seems to be an amalgamation of the first three Clayfaces from the comics (making the Mud Pack arc of the comics a good read for some background). We have the civilian identity/occupation of Basil Karlo, the abilities of Matt Hagen, and the insanity of Preston Payne.
Nick and Eddie being back on the street seemed to undo Batman's efforts from the film, but I like the explanation that criminals apprehended by Batman had trouble being convicted since it was done without involvement from the Gotham police. This point was also made in Detective Comics Annual #14 where Batman has to find allies within the justice system.
Julie Madison also makes her first appearance here. I wonder if this was intentional to potentially tie it into Batman & Robin.
Overall, I'm enjoying the read so far. There's a lot for existing fans to sink their teeth into. No real conflicts with the continuity, and plenty of opportunity to expand this universe.
Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46I'm a slow reader, so I'll be posting some thoughts as I'm making my way through it.
It's apparent early on that Miller is a geek for continuity like the rest of us. I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)
Well, Lawrence is the one who jumps down from behind Batman and goes through the floor--he could have easily landed on an intact portion of the stairs and passed out, I think as-much is implied in the book but I don't recall.
Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46There's also fixation on some points that some consider continuity errors. Funny enough, both seem to be the result of post-production changes. When Batman wonders why there are goons in the cathedral, this was probably a result of Jon Peters adding additional action scenes to the film, seeing as the sequence was not present in the novelization or later scripts. There's only one logical explanation though; they followed the Joker from the parade.
Actually, the cathedral fight with the three goons IS in the novelization, but not all versions of it! In my quest to obtain a hardcover copy of Gardner's book, I ordered a British printing and was shocked to see the cathedral confrontation was the same as Hamm's original scripted version! I'm not sure if it's the only printing that came out in the UK, but yeah, our American version had the finale re-written at the last minute by
Denny O'Neil of all people to better reflect the final cut of the movie (and even he gives an easy explanation of why the goons were up there)! Thankfully I was able to track down a US hardcover copy but having both is a fun curio!
Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46The Joker saying he was a kid when he killed Batman's parents seems to be the result of the scene being trimmed down. Batman explained early on how the Joker killed his parents when he was a kid, so he's just referencing that. I think less dialog is better for pacing in the final cut, even if Joker's line may not make the most sense under scrutiny. But one can ascertain that Joker was only killing random people's parents when he was still a lowly mugger.
It's funny for Miller to make such a point out of that moment--I always figured that sure, the Joker vaguely remembered killing some kid's parents twenty-plus years ago, but didn't remember who it was specifically. You get the impression that Napier killed a lot of random people, considering how quickly he just blasted the Waynes (to the shock of his accomplice, even). Jack may have been reading in the paper later on and found out exactly who it was he killed... but clearly the way Nicholson plays it, the Joker is backpedaling to stave-off the ass beating Batman plans on giving him. The book makes something-out-of-nothing.
Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46Nick and Eddie being back on the street seemed to undo Batman's efforts from the film, but I like the explanation that criminals apprehended by Batman had trouble being convicted since it was done without involvement from the Gotham police. This point was also made in Detective Comics Annual #14 where Batman has to find allies within the justice system.
I liked that at least they were scared sh*tless by the encounter, though.
Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46Julie Madison also makes her first appearance here. I wonder if this was intentional to potentially tie it into Batman & Robin.
Considering how this project ties into other products that are meant to bury the Schumacher films, sadly no. Besides, the way Julie is written and performed in the movie is too different from the version in this book!
Miller trying to re-litigate the cathedral stuff (which I opaquely referenced in my review) is the major sticking point I have. The other issues have mostly washed away with a second and now third read.
My issue is that it never needed explaining why the Joker's goons were in the cathedral, which the book ends up admitting at the end, conceding that 'yeah the cathedral was always the Joker's exit strategy'. And I'm like 'duh'.
Joker knowing Batman's identity is also a simple explanation. Batman purposefully revealed it by quoting Jack's tagline back at him using Bruce Wayne's voice. Easy. And once again the book obsesses with finding the answer only for it to just hand wave it away at the end. 'The Joker babbles incoherently anyway. Who Cares?' Well, you did, apparently. It was better keeping to the simplest explanations or better to just not bring it up if the answer is ultimately that you, the author who drew attention to it, do not care.
I, like the commentators above, also expect that BATMAN REVOLUTION will fare better not leaning so hard on the first adventure. Returns established a very stand alone tone for the franchise. I think that ought to make a comeback. Are we allowed to talk about that yet? I don't want to spoil.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 15:44I, like the commentators above, also expect that BATMAN REVOLUTION will fare better not leaning so hard on the first adventure. Returns established a very stand alone tone for the franchise. I think that ought to make a comeback. Are we allowed to talk about that yet? I don't want to spoil.
Considering I did without blackout text, I don't see why not, I would just mark spoilers!
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 14:55Well, Lawrence is the one who jumps down from behind Batman and goes through the floor--he could have easily landed on an intact portion of the stairs and passed out, I think as-much is implied in the book but I don't recall.
I could be overthinking it/misinterpreting it, but a bad guy falling through the floor with a long scream meant the filmmakers probably intended for the character to die, not that he probably managed to save himself. Correct me if I'm wrong and it's mentioned in a primary source, like a script or a novel. But this has always been a pet peeve of mine when sequels bring back dead characters (especially tough as a Star Wars fan).
Also, was the Joker gas/Smylex causing Clayface's mutation a reference to how it was done first in The Batman (2004)?
Quote from: Slash Man on Tue, 12 Nov 2024, 03:52I could be overthinking it/misinterpreting it, but a bad guy falling through the floor with a long scream meant the filmmakers probably intended for the character to die, not that he probably managed to save himself. Correct me if I'm wrong and it's mentioned in a primary source, like a script or a novel. But this has always been a pet peeve of mine when sequels bring back dead characters (especially tough as a Star Wars fan).
In my mind Lawrence died in the film and it's something I never questioned. He jumped through the floor and fell to the bottom. Making him survive lessens the meaning and absurdity of the moment: an exhausted Batman putting energetic foes down with no or minimal effort...before Ray Charles comes in with his greatest hits.
Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46Quote from: Slash Man on Mon, 11 Nov 2024, 02:46I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)
The goons hierarchy is shown by the number of Joker cards on their jacket's right shoulder. Bob had five of them. I'll have to go look how many Lawrence had.
Edit: Lawrence looks like he had only two.
Quote from: GBglide on Thu, 14 Nov 2024, 04:02The goons hierarchy is shown by the number of Joker cards on their jacket's right shoulder. Bob had five of them. I'll have to go look how many Lawrence had.
Edit: Lawrence looks like he had only two.
That's an interesting observation that I never picked up on before. I went back to check and see how the hierarchy was set up in the film, but it looks like only Bob got a special jacket with five cards, everyone else hard one card.
(https://i.ibb.co/HFqtDDC/VS-You-Tube-Joker-Dancesto-Prince-Scene-Batman198930th-Anniversary-Movie-Clip4-KHdr-0-23-1.png)
I'm finally reading this, and while it's early days, for what Miller went for I think it's a decent read so far. The general flavor of B89 is there regardless of how you feel about certain decisions, eg. Lawrence surviving. If Miller wanted another villain to appear Clayface does make sense with the cosmetic products poisoning carrying over from the first movie. I liked the appearance of BR's remote control batarang. Batman is too chatty even during the first encounter with Knox I've just read. But I feel this book is shaping up to be better than the comics.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 11:15If Miller wanted another villain to appear Clayface does make sense with the cosmetic products poisoning carrying over from the first movie.
Agreed. Clayface is just below the A-list villains, but still has enough of a history to be recognized as a classic villain. I'm not one for making comic book characters so grounded that they lose all style, and I think Clayface struck a good balance when it comes to resembling the character, but only gradually leaning into the more fantastic elements. I'd love to have seen him brought to life through practical effects in the early 90s and not a giant shapeshifting CGI monster as would likely be the case in more modern times.
I do like how it reiterates how important the first film is and doesn't try to minimize it. We see the whole scope and the fallout of the Joker's chemical attack on the city, which isn't something that would go away overnight. The pattern with sequels is to take the lazier route by making the threats larger and the stakes higher (i.e. another, larger Death Star-like superweapon in Star Wars films). Even though the Joker is dead and can't go on to be Batman's constant rival, it's well established that he left a legacy and continues to haunt Batman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 11:15Batman is too chatty even during the first encounter with Knox I've just read. But I feel this book is shaping up to be better than the comics.
This was tough to portray in a lot of the older comics, and likely tougher to portray in a novel. I believe Keaton fought Daniel Waters when it came to the Batman Returns script, arguing it was too wordy. He successfully trimmed down the dialogue. Keaton does one of the best Bat-voices, but I also can't imagine him doing it very long when reading some of the dialogue.
But I agree, this had much more of the feel of films than the comic.
Quote from: Slash Man on Thu, 21 Nov 2024, 03:50I do like how it reiterates how important the first film is and doesn't try to minimize it. We see the whole scope and the fallout of the Joker's chemical attack on the city, which isn't something that would go away overnight. The pattern with sequels is to take the lazier route by making the threats larger and the stakes higher (i.e. another, larger Death Star-like superweapon in Star Wars films). Even though the Joker is dead and can't go on to be Batman's constant rival, it's well established that he left a legacy and continues to haunt Batman.
That aspect is good. Joker wasn't around long but he burned brightly, becoming a role model rather than a failure to the criminal population. I'm wanting to finish another book before jumping in to Resurrection fully, but from what I've read Miller does have some neat touches in here. I liked people buying the paint smeared works from the museum and Shreck being behind arson (as he would also do in BR). The early Bruce/Alfred conversations seem okay. Julie Madison being in Bruce's room is reminiscent of Vicki. I'm hoping Revolution leans in even harder to its closer proximity to Returns, such as the circus gang (Gordon says they're back in BR).
After finishing the book, I have a few more thoughts.
Retconning the chemist from the first film into Hugo Strange actually works for me. It establishes a connection to Joker and Carl Grissom, and doesn't conflict with his role in producing Smylex at Axis Chemicals.
Clayface being a creation of Hugo Strange reminded me of Gotham; not sure if this concept was ever used before.
Strange says he intended to blame the Monster Men on Joker. This is probably coincidence, but in the 1990 Batman NES game, the giant monsters in the sewer were the result of Joker's gene-splicing experiments.
I liked most instances of Returns characters being introduced, but I'm a little conflicted when the Red Triangle strongman was responsible for saving Batman's life. This is a little too much history to have for a henchman character that Batman blows up after a brief encounter.
Overall, an enjoyable book. I've gone on about my nitpicks, but that's just how I critique things. The action really ramped up towards the end and brought the story to an exciting conclusion.
I've finished my other book, and starting to plough through Russerection.
Still an engaging read so far, with the byplay between Karlo and Hugo, Lawrence's gang and the arsons. Batman indeed does talk too much, but some of the interactions with children seem okay to me, especially considering the "is it Halloween?" deleted scene.
A detail I liked was Batman throwing a goon out a window without a fire escape and not caring about their ultimate fate. Funny detail in there that appears to cut the cord to any Schumacher era connection is when Bruce say drive thru isn't an option for the Batmobile. Plus the detail about Bruce looking to create a batsignal alarm or retrieval device, which we'd later see in Returns.
My read continues.
Saw this on X and thought I'd share.
Someone made a custom Basil Karlo/Clayface action figure that's based on the description provided in the Batman Resurrections book.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GdcduUxXgAA3rC0?format=jpg&name=large)
That looks pretty accurate from what I've been reading. I have to say Miller's treatment of Clayface as a character is first class. He desperately escapes the hospital, causes a commotion and through that takes on the role of a villain by default. He's a victim and generally a good man who wants to lay low and be cured.
He steals but out of necessity. He kills his rival but accidentally. It's his love of performing that fuels him, and staying hidden by impersonating others is the added bonus. Whether or not people like Shreck actually believe Karlo is the Joker doesn't really matter because he's still a person who commands a decent number of followers. He still has to be factored in as a threat.