Batman-Online.com

Monarch Theatre => Burton's Bat => Batman (1989) => Topic started by: phantom stranger on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 04:43

Title: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: phantom stranger on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 04:43
I would've thought that this question had been asked before but a search came up empty.

I always thought it was odd that they changed the emblem for the '89 film yet the movie poster and the Batsignal retained the traditional emblem.

Anyone know the logic behind that?
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: The Dark Knight on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 12:48
Yep. Love the 89 emblem, but I prefer the traditional Returns design.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: GuedesGothamKnight on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 14:30
Well, I like the emblem for B89, but I prefer the Returns emblem.  ;D
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: thecolorsblend on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 15:51
I like 'em both (B89 and BR).  As for why the costume emblem is different from the symbol on the poster, I'd guess it's because most people would have at least some understanding of the symbol depicted on the poster, even if the costume designers preferred the costume emblem.  I guess it comes down to recognizability.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Joker81 on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 18:00
I prefer the 89 emblem, its more realistic. The returns one is very childish, even tho it is triditional
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 18:22
Quote from: Joker81 on Fri, 10 Apr  2009, 18:00
The returns one is very childish, even tho it is triditional

Childish.... Okay......

I prefer the Returns emblem b/c not only does it look the closest to the way the traditional one is drawn in the comics (thanks to Neal Adams), but I also find it to look more intimidating (not saying that the BATMAN emblem isn't).

Quote from: Joker81 on Fri, 10 Apr  2009, 18:00
I prefer the 89 emblem, its more realistic.

How do you mean?
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Fri, 10 Apr 2009, 21:35
Quote from: phantom stranger on Fri, 10 Apr  2009, 04:43

I always thought it was odd that they changed the emblem for the '89 film yet the movie poster and the Batsignal retained the traditional emblem.

Anyone know the logic behind that?

Well, The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns graphic novels had depictions, that showed Batman's emblem including the extended wing edges.  It is possible that Tim was inspired by these images.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 01:23
Quote from: Joker81 on Fri, 10 Apr  2009, 18:00
I prefer the 89 emblem, its more realistic. The returns one is very childish, even tho it is triditional
Um....

How is the B89 emblem more 'realistic'?

How is the Returns emblem 'childish'?

Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Kamdan on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 06:59
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Apr  2009, 01:23
Um....

How is the B89 emblem more 'realistic'?

How is the Returns emblem 'childish'?
Yeah, what he said. I believe the logo had been given a much sharper look, compared to the comics. The expetion to me was the two points. They always looked weird to me, like they were only there for copyright purposes. I'd hate to say it's "Cultural Vandalism," but I get that vibe. I was happy it was fixed was Returns. Can anyone do a manip of the Returns logo on the '89 suit?
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: thecolorsblend on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 08:01
My only beef with the Returns emblem (odd as it may sound) is how closely it mirrored the comics version.  It felt like someone was trying too hard.  Every inch of the BR suit was sleek and customized.  It was similar to the comic in many respects but different enough to work on film.

But the BR chest emblem looked so... I dunno... illustrated.  It felt too perfect, I guess.  For all the nipples and neon, the BF design team at least made the chest emblem their own.

Don't get me wrong, something this trivial would never make or break the film for me.  I prefer BR as a film hands down, every day and twice on Sundays... but I prefer the B89 emblem.  It feels somehow right.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 08:25
Odd indeed.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Knight-of-Darkness on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 15:31
I liked both emblems, but after seeing darker versions on the latter suits, they always appear too bright and vivid when I go back to Burton's design. But, I do love the Burton suits, especially BR!  8)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 15:43
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 11 Apr  2009, 08:01
But the BR chest emblem looked so... I dunno... illustrated.  It felt too perfect, I guess. 

Ah, but this is why the Returns emblem is #1 in my book.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Knight-of-Darkness on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 15:50
It kinda funny! I found it hard to get used to the dark versions in the new films at first, then grew to like them. After that, going back to Burton's emblems was strange all over again.  :D
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Sat, 11 Apr 2009, 16:02
Quote from: Knight-of-Darkness on Sat, 11 Apr  2009, 15:50
It kinda funny! I found it hard to get used to the dark versions in the new films at first, then grew to like them. After that, going back to Burton's emblems was strange all over again.  :D

I still can't get used to the new emblems (& the one on the 1st suit in B&R). To me, Batman's insignia shouldn't be muted. It has to stand out (& look intimidating).

Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: batass4880 on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 02:21
IMO, the '89 emblem is the best because it just looks cooler. As mentioned before, the Returns emblem looked too safe. The '89 one had a little more character to it. It seemed a bit darker too, if that makes any sense.

Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: The Dark Knight on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 02:27
I'm a massive fan of the yellow emblem. I grew up with it, to me that's how it is and should be.

I'm with Dark Knight Detective. I like the Returns logo because it looks perfect. It's not everyday you hear something getting blasted for being perfect now, is it?

Look, I'm a fan of the 89 design, but I always viewed it as a stand-in for the real traditional Returns logo.

Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: thecolorsblend on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 05:46
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 12 Apr  2009, 02:27I'm a massive fan of the yellow emblem. I grew up with it, to me that's how it is and should be.
Ditto, but I've got nothing against the circle-less look.

QuoteIt's not everyday you hear something getting blasted for being perfect now, is it?
It's even rarer when the very person making that argument freely admits how strange it is.  But there it is, the B89 logo fits better, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: The Dark Knight on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 13:38
Actually, colorsblend, my previous response of 'Odd indeed' was regarding your comment of "My only beef with the Returns emblem (odd as it may sound)...."

I found it odd you thought the Returns emblem was worse because it looked too perfect.

I freely admit that, but I do not freely admit it looks strange.

I probably should have been clearer, but anyway.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Joker81 on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 17:33
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Apr  2009, 01:23
Quote from: Joker81 on Fri, 10 Apr  2009, 18:00
I prefer the 89 emblem, its more realistic. The returns one is very childish, even tho it is triditional
Um....

How is the B89 emblem more 'realistic'?

How is the Returns emblem 'childish'?



To me the Batman 89 emblem is more realistic because it is almost a silloute of an actual bat!

Where as the returns one is big and chunky, kind of like a kids toy, you would get in a mcdonals meal as merchandise for the film lol its just a bit kiddie to me.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 17:40
Quote from: Joker81 on Sun, 12 Apr  2009, 17:33
Where as the returns one is big and chunky, kind of like a kids toy, you would get in a mcdonals meal as merchandise for the film lol its just a bit kiddie to me.

Chunky? I'd say that the Returns emblem is actually sleeker than the 89 emblem. And, if anything, the insignia on the first Clooney suit looks like a kid's meal toy. :P
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 18:47
I agree, I never got into the other emblems (forever/b&r). The first one is very "movie" iconic to me because of the extra scallops or legs on the bat itself, which many fans questioned at the time. I love it.

The Returns is gorgeous and sleek and found it very appropriate for the new sleek styled suit and cowl in Returns.

They're both great.
I favor the gritty 89 style more only because my personality is more gritty in itself, lol, but I do have a lot of love for the Returns style too.
Great emblems. Great suits. Great friggin' movies.

I'm gonna watch em again today.  :)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 18:55
Quote from: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr  2009, 18:47
I agree, I never got into the other emblems.

The emblem on the Panther Suit (Val Kilmer's) was cool. But after seeing the others, I got the thought of, "Oh my God, an important piece of Batman's history in live action films has just been lost."

Hopefully, the elipse will be utilized in the new film (& it better not be muted).
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 19:01
Yeah you know, come to think of it, one of the prominent reasons why I never got too involved with the other emblems outside the 89 and Returns films, was because I don't even remember what they looked like.

I mean, I know what they look like now, but back when the film came out, it wasn't something that was imprinted on my brain. I came out a little bit hurt, is all I can remember.  :P
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 19:09
Btw.. to answer the question why the 89 emblem looked different than the poster, my idea is that they probably knew that making the poster based on the emblem used on the film, might cause some fandom controversy over it, but they knew that the emblem looked great on the suit, so it was more of a strategic move to just create a poster depicting the classic and iconic emblem we all know and love, while totally reeling us in the film with a unique film used emblem.

Just a guess.  :)

I really loved that it looked different. It sent a message across that this is a Batman in an alternate reality, making things a bit unpredictable which I completely favor.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 19:19
Quote from: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr  2009, 19:09
Btw.. to answer the question why the 89 emblem looked different than the poster, my idea is that they probably knew that making the poster based on the emblem used on the film, might cause some fandom controversy over it, but they knew that the emblem looked great on the suit, so it was more of a strategic move to just create a poster depicting the classic and iconic emblem we all know and love, while totally reeling us in the film with a unique film used emblem.

I've read that Burton & co. didn't have the rights to incorporate the comics-styled insignia for the suit, which is how the suit's bat emblem pointy motif came to be. But by the time Returns came out, they had the rights to utilize it (even though it's sleeker than the way it looks in the comics post O'Neil/Adams).


Quote from: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr  2009, 19:09
I really loved that it looked different. It sent a message across that this is a Batman in an alternate reality, making things a bit unpredictable which I completely favor.

Got to agree. I also love the fact that even though it's unique, it tries to stay true to the comics, rather than alienate the audience by looking so far-fetched.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Rob the Goon on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 21:31
I personally prefer the B89 emblem.
I remember getting a bootleg T-shirt from Spain with it on! It was the Summer of 1992 & yet they had shirts with the 89 logo!

I hope I still have it.  :-[
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Batnar on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 22:28
I can make them. My friend and I do silk screening. I will be making 2 of each Batman and Batman Returns for myself in the next month or so. =]
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Reevz666 on Sun, 12 Apr 2009, 23:38
blame Jon Peters for changing the 89 emblem....when he saw the poster for the movie ( Painted by Anton Furst) he said that the Bat logo looked like an open mouth...the extra points were added to the bottom of the emblem ( or "feet" as the design called it) to keep it from looking like a mouth.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 00:42
These are images from The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns that depict batman having the extra wing scallop tips on his emblem.  It is possible that Tim Burton was inspired by this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TnAcMqiBxug/SY1SZ4El5mI/AAAAAAAAPsc/cfJ1oowzi-0/s400/File0041.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/dbrar007/SIutaRFfxdI/AAAAAAAAAH4/kmTaiERcD7E/KillingJoke1a_thumb%5B5%5D.jpg


http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/the-dark-knight-returns.jpg

Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 00:51
^It's not working for me.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: batass4880 on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 01:01
Here's another one:

http://www.dcindexes.com/database/comic-details.php?comicid=8874
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 01:03
^Thanks. 8)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Paul (ral) on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 01:05
Quote from: batass4880 on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 01:01
Here's another one:

http://www.dcindexes.com/database/comic-details.php?comicid=8874
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coverbrowser.com%2Fimage%2Fdetective-comics%2F581-18.jpg&hash=7def2ed143f31dcc047ffccde24bf6b75dc7bd86)
that bears a striking resemblence to the 89 emblem.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 01:09
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 00:51
^It's not working for me.

Really, try again
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 01:59
Quote from: THE "BAT-MAN" on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 01:09
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 00:51
^It's not working for me.

Really, try again

Ah, they are working, now (except the 2nd one). ;)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 02:48
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the second one.  except that it takes a little longer to load.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 02:51
Quote from: THE "BAT-MAN" on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 02:48
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the second one.  except that it takes a little longer to load.

Does absolutely nothing for me. :P
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 02:58
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 02:51

Does absolutely nothing for me. :P

Here try this.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/dbrar007/SIutaRFfxdI/AAAAAAAAAH4/kmTaiERcD7E/KillingJoke1a_thumb%5B5%5D.jpg
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 03:03
^Same results.

Oh well. At least the other two worked. :)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 03:07
Here.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_TnAcMqiBxug%2FSY1SZ4El5mI%2FAAAAAAAAPsc%2FcfJ1oowzi-0%2Fs400%2FFile0041.jpg&hash=8911a7e3e65019b553d45e211f9292689261139a)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscoop.diamondgalleries.com%2Fpublic%2Fnews_images%2F4%2F49445_108249_4.jpg&hash=b50def7eee4c262a2424057ff4d91ecf4160bd48)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscreenrant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fthe-dark-knight-returns.jpg&hash=afb6cb972f0413c81dcf71e392bf59fb0edc66e0)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Kamdan on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 04:17
Interesting. I wonder what it the suit would looked like with that emblem.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: THE BAT-MAN on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 04:19
Which emblem?
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Batnar on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 06:31
Great finds, The "BAT MAN"  ;)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: phantom stranger on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 08:26
Thanks Reevz. We should have a special section on this site called "Ask Reevz666."  ;D

I actually just remembered about one of the prototypes that the costume designers were working with. The costume was substantially different and the emblem's Bat had yellow eyes. Not sure if a pic of it is up here but if it isn't, it should be just because it's pretty interesting.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Batnar on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 10:12
Reevz is definitely a valuable source of information.  :)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Paul (ral) on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 11:56
Quote from: Batnar on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 10:12
Reevz is definitely a valuable source of information.  :)

Agreed.  :)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Reevz666 on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 17:56
ask away guys ;D
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Joker81 on Tue, 14 Apr 2009, 20:12
I remember Jon Peters saying that the Logo for the poster looked like a mouth, on the special edition dvd. But I didnt think that was the reason the emblem was changed on the suit - he didnt state that did he? And surley by the time that Logo was painted for the poster the movie was pretty much in the can?? Do you not agree?

So the emblem for Keatons suit was created before the 'mouth' logo poster?????
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: batass4880 on Wed, 15 Apr 2009, 00:30
Hey Reevz666, do you happen to have a picture of the bola gun and/or the grappling hook that was used in the belfry?
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Reevz666 on Wed, 15 Apr 2009, 02:14
Quote from: Joker81 on Tue, 14 Apr  2009, 20:12
I remember Jon Peters saying that the Logo for the poster looked like a mouth, on the special edition dvd. But I didnt think that was the reason the emblem was changed on the suit - he didnt state that did he? And surley by the time that Logo was painted for the poster the movie was pretty much in the can?? Do you not agree?

So the emblem for Keatons suit was created before the 'mouth' logo poster?????

John wasn't on the SE DVD it was his ex partner Peter Guber

Here's the story I was told......

Anton  Furst had a meeting with John Peters about all the disappointing poster ideas that the WB had commissioned by their art department ...so Anton was told to drop everything and design a poster concept which ended up being the Bat logo you see in the movie poster....John saw it and said it looked like an open mouth...now, it wasn't specified, but  I'm assuming that this was before the final costume was finalized( and before the final cowl was finished) because he said that Peters also had a talk with Bob Ringwood about the emblem and  even Ringwood said that it looked like an open mouth to him.....so because this seemed to be an issue it was agreed that the emblem be altered slightly by adding "feet" to the bottom point making it appear to look more like a bat...so I guess it was a combo of Peters AND Ringwood....this was told to me by a guy that worked for Jim Henson's Creature shop back in the 80's who ran the foam for the 89 suits...I can ask for a more specific time line, but this is pretty much what I was told word for word


Quote from: batass4880 on Wed, 15 Apr  2009, 00:30
Hey Reevz666, do you happen to have a picture of the bola gun and/or the grappling hook that was used in the belfry?
I know I have a pic someplace..have to dig( may take a few years to find it  though LOL)...I know that the handle is the same as the spear gun, just the top part is different
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Joker81 on Wed, 15 Apr 2009, 20:19
Thanks for the response Reevz666, that sounds more reasonable. I thought it was John peters on the dvd I must have got confused.

Well I am glad they altered it, cos I really like that emblem.

Wonder why they had such a hard time with the poster concept, doesnt the bat symbol seem like such an obvious choice??
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Azrael on Thu, 16 Apr 2009, 00:47
Mouth???  ;D  ;D  ;D

I always liked this "altered" emblem anyway. It's an iconic element of the film, and I still remember as a kid wondering why it had "these two extra angles" compared to the poster logo.

Does everyone agree that the Batman Returns chest emblem is the most "comic book" looking emblem of ALL Batman movie suits?  ;D
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Dark Knight Detective on Thu, 16 Apr 2009, 00:50
Quote from: silenig on Thu, 16 Apr  2009, 00:47
Does everyone agree that the Batman Returns chest emblem is the most "comic book" looking emblem of ALL Batman movie suits?  ;D

I've said it before & I'll say it again; it's number one! 8)
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Reevz666 on Thu, 16 Apr 2009, 01:14
Quote from: Joker81 on Wed, 15 Apr  2009, 20:19
Thanks for the response Reevz666, that sounds more reasonable. I thought it was John peters on the dvd I must have got confused.

Well I am glad they altered it, cos I really like that emblem.

Wonder why they had such a hard time with the poster concept, doesnt the bat symbol seem like such an obvious choice??

most of the concept poster art was seen on the SE DVD...John Peters wanted something different ..."understated but still have impact" is what Anton was told .....the original teaser didn't even have the name "Batman " on it..it just said June 23

Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 Apr 2009, 08:25
Quote from: Reevz666 on Thu, 16 Apr  2009, 01:14
the original teaser didn't even have the name "Batman " on it..it just said June 23
Yup yup yup.  To this day, that remains the ballsiest poster I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: Joker81 on Thu, 16 Apr 2009, 19:16
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 Apr  2009, 08:25
Quote from: Reevz666 on Thu, 16 Apr  2009, 01:14
the original teaser didn't even have the name "Batman " on it..it just said June 23
Yup yup yup.  To this day, that remains the ballsiest poster I've ever seen.

I know what you guys are saying, but lets be honest. You dont need to be Einstien to come up with that poster. Agreed the art work on it is top class, as just a yellow and black poster would be too childish looking, they made it more cinematic.

I was wearing my black t-shirt the other day, just with the yellow and black emblem on it and my 5 year old nephew came in and shouted "BATMAN!!!". So you tell me is it a master stroke on the part of the marketing department? Or a fore gone conclusion that the emblem is 50 years old and anybody whos anybody knows what that stands for???? Even a 5 year old boy who hasnt read a comic or watched a Batman movie, just the cartoon?

So to me it was the obvious choice for the poster.
Title: Re: Why was the emblem in '89 different than the poster?
Post by: GothamAlleys on Wed, 24 Nov 2010, 23:39
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 12 Apr  2009, 02:27
I'm a massive fan of the yellow emblem. I grew up with it, to me that's how it is and should be.


Same here. The yellow oval for me is like the moon in the night, and Batman is the night and the emblem is his moon. I like the 89 logo too and its cool that its now associated strictly with this movie. The poster is phenomenal and fits now even more since B89 now is a Golden Oldie