Messages

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.

Considering I did without blackout text, I don't see why not, I would just mark spoilers!

[Denny O'Neil]

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?)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

I liked that at least they were scared sh*tless by the encounter, though.

Julie 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!

[spoilery]

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 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.

I'm with you though. I caught on to her putting the pieces together once she discovers his parents were murdered. I'm not sure why this has since been turned into a big deal. I think Vicki figuring that out on her own is much more in line with the character.

As far back as I can remember, I never thought Alfred just let her in, I always thought she figured it out on her own. I guess the opponents of that point of view would then argue, okay but why does Bruce chastise Alfred for "letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave" in Batman Returns? 

With Robin I think they must've decided it was just one too many characters. And Burton I think may have implied or agreed to use Robin in the next picture.

Well, it's one thing for Vale to come over insisting that Wayne is Batman... it's another to let her into his secret headquarters and confirm it. Obviously Alfred was trying to tempt Bruce with Vale as opposed to the cowl, so I don't blame Alfred for making a desperate play there.

And in the novelization (and earlier script drafts) their talk does happen in the Wayne Manor study (presumably where Bruce was sitting while looking through Napier's file).

Apparently, the game story isn't complete--"chapter" expansions later this year continue it, and data miners have noted that the JL are still in the portions yet to come, including Bruce.

It's apparently a fakeout death. A hallucination, clones or whatever. Everybody getting worked up based on hearsay.

So, this is a showing of the complete movie then? Rather than a concert with selected scenes being live scored?

Either way, this sounds very interesting.

Yeah, the entirety of the movie, the only difference (basically) is that the score is performed live as the movie plays.

I attended, there is indeed a no filming policy, at least while things are going

There were additional flourishes in the score, presumably stuff Danny wrote that didn't make it to the final cut. There was a short reprise of Danny's love theme (Not "Scandalous") when Vicki said goodbye to Alfred the morning after ("Back, Miss Vale?") and another brief cue played alongside Alicia seeing Jack again ("You'll never believe what happened to me today").

There was an intermission, right after the Batmobile stops at Bruce's feet, and in that moment, the orchestra did a little wrap-up music, reprising the moment when Batman jumps off the roof at the beginning of the movie.

The orchestra performed the classical piece at the museum (which makes sense, but I hadn't thought about it), and they also performed "Theme From a Summer Place," along with the Hill Bowen version of "Beautiful Dreamer," which is the one tracked-in for the real movie (Burton didn't end up using the versions recorded for Elfman's score). Speaking of the apartment scene, they put back-in Danny's piece for the sequence (before the Joker arrives), which runs from just before the scene transition and ends when Bruce pushes Vicki to sit down.

For my performance, sadly, the orchestra got out-of-sync during "Waltz to the Death," and it totally broke my brain for a moment , but thankfully they righted themselves for the rest.

For the end credits, where "Scandalous" normally plays, the orchestra continued on and first played something I couldn't quite make out (I was in the second row and between the cheers and my poor acoustic position, I had trouble identifying it), but it segued into a reprise of "Decent into Mystery" to finish up. It was quite nice.

Warners obviously provided a custom sound mix, without music and with boosted dialogue, reduced (or removed) sound effects and some additional ADR added, for whatever reason. Some voices could be buried in the normal sound mixes that I'd never heard, but others I'm sure were newly dubbed in, for cops/background characters. You could hear Knox's questions to the crime lords at City Hall pretty clearly (along with too much vocal noise drowning out the orchestra, for some reason), and the black reporter who talks before Knox was a different voice!

Alfred also announced Vicki coming into the cave ("Miss Vale, sir!") in a voice that was too enthusiastic, and he also calls to her at the end when she turns around to see him and the car ("Miss Vale!") Both were clearly Michael Gough's voice, so I assume they were pulled from the archives and put back in.

I gotta say though, while I wish the dialogue was quieter or nonexistent (but I guess the movie being only visual with no sound would have bored normal folks), it was an experience unlike any other, and I was in heaven. From the Wayne flashback on, it was a damn-near spiritual experience for me. If you have a chance to go, GO!

https://www.dcfilmsinconcert.com/

But at the same time, this is the Batgirl thread, and since the movie never came out, I guess that's all there is to talk about?

Sure, but there's only so many times people can repeat the same talking points before it gets ridiculous. Especially when no new ground is being covered. In my opinion, discussion on Warner Bros.' ineptitude (real or imagined) should be localized to a thread where that is the entire topic, instead of constantly being brought up in other topics. Every DCEU topic here has simply become one person posting minor new tidbits, segueing into the same tired complaints. Nobody else cares.

Yeah, the Telltale games are good, although, I think S1 is way better than S2. They totally rewrote the mythos, so everything feels fresh. It's a must for Batman fans.

But reading the rest of your post, I had no idea there was a Brave and the Bold game. I'm gonna have to find a way to play that. 

Wii Emulation is pretty solid--Dolphin runs Brave and the Bold like a champ, should you be willing. It's a great game, too (of course, anything made by WayForward tend to be great).

I couldn't agree more about Arkham Origins--it's a must-play. The best story in the series, mostly because Bruce is young and more emotional. I love Kevin (obviously) but in the Arkham series he was mostly stuck playing the atypical iconoclastic Batman who stays frozen as a character, but in Origins he's quite brusque and has to go on a character arc. These days, any recent computer should be able to run it with few problems, but when it comes to playing it on a console, that's tougher. It IS backwards compatible on modern Xboxes, but you have to run it from a disc, and playing it there allows a more stable framerate than playing it on the PS3.

But when I got an upgraded PC, I decided I was never going back to Arkham games at 30 fps, and besides that, now people are able to add in new, fully modeled Batsuits now, so the sky's the limit on the cool stuff we can have now.

The Telltale games are a perfect counterbalance to the Arkham series, since they focus more on Bruce Wayne, making them a rather perfect companion series to the action-heavy Arkham saga.