Batman '89 (2021)

[The Laughing Fish]

Looking at the sketches for Jonathan Crane, his face reminds me of a younger Ian McKellen. Some blog sites speculate the Lady Joker might be Harley Quinn. I know that she already made a cameo in Hamm and Quinones' first run of these comics as a celebrity psychologist, but I wouldn't be surprised if they went ahead and create another version in this sequel.

I admire Joe Quinones for his great character art, but Sam Hamm is simply not that good as a writer. His story in the first volume was an underwhelming mess, and knowing he'll have to tie up loose ends with Barbara Gordon now knowing Bruce is Batman and Catwoman still at large together with the introduction of the new villains, I just don't have much confidence in him to juggle all of these plotlines all at once this time around.

[Slash Man]

Seems that way. In which case it should be a Schumacherverse comic. Burton and Keaton had nothing to do with the development of Batman Unchained. This is like making a Superman '78 comic based on Bryan Singer's ideas for the unmade Superman Returns sequel. They're scraping the barrel at this point.

You're right. I remember two of the most talked-about canned sequels were Burton's Batman 3 and Batman Triumphant. This seems like it's checking another one off the list.

I'm really curious how much of this was in the back of Sam Hamm's mind in the 90s. It could very well be a coincidence that the same villain was chosen by both writers. Though I'm left to wonder where this leaves us with the Riddler, and how much merit there was to rumors of his inclusion in a Burton sequel (one would assume he'd beat out Scarecrow at least). The vast majority of fans had already fan-casted Robin Williams. If we're going the fan service route, that seems like an obvious way to create some positive buzz.

[thecolorsblend]

Bringing Burton in line with established norms isn't interesting to me and there are other ways to show evolution.

Agreed. I've sort of given up on hoping for a "Batman III" comic book shepherded by Burton himself. But if we're going to try continuing his canon, then the comic book should feel of a piece with Burton's work. And the B89 comic doesn't feel that way at all.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm really curious how much of this was in the back of Sam Hamm's mind in the 90s.

I can say with supreme confidence that anything we see in these comics wouldn't be what we received in the 90s. The moment for Burton's Batman III as a real project is long gone - we want it but we can't have it. Nirvana didn't make a fourth album. The Flash jumping straight to long haired Bruce retired inside Wayne Manor is the harsh reality of the situation. Adventures happened but we didn't see them. At this stage I just find it false and counterproductive trying to depict that period.

[GBglide]

I like the Arkham on the cover, it looks like something Nigel Phelps would have made.

[Slash Man]

I can say with supreme confidence that anything we see in these comics wouldn't be what we received in the 90s. The moment for Burton's Batman III as a real project is long gone - we want it but we can't have it. Nirvana didn't make a fourth album. The Flash jumping straight to long haired Bruce retired inside Wayne Manor is the harsh reality of the situation. Adventures happened but we didn't see them. At this stage I just find it false and counterproductive trying to depict that period.

I disagree to some extent; I think comics, books, and animation are underutilized for building upon live action properties that can't continue in their original form for logistical reasons. On paper, Batman '89 sounded like a great idea because we both A) knew that plans existed for Burton's third film and B) there was a sense of authenticity afforded by the original film's writer.

Off the top of my head, this has been done a few times. There was a comic adaptation of the first draft of the Star Wars script, as well as adaptations of Frank Miller's original plans for RoboCop 2 and 3. They're done to varying degrees of effectiveness, but I'm still glad they exist just to record these lost stories in some medium that's easy to visualize as a film.

The issue that becomes apparent with Batman '89 is that there's not the usual collaboration between writers, director, and even actors when making a film. While no one would claim that the Batman films were solely Burton's vision, he was the creative glue that held everything together (as a good director should be). In comics, there's just the writer and editor.

[Slash Man]

I've actually had the desire to revisit the comic, especially in light of the new announcement. I've tried out the comic book reading order, which has you read straight from the comic adaptations of Batman and Batman Returns to Batman '89. Didn't really make a difference since the two films are already pretty disconnected, but it's just an alternate way to experience it.

I'm probably reiterating my original criticisms, but the heart of it is that this doesn't feel like the timeless world Tim Burton created - the dreary yet familiar amalgamation of 1940s and 1980s New York City. The inclusion of 2020s social issues is apparent and already makes the comic feel dated by 2023.

The quality of art itself is good, but there's a couple questionable elements. The batsuit itself looks great. Studio mandates usually require a new costume, and this new suit pulled that off with a subtle combination of both suit designs. The big problem is the light-up eyes. Keaton does a lot of acting with his eyes, so taking that away is a big no-no.




To be fair, it'd look badass in certain fight scenes, but it doesn't "feel" like Burton's. Yes, it's comic accurate, but this story's main priority is being faithful to the established films first, and then comics second.

There's also redesigns to Alfred, Bruce Wayne, and Catwoman based on Batman: The Animated Series. Yes, we all know and love it, but this comes across as more distracting because of how much the changes stick out. Would Tim Burton randomly decree that Michael Gough grow a mustache for the third Batman film? Probably not.

Barbara Gordon and Harvey Bullock also seem a little premature to be playing such notable roles at this point. The story seems to assume the reader simply knows them from the comics. And while that's likely the case, that approach is antithetical to the movies.

EDIT: Finished the book again, and I don't mean to sound too critical (after all, I did re-read it). The start and end were both promising, but it does drag in the middle. When adapting a cinematic work to comics, I find the one-shot adaptations are usually a little too short to get the full experience, but this limited series may have swung the pendulum into the opposite direction. It's harder to structure that like a film.

[eledoremassis02]

[The Laughing Fish]

If that picture wasn't confirmation enough, Quinones has posted a sketch of the Madonna lookalike saying "The doctor is in", accompanied by a diamond emoji. The Lady Joker, is in fact, Harley Quinn.



https://twitter.com/Joe_Quinones/status/1702724979157000666?

It seems Hamm and Quinones are taking ideas from that canceled Batman Unchained project. Quinones posted the picture of Harley, Joker and Batgirl is the front cover of the second issue of the new series, so I wouldn't past this new series having Batman seeing hallucinations of the Joker after he is poised by the Scarecrow.

Barbara must've been using the Batman equipment collected in the GCPD evidence room to become Batgirl. A little flamboyant, but definitely better than his original concept for the character.



Then again, it should be mentioned that Barbara in the original pitch for the entire Batman '89 series resembled closer to Christina Ricci than Winona Ryder, and appears to be more youthful than the police Sergeant we ended up getting. Maybe the Sergeant thing and idea to be Harvey's fiance was Hamm's idea.

There is not much to say about the Harley Quinn suit, other than it has traces of the Beetlejuice costume.

Despite all of these observations, I'm still not very excited about this new series. If I ever do bother to read any of this, it might not be until some time passes by.

[The Laughing Fish]

Here is the synopsis for the new series.

Echoes picks up after Harvey Dent's war against Gotham, and Batman has completely disappeared. That causes the citizens of Gotham to take on the crime of the city themselves, and as the injured start to stack up, everyone is wondering what happened to the Dark Knight.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230821232649/https://comicbook.com/comics/amp/news/dc-reveals-sequels-to-batman-89-and-superman-78-exclusive/

I'm even less enthused about this than I was a few hours ago. Batman disappears while Gotham City fends for itself? I suppose this ties in with Scarecrow incapacitating Batman and forcing him to face his fears, but I don't trust Sam Hamm to pull this off. While Batman is missing in action, does this mean Batgirl takes his place for awhile, similar to how she did in No Man's Land?