Comic Book Influences on Tim Burton's Batman (1989)

[The Dark Knight]

This is really impressive. The Two-Face aspect has opened up a whole new line of inquiry regarding B89 and it all checks out. If the Joker is bleached I want to see the aftermath of that bleaching because disfigurement isn't unique to only one character in the Batman universe. It's all about how each character reacts to their own new circumstances. Duality is always a lingering issue with Batman and his villains, especially in the case of Napier. Alicia is an echo of his former life, and the mask makes her into someone entirely new. Good stuff, Silver.

[Silver Nemesis]

It seems Steve Englehart is unhappy with Sam Hamm's quote about not taking much influence from his Detective Comics run. Englehart has responded with a detailed account of his involvement in the 1989 film, which he has written for Back Issue #118. I won't transcribe the entire article here, as it's far too lengthy, but you can read it on 13thDimension.com: https://13thdimension.com/inside-look-steve-englehart-details-his-uncredited-work-on-batman-89/

[BatmanFurst]

Does anybody have the quote from Tim Burton where he explains his reasoning for making Joker the killer of Bruce's parents?

[BatmanFurst]

Does anybody know if Bruce placing the roses in crime alley had a precedent in the comics prior to the film?

[thecolorsblend]

Does anybody have the quote from Tim Burton where he explains his reasoning for making Joker the killer of Bruce's parents?

Can't believe I never responded to this. Bluntly, no, I'm not aware of Burton ever explaining why he set the Joker up as the killer.

Even so, I see two separate agendas going on here.

First, it's basic storytelling for film. The hero's crusade needs to have a personal edge to it that ties back to his origin. In B89, Batman is out to take down the Joker. But (cue dramatic music) the Joker is the real reason he became Batman in the first place. The idea of a faceless nobody killing the Waynes is great in episodic media like comics but it doesn't play as well in feature film. The hero's quest usually needs to be connected to his origin. The hero's journey or something. This is one reason Sam Hamm might've wanted to do it.

Second, there's the more obvious issue that Jack Nicholson played the Joker. Considering his star power at the time, it makes a fair amount of sense to give him additional screen time and dramatic weight. Homeboy was getting top billing in the film so amplifying his importance makes a certain amount of business and publicity sense. This is one reason Peter Guber and John Peters might've wanted to do it.

Either, both or none of those could be true. Me, I tend to think that Hamm likely made the decision rather than Burton.

[The Dark Knight]

I have no problem with Nicholson killing the Waynes in B89. I'm open to a variety of different takes, and that includes the newer trend that the Tellatale games started, and THE BATMAN may continue, which gives the Wayne family a shady background. But in terms of their murder, I generally prefer Joe Chill or some other gangster doing the deed.

I think the issue for me is more about Chill's ultimate fate. Does he remain an elusive figure that Batman hopes to see out on the street one night so he can claim revenge? Or does Chill get killed ala Nolan's depiction in Begins? I prefer the former. Chill forever remains a boogeyman in the mind of a child frozen in time. He remains an idea and a ghostly representation of all the criminals Batman encounters. 

Talking about their murder, it compels me to raise what Batfleck says in BvS: "I'm now older than my father ever was." That line hit me hard. Do you know how much of a mindf*** it is? The child almost feels guilty when they eclipse their parent's age. As a child you see your parent as big and responsible, and to think "that's meant to be me now." 

[BatmanFurst]

Does anybody have the quote from Tim Burton where he explains his reasoning for making Joker the killer of Bruce's parents?

Can't believe I never responded to this. Bluntly, no, I'm not aware of Burton ever explaining why he set the Joker up as the killer.

Even so, I see two separate agendas going on here.

First, it's basic storytelling for film. The hero's crusade needs to have a personal edge to it that ties back to his origin. In B89, Batman is out to take down the Joker. But (cue dramatic music) the Joker is the real reason he became Batman in the first place. The idea of a faceless nobody killing the Waynes is great in episodic media like comics but it doesn't play as well in feature film. The hero's quest usually needs to be connected to his origin. The hero's journey or something. This is one reason Sam Hamm might've wanted to do it.

Second, there's the more obvious issue that Jack Nicholson played the Joker. Considering his star power at the time, it makes a fair amount of sense to give him additional screen time and dramatic weight. Homeboy was getting top billing in the film so amplifying his importance makes a certain amount of business and publicity sense. This is one reason Peter Guber and John Peters might've wanted to do it.

Either, both or none of those could be true. Me, I tend to think that Hamm likely made the decision rather than Burton.

Hey thanks for your explanation on that question. However, I've read an actual quote from Burton explaining why he chose to go that route. It was definitely something that Burton wanted. In the 3 part doc on the DVD Hamm makes it very clear that he didn't write that in his script at all. I read something else where he said that he tried to talk Burton out of that idea for as long as possible, but since he wasn't on set during filming it got put in there.

For my own viewing, there's an observation that runs through the film suggesting that Batman & Joker are two sides of the same coin. That's an observation in both the 89 film and Returns. So I just see Batman and Joker being responsible for each other's creation as a sort of climax to that idea.

Beyond that I do like the concept of someone having a traumatic experience as a helpless child, and that evil coming back at them at a later point in life when they're in a position to fight it.

However, I do completely understand why some people hate that decision. I could take it or leave it personally. I would've preferred Joe Chill but that's just me.

[The Laughing Fish]

Does anybody have the quote from Tim Burton where he explains his reasoning for making Joker the killer of Bruce's parents?

Can't believe I never responded to this. Bluntly, no, I'm not aware of Burton ever explaining why he set the Joker up as the killer.

Even so, I see two separate agendas going on here.

First, it's basic storytelling for film. The hero's crusade needs to have a personal edge to it that ties back to his origin. In B89, Batman is out to take down the Joker. But (cue dramatic music) the Joker is the real reason he became Batman in the first place. The idea of a faceless nobody killing the Waynes is great in episodic media like comics but it doesn't play as well in feature film. The hero's quest usually needs to be connected to his origin. The hero's journey or something. This is one reason Sam Hamm might've wanted to do it.

Second, there's the more obvious issue that Jack Nicholson played the Joker. Considering his star power at the time, it makes a fair amount of sense to give him additional screen time and dramatic weight. Homeboy was getting top billing in the film so amplifying his importance makes a certain amount of business and publicity sense. This is one reason Peter Guber and John Peters might've wanted to do it.

Either, both or none of those could be true. Me, I tend to think that Hamm likely made the decision rather than Burton.

Hey thanks for your explanation on that question. However, I've read an actual quote from Burton explaining why he chose to go that route. It was definitely something that Burton wanted. In the 3 part doc on the DVD Hamm makes it very clear that he didn't write that in his script at all. I read something else where he said that he tried to talk Burton out of that idea for as long as possible, but since he wasn't on set during filming it got put in there.

For my own viewing, there's an observation that runs through the film suggesting that Batman & Joker are two sides of the same coin. That's an observation in both the 89 film and Returns. So I just see Batman and Joker being responsible for each other's creation as a sort of climax to that idea.

Beyond that I do like the concept of someone having a traumatic experience as a helpless child, and that evil coming back at them at a later point in life when they're in a position to fight it.

However, I do completely understand why some people hate that decision. I could take it or leave it personally. I would've preferred Joe Chill but that's just me.

Sam Hamm also went on record having a scathing opinion about the Joker plot twist from that interview you shared on the forum awhile ago.



http://www.1989batman.com/2013/05/vintage-magazine-article-comics.html?m=1

I can see from a comic purist's point of view that having the Joker be responsible for Batman's existence may be bothersome. But A) all comic films have taken enormous liberties from the source material, B) B89 wouldn't be the only film where Bruce Wayne's destiny is actualised by a villain, and C) the film's ending is still much more interesting compared to what was originally scripted, and works as a standalone.

As for Hamm's argument that Batman can move on upon defeating the Joker, that might've been the case theoretically. But the films shows us otherwise. BR shows avenging his parents didn't quite give him much peace; if anything, his life is perhaps much more hollow than ever with his persistent war on crime, introversion and unable to maintain healthy romantic relationships. The Flash has the potential to further explore how Batman's life had been impacted within the last thirty odd years because of his habits.

I would've preferred Joe Chill but that's just me.

I prefer the idea of the Wayne's killer remaining anonymous. It gives Batman that extra motivation to never quit and make him more determined. Although some stories where he confronts Chill are definitely worthwhile.

[Gotham Knight]

It has been mentioned before, but I've just read Steve Englehart's first work on Batman in Detective Comics #439 as part of a read through I'm doing and I had some thoughts. It is clear that "Night of the Stalker" is the inspiration for the opening scene of 89, but more interesting is Batman's sudden shift in characterization from being a guy to quips and yells his thoughts aloud to a silent figure who darkly looms as a spirit of vengeance. Whether or not this will be a permanent change, we'll see. I might just be that he was moved by the murders that occur that orphan a child in the beginning of the story. This clearly is where Burton and Co. got the idea to shut Batman up and keep the chatter to a minimum. Great issue. Hope this change is permanent. 

[thecolorsblend]

I prefer the idea of the Wayne's killer remaining anonymous. It gives Batman that extra motivation to never quit and make him more determined.

Ditto. I love B89 but in the main, I think the comics should go with the assumption that murderer's identity is unknown, and kind of irrelevant.

Because ultimately, GOTHAM CITY killed the Waynes. The actual triggerman's identity is incidental because that was never the point. The point is that the Waynes died in Gotham City whereas they would've lived healthy and whole lives in, say, Metropolis. Batman went to war on a culture more than a specific person.

I think people who say Batman would give up after apprehending the killer can't see the forest for the trees.