Batman dropping Jack Napier into the vat of chemicals

[The Dark Knight]

I don't think any other Batman movie emphasises the character's animalistic traits to the level of B89.

Perhaps, although I think Batman hiding in the top corner of the attic in front of that frightened cop and performing a takedown on a LexCorp security guard in BvS came close.

BvS has aspects of Batman being a scary wraith, as you highlight, but I still don't think it surpasses the overall package of B89, which is basically a non-stop advert for Bats being a mysterious figure. The movie really has it all, and you begin to realize that more so with the passing of time. You can see why Burton felt like it was almost a one-off film because it's like a greatest hits package. The descent into mystery, for example, is pure cinema. The power of the visuals and the music screams BATMAN in a really loud way. I can't think of another sequence that captures the character and his world so effectively.   

[Silver Nemesis]

The 1989 Batsuit never looked better than in the Axis Chemicals sequence. It generally looked most effective when shot from low or mid-angles with three-quarter lighting.

[The Laughing Fish]

BvS has aspects of Batman being a scary wraith, as you highlight, but I still don't think it surpasses the overall package of B89, which is basically a non-stop advert for Bats being a mysterious figure. The movie really has it all, and you begin to realize that more so with the passing of time. You can see why Burton felt like it was almost a one-off film because it's like a greatest hits package. The descent into mystery, for example, is pure cinema. The power of the visuals and the music screams BATMAN in a really loud way. I can't think of another sequence that captures the character and his world so effectively.   

All of that is true. But another factor that makes B89 unique was Burton's casting Keaton, and it's not only because of Keaton's acting talent, or as Burton described, "he had that f***ed up look". Burton explained he cast him in the role because he was looking for somebody who embodied an ordinary everyman build; somebody who would need to wear a Batsuit, unlike a Schwarzenegger type bodybuilder. There's a psychological nuance in presenting Bruce Wayne the need to transform into Batman to do these things he otherwise wouldn't be physically capable of doing e.g. lifting people off the ground, sustaining and surviving bodily harm and so on. And because these traits make Bruce Wayne near superhuman in some ways, it creates Batman's reputation as an urban legend among the public.

A couple of observations while looking back on this scene again.

• This is the first time in WB's filmography where Batman disappears into thin air, while somebody turns their attention away for a moment. All of the other films after B89 tend to have him disappear during an encounter with Gordon, like in the comics, but this is the only time where Batman does this trick to confuse a criminal. In this case, it's right after Napier picks up his gun from the floor and tries to aim it back at Batman. It's a rather underrated moment that the film doesn't get recognised for.

I love how Jack seemed so confused or unsure just what the hell was going on, which we're led to believe is totally out of character for him (like Alicia says, "You don't worry about anything, do you?" not to mention him keeping his cool when he realizes they've been set up). Doesn't last long since he sees Eckhardt and gets back on task, but that momentary lapse for him was a great illustration of what Batman does to even the savviest bad guy and proves the costume and so forth works. Love it.

Great connection there! Even when Jack Napier realises he's set up by Grissom, he still stays calm. It wasn't until he is confronted by Batman where his whole world begins to turn upside down. Once he becomes the Joker, he begins a contest over who is the biggest freak in Gotham City.

[The Laughing Fish]

Hey, has anybody else seen this? This is an alternate cut photo of Batman escaping from the scene while raising his hands in the air, with smoke erupting from the bottom right corner. I got it from one of those Batman Wikia pages online.



In the comic book adaptation, Batman had appeared to have surrendered to Commissioner Gordon and the police, but then he tricked them by flicking smoke capsules in the air and escapes. I never realised this original idea had been filmed all along. In the movie, Batman sees both exits blocked by police, and wastes no time by throwing a smoke grenade on the floor.

I should mention the comic book and the movie's interpretations of the Axis Chemicals scene are quite different from each other. In the comic, Batman only confronts Jack after he shot Eckhart, but in the movie, he confronts Jack before he could get a shot at Commissioner Gordon, which leads to Eckhart's death soon after.

Another little change in detail is how Jack Napier gets scarred. In the comic, Batman blocks Jack's gunshot by shielding himself with his cape and the bullet ricochets right back into Jack's face; with blood gushing out of his cheek. In the movie, Batman uses his wrists to block the bullet and it ricochets onto glass in the control panel before it strikes back at Jack.

Jack's fall into the chemical waste was a little different too. In the comic, Batman tries to catch Jack's hand, but fails. In the film, he does catch his hand, but doesn't hold on for much longer. Which leads to how Batman makes his escape; the comic shows Gordon climbing up the stairs together with the police, but in the film, he's only climbed half way the stairs and orders Batman to surrender from below.

Do any of these changes affect the final cut of that scene we got in the movie? No. It might've been nice to see Batman using trickery avoid capture from the police, but I for one enjoy the film's more subtle interpretation e.g. that odd moment where it looks as if Batman dropped Jack on purpose, as I mentioned earlier on this thread. For me, the changes aren't that significant.

[thecolorsblend]

For me, the changes aren't that significant.

I don't think I agree with that. Pretending to surrender and then using smoke bombs to mask his escape says something about Batman. Being told to surrender and then openly refusing says something else about Batman. Something different. In the latter scenario, Batman is shown being in control of the situation from start to finish.

Napier staggering off the platform and falling into the acid without interacting much with Batman gives the characters and the audience a certain emotional reaction. Napier staggering off the platform and being caught by Batman, the characters making physical human contact with each other, staring one another in the eye and then Napier getting dropped (accidentally or not) into the acid gives the characters and the audience a different emotional reaction. In the latter scenario, it gives the Joker a clearer and more understandable grudge against Batman.

The changes are small but I think they add up to big and meaningful differences.

[The Dark Knight]

Agree. Joker can legitimately say Batman dropped him into the vat of chemicals in the film version, which is much better. The comic interpretation of the smoke escape is impressive, but it's an improvisation. In the film version, Batman doesn't allow the police to get that close. He is in full control of the situation. I think the only thing I regret not being from the comic is the fake money - but alas.

[BatmanFurst]

Hey, has anybody else seen this? This is an alternate cut photo of Batman escaping from the scene while raising his hands in the air, with smoke erupting from the bottom right corner. I got it from one of those Batman Wikia pages online.



In the comic book adaptation, Batman had appeared to have surrendered to Commissioner Gordon and the police, but then he tricked them by flicking smoke capsules in the air and escapes. I never realised this original idea had been filmed all along. In the movie, Batman sees both exits blocked by police, and wastes no time by throwing a smoke grenade on the floor.

I should mention the comic book and the movie's interpretations of the Axis Chemicals scene are quite different from each other. In the comic, Batman only confronts Jack after he shot Eckhart, but in the movie, he confronts Jack before he could get a shot at Commissioner Gordon, which leads to Eckhart's death soon after.

Another little change in detail is how Jack Napier gets scarred. In the comic, Batman blocks Jack's gunshot by shielding himself with his cape and the bullet ricochets right back into Jack's face; with blood gushing out of his cheek. In the movie, Batman uses his wrists to block the bullet and it ricochets onto glass in the control panel before it strikes back at Jack.

Jack's fall into the chemical waste was a little different too. In the comic, Batman tries to catch Jack's hand, but fails. In the film, he does catch his hand, but doesn't hold on for much longer. Which leads to how Batman makes his escape; the comic shows Gordon climbing up the stairs together with the police, but in the film, he's only climbed half way the stairs and orders Batman to surrender from below.

Do any of these changes affect the final cut of that scene we got in the movie? No. It might've been nice to see Batman using trickery avoid capture from the police, but I for one enjoy the film's more subtle interpretation e.g. that odd moment where it looks as if Batman dropped Jack on purpose, as I mentioned earlier on this thread. For me, the changes aren't that significant.

There's a documentary that has a brief shot of Batman with his hands up, and dropping the gas pellet. I believe it's part of the special features on the blu-Ray/ DVD.

To answer your question though I LOVE that he deflects the bullet with his gauntlets. That to me is way cooler than deflecting it with the cape. I just love that the gauntlets have a functional purpose in this film. They don't really become useful again until Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight.

[BatmanFurst]

The 1989 Batsuit never looked better than in the Axis Chemicals sequence. It generally looked most effective when shot from low or mid-angles with three-quarter lighting.

I still contend that no one has shot Batman as well as Burton did in this film specifically. I just love that he's mostly kept in the shadows, or at other points when they use the lighting to highlight his eyes. The only filmmaker that's come close is Nolan in Batman Begins imo.

[thecolorsblend]

To answer your question though I LOVE that he deflects the bullet with his gauntlets. That to me is way cooler than deflecting it with the cape. I just love that the gauntlets have a functional purpose in this film. They don't really become useful again until Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight.

Well, there was that one time...

[The Dark Knight]

So many great details like that in B89. A samurai jumps out of nowhere and what does Batman do? He stands firm like an immovable object, put up his fists and begins SWORD PUNCHING. Nothing phases Bats in this film. Even when Ray Charles begins his beatdown, Bats fronts up and takes the heat -long enough to win/end the fight.