did anyone have a problem with Batman killing back then?

[The Laughing Fish]

My recollection is that basically nobody had a problem with Burton's brutal Batman until the late 90's, when Internet Groupthink, Inc. took over.

Nope, nobody cared.  If they did, I guess they kept it to themselves.  I don't recall actually seeing anyone "die" in the 89 Batman movie.

I'm so thankful B89 was made 27 years ago instead of today. The internet would have an enormous outcry over that, Jack Napier/Joker linked to Batman's past in a deeply significant way (Keaton spoiling that plot twist on live TV in this day and age would've been disastrous) and I bet people would've moaned about the Prince sings too, even if they suited the Joker's mood perfectly.

[The Dark Knight]

With Affleck's Batman, you have a reasoning behind his behaviour. More so than Keaton's. But Affleck cops it harder. People want explanations, but then they don't want excuses. It's bizarre. You show people instances of Batman killing in the comics, but then they say 'that's from way back when, it's irrelevant now'. But when Baleman retires in TDK Rises, they cite Bruce and Selina getting married in Superman Family #211. Hah.

[The Laughing Fish]

You show people instances of Batman killing in the comics, but then they say 'that's from way back when, it's irrelevant now'.

I've seen some comments elsewhere on the 'net that say Burton shouldn't have looked at the the Golden Age as an inspiration for his approach on Batman. However, I haven't seen anyone complaining about TDK's filmmakers when they cited the Joker's Golden Age debut as an inspiration for their version of the character. Why is one director allowed to use inspiration from a particular era but the other can't? Very hypocritical.

[KeatonisBatman]

With Affleck's Batman, you have a reasoning behind his behaviour. More so than Keaton's.

Do you really think so?  I think it's fairly clear from the beginning of the '89 film that Gotham is in a serious state of decline; overrun by scumbags & nearly ruled by villainous types.

[Dagenspear]

I've seen some comments elsewhere on the 'net that say Burton shouldn't have looked at the the Golden Age as an inspiration for his approach on Batman. However, I haven't seen anyone complaining about TDK's filmmakers when they cited the Joker's Golden Age debut as an inspiration for their version of the character. Why is one director allowed to use inspiration from a particular era but the other can't? Very hypocritical.

The Joker's character doesn't exactly drastically shift into completely different characterizations from one version to another. There are changes to be sure. But it's not like he's been made into not being a murderous clown in the version that's existed for the past 40 something years. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Joker]

Yeah, I don't remember anyone seriously having an issue with Batman killing back in 1989. Oh, I'm sure there was some hardcore comic book reading fanboys crying foul, but by and large, I don't remember it even being brought up... I think most folks were too enamored with Burton's direction, Elfman's magnificent score, the performances, and to an extent, Prince's musical contributions than anything like wining about "OMG! Batman just killed that guy!1!!1"

Most people pretty much just rolled with it. Even at such a young age, I knew the Burton/Keaton Batman was not exactly the Batman that was being featured in DC Comics at the time, and I was completely fine with that. Much like Superman, the Post-Crisis Superman to be exact, in the comics at the time wasn't exactly the Superman featured in the Donner/Reeve films.

[The Dark Knight]

With Affleck's Batman, you have a reasoning behind his behaviour. More so than Keaton's.

Do you really think so?  I think it's fairly clear from the beginning of the '89 film that Gotham is in a serious state of decline; overrun by scumbags & nearly ruled by villainous types.

Yes. There's nothing explicitly said as to why Keaton's Batman kills, though we can assume he flips his lid after finding out Joker killed his parents. But with Batfleck, he feels powerless after Superman arrives, and thus ups his game to compensate. But it doesn't really matter because I love both. In fact, they're my favourites from the saga. Both are dark, conflicted and internalised people who do whatever it takes to fight crime.

[Silver Nemesis]

There definitely was some backlash from certain quarters of the comic community. However the majority of people were just happy to have a successful, dark version of Batman to serve as a palate cleanser after the sixties TV show. And the use of lethal force in the 1989 film is arguably mitigated by context anyway, at least to some extent.

I also think many fans got into the comics in the first place because of the 1989 film. So by time Batman Returns came out, they'd grown more familiar with the source material and had a better understanding of the character than Burton or Daniel Waters did. That was when the real backlash began.

[The Joker]

I also think many fans got into the comics in the first place because of the 1989 film.

Yeah, I guess you can say I was one of them. I mean, I always had a liking to Batman. I remember having alot of the mid 1980's Superpowers toys, Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, The Joker, Darkseid, ect, but I think it's safe to say that Burton's 1989 Batman movie was what cemented me as a life long Bat guy for sure.

So by time Batman Returns came out, they'd grown more familiar with the source material and had a better understanding of the character than Burton or Daniel Waters did. That was when the real backlash began.

I can see that. By 1992, Burton's take on Batman had become somewhat familiar by that point, which invited more vocal criticisms despite it being once again successful at the box office. At the same time, I think people were so starved for well-done cinematic portrayals of comic book heroes, that alot of the criticisms were once again drowned out by the sheer interest of the public. In 1995, Batman Forever was obviously a much lighter take on the property, that much was certain from all the promotion, and had one of the biggest opening weekends ever by that point. Unfortunately, what WB/Schumacher thought worked in 1995, wasn't the case in 1997. Sure, there were a decent amount of comic book-inspired properties that were not-as-widely-known that were translated to film in the 1990's, most notably THE CROW, and by the late 1990's, BLADE, but there was some that just went completely bust.

The 2000's bred an entirely different environment and mindset than what was happening in the 1990's. Studios were much more open and confident in actually making Superhero films, where in the 1990's, there appeared to be alot of skepticism and tip-toeing around.

[johnnygobbs]

There definitely was some backlash from certain quarters of the comic community. However the majority of people were just happy to have a successful, dark version of Batman to serve as a palate cleanser after the sixties TV show. And the use of lethal force in the 1989 film is arguably mitigated by context anyway, at least to some extent.

I also think many fans got into the comics in the first place because of the 1989 film. So by time Batman Returns came out, they'd grown more familiar with the source material and had a better understanding of the character than Burton or Daniel Waters did. That was when the real backlash began.

There seems to have been a big backlash since the Nolan films came out.  One only has to skim through the 'Comic Creators' Comments' thread to see that, with so many artists and writers figuratively holding their nose at the Burton films and singing the praises of TDK trilogy for whatever reason.

It annoys me no end because it strikes me that many of these 'authorities' ( ) are repeating the same crap that we see from some of the die-hard Nolan fans: hating on all other Batman movies in order to elevate their Batman, and then more or less insisting that anyone who disagrees with them and prefers another incarnation of Batman is 'wrong'.