Batman '89 (2021)

[The Dark Knight]

Not to sound like a Debbie Downer. But the older I bet, the more I think that some things need to be left in their place. I mean, Keaton's Batman is the founder of the feast for me. I think B89 totally changed the trajectory of my life.

But it ended in 1992. For better or for worse, his time with the character came to a close.

These attempts to somehow revive that Batman have (so far) only showed me how special, unique and unrepeatable that entire experience was. Things end, it's totally okay. Nothing wrong with that.

And I'm starting to think that maybe it was better when BR was Keaton's (unwitting) swan song with the character and that universe. Because the stuff we've gotten since then and the stuff in the pipeline... ain't exactly instilling a whole lot of confidence.

Completely agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[The Joker]

Not to sound like a Debbie Downer. But the older I get, the more I think that some things need to be left in their place. I mean, Keaton's Batman is the founder of the feast for me. I think B89 totally changed the trajectory of my life.

But it ended in 1992. For better or for worse, his time with the character came to a close.

These attempts to somehow revive that Batman have (so far) only showed me how special, unique and unrepeatable that entire experience was. Things end, it's totally okay. Nothing wrong with that.

And I'm starting to think that maybe it was better when BR was Keaton's (unwitting) swan song with the character and that universe. Because the stuff we've gotten since then and the stuff in the pipeline... ain't exactly instilling a whole lot of confidence.

So, in short, and to quote another '89 movie;

"Sometimes, dead is better."

Welp, that's the cards that have been dealt. C'est la vie.

Ideally, Michael Keaton's return as Batman would be about on par with Tobey Maguire's return as Spider-Man in "Spider-Man: No Way Home". A highly anticipated grand acknowledgement to a great Batman and a crowd pleaser. Unfortunately, it's in "The Flash", where Keaton's return is already mired before it's even actually seen due to really no fault of his own performance, but having to be associated with all the negative baggage that comes with a "Flash" movie starring Ezra Miller.

You deserved better, Keats. You deserved better.

[The Dark Knight]

I love Keaton as Batman and do want to see his new performances. Hopefully there's some good moments in there. But to paraphrase and tailor a quote from somebody else, "whatever made Burton Batman Burton Batman also made the 1990s the 1990s. The guys who used to be Burton Batman can never ever be that again even if they wanted to be. Going back would be like going back to school. I was never one for reunions - it's all over."

I love things that remain a perfect nostalgic thought because it's so rare now. B89/BR is that to me and it also brings to mind the early 1990s when I was five years old or whatever it was. Burton and Keaton did their thing and left the stage, and wanting more but not getting it added to the mystique - imagining what could have been and knowing it would have been good. The power of that short but potent period inspired BTAS. Burton's Batman is the early 1990s and that's its legacy.

The B89 comic just didn't replicate the Burton world for my liking, and being made 30 years after the fact did impact on the sense of authenticity. Having just the two films and three decades of imagining is perhaps too steep a mountain to climb in terms of expectation.

[Kamdan]

You deserved better, Keats. You deserved better.

I just hate fundamentally how they're just doing exactly what was being made fun of in Birdman. I had the exact problem with Adam Sandler in Funny People trying to criticize his whole career, yet right after it did exactly what he was parodying. I guess you gotta enjoy the spotlight while it's on you, because Keaton was in a slump with movies like White Noise and Herbie with Lindsey Lohan before Birdman put him on top, which prompted Marvel to hire him for Spider-Man and lead him to do what we thought was the impossible of him reprising Batman.

[The Joker]

I just hate fundamentally how they're just doing exactly what was being made fun of in Birdman. I had the exact problem with Adam Sandler in Funny People trying to criticize his whole career, yet right after it did exactly what he was parodying. I guess you gotta enjoy the spotlight while it's on you, because Keaton was in a slump with movies like White Noise and Herbie with Lindsey Lohan before Birdman put him on top, which prompted Marvel to hire him for Spider-Man and lead him to do what we thought was the impossible of him reprising Batman.

I've never seen "Funny People", but I think I know what you're getting at. There is some irony in Keaton going from Batman, to Birdman, to Vulture, and then back to Batman in his career. To which I'm sure he's very aware of. With the latter being rather unexpected by many of us, as, if memory serves, Keaton was fairly consistent in stating that if Tim Burton returned to the franchise, he would likely follow (much like his comments regarding Beetlejuice 2, or like Christian Bale's recent comments about being open to returning to Batman but only with Nolan at the helm). Having Keaton returning as Batman in a "Flash" movie (rather than in a Batman "Part 3" or "Batman Beyond" movie), felt rather odd from the jump, but presumably, there was something there in the script that perhaps we were not seeing. Course the screening leaks started coming in, and ... yeah.

Riiiiight.

I would be more yielding to the notion of Keaton's Batman and the "Burtonverse" being, ultimately, anachronistic and resigned to best remain in a very specific era in time, if there wasn't examples to the contrary with other long-dormant franchises being resurrected, and resurrected successfully. "Top Gun: Maverick" obviously being the best and most recent example. The original, arguably, being one of the notable, and defining films of the 1980's, brought forth into present times, and the end result being simply outstanding! Also, there's "Ghostbusters Afterlife". A franchise that, prior to Nov 2021, hasn't had a proper film released since 1989, but was respectful towards the lore and fans, and whatayaknow, ended up being warmly received by both fans and general audiences alike. What about what Stallone did with 2006's "Rocky Balboa", and 2008's "Rambo"? Both of those particular franchises could have easily been left in the past as cinematic symbols of 1980s (and '70s with Rocky), and it wouldn't have lessened their standing in people's perception of them whatsoever. However, Sly decided to put in a little effort, and yeah, both were successful and more importantly worthwhile endeavors that added positive chapters to their respective franchises legacies. How long was it between George Miller's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", and "Mad Max: Fury Road" again? Yes, of course it was Tom Hardy as Max, but to argue that with some tweaks in the script, "Fury Road" couldn't have starred a aged Mel Gibson Mad Max would be ludicrous. I'm not sure about these days, but Mel was in beast mode as far as being in shape by the mid 2010's with films like "Get the Gringo" and "Expendables 3".

So, when it comes to Keaton's Batman returning, it's really no longer becomes of a question of "if" this can be pulled off after such a long hiatus, but "how" can such a special circumstance like that be positively constructed? Unfortunately, it takes a little bit of effort, and Warners apparently was more keen on relying on the mere novelty of just having Keaton back in the batsuit for nostalgic purposes (along with propping up the Flash film itself of course), rather than anything remotely resembling a truly 'proper' continuation/conclusion of the Burton films.

Again, that's the cards that have been dealt. Our boy deserved better.

[Kamdan]

With the latter being rather unexpected by many of us, as, if memory serves, Keaton was fairly consistent in stating that if Tim Burton returned to the franchise, he would likely follow (much like his comments regarding Beetlejuice 2, or like Christian Bale's recent comments about being open to returning to Batman but only with Nolan at the helm). Having Keaton returning as Batman in a "Flash" movie (rather than in a Batman "Part 3" or "Batman Beyond" movie), felt rather odd from the jump, but presumably, there was something there in the script that perhaps we were not seeing. Course the screening leaks started coming in, and ... yeah.

Riiiiight.

Keaton must have gotten the word from Burton that Schwarzenegger got from Cameron that he could feel free to do a movie in the franchise without him. Burton seems to be very reluctant to do a "nostalgia show" by retreading familiar ground on a series that he felt like he was kicked out of, which I'm pretty sure he's not been asked back to anyways. This also explains why the sequel to Beetlejuice is taking so long. If it was something he really wanted to do, it'd be filming already.

I would be more yielding to the notion of Keaton's Batman and the "Burtonverse" being, ultimately, anachronistic and resigned to best remain in a very specific era in time, if there wasn't examples to the contrary with other long-dormant franchises being resurrected, and resurrected successfully. "Top Gun: Maverick" obviously being the best and most recent example. The original, arguably, being one of the notable, and defining films of the 1980's, brought forth into present times, and the end result being simply outstanding! Also, there's "Ghostbusters Afterlife". A franchise that, prior to Nov 2021, hasn't had a proper film released since 1989, but was respectful towards the lore and fans, and whatayaknow, ended up being warmly received by both fans and general audiences alike. What about what Stallone did with 2006's "Rocky Balboa", and 2008's "Rambo"? Both of those particular franchises could have easily been left in the past as cinematic symbols of 1980s (and '70s with Rocky), and it wouldn't have lessened their standing in people's perception of them whatsoever. However, Sly decided to put in a little effort, and yeah, both were successful and more importantly worthwhile endeavors that added positive chapters to their respective franchises legacies. How long was it between George Miller's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", and "Mad Max: Fury Road" again? Yes, of course it was Tom Hardy as Max, but to argue that with some tweaks in the script, "Fury Road" couldn't have starred a aged Mel Gibson Mad Max would be ludicrous. I'm not sure about these days, but Mel was in beast mode as far as being in shape by the mid 2010's with films like "Get the Gringo" and "Expendables 3".

Your provided examples have other factors that ensured their success more than what can applied to this situation. Cruise manicured himself to resemble his 1986 self and probably had to be refrained from going to further with his appearance since he's supposed to be the elder to the rest of the pilots. Keaton has allowed his hair to whiten and most of his roles allow his natural (of any at all) hairline. Cruise wouldn't be caught dead looking like that as Maverick.

The moment in Ghostbusters: Afterlife  with the core Busters reuniting was very forced and undeserving. They had no bearing on the story beside just giving a moment for the audience to cheer for a moment that's already been played out before. I don't need to see Keaton say "I'm Batman" or "Let's get nuts" again when he already did it perfectly. The suit in The Flash looks more less-cumbersome than his previous suits, which could seriously affect Keaton's acting since he used the claustrophobia he suffered from being in the suit for his performance. The returning Ghostbusters just had to jump into their union suits and likely had lightweight packs to maximize comfortability for the aging actors.

Stallone is a whole other beast in and of itself. He writes, directs and recently took on the task of recutting one of his films. Like Cruise, he knows what the audience wants and isn't priming himself to do a personal project, like that Edgar Allan Poe project that he seems to have decided to let go of. It was unrealistic of Affleck to believe that he could effectively do those tasks in his own Batman film and it ultimately didn't happen.

The whole Fury Road experience proves how valuable it was in the original films that they had limitations to work with. I saw no value in Miller finally being able to show someone wasting their universe's precious commodity, gasoline, on someone blaring an electric guitar that spits fire. It looked ridiculous as it sounds but people still ate it up like it was the second coming. Bob Gale mentions how terrible Back to the Future would have ended up if they had gotten their way and the changes improved the final film. I'll gladly take the original Mad Max and Road Warrior over Fury Road any day. A Batman film with the same approach I'm sure would give me the same reaction.

Unfortunately, it takes a little bit of effort, and Warners apparently was more keen on relying on the mere novelty of just having Keaton back in the batsuit for nostalgic purposes (along with propping up the Flash film itself of course), rather than anything remotely resembling a truly 'proper' continuation/conclusion of the Burton films.

Again, that's the cards that have been dealt. Our boy deserved better.

I'm sure Keaton is just fine with whatever they've worked out for him, because he's getting paid and is content with his place in his career. Us fans, on the other hand, have our reservations and expectations that I don't believe can be achieved. I believe a better statement would be "WE deserve better" and not "Our boy."

[thecolorsblend]

It was unrealistic of Affleck to believe that he could effectively do those tasks in his own Batman film and it ultimately didn't happen.

Not to get sidetracked. But looking back at it, Affleck's anticipated workload should've been a giveaway. Iirc, he would've written, directed and starred in his Batman movie. Odds are he would've been involved in a producer capacity as well because those rumors were circulating as well. Just one of those jobs would've been monumental. But doing all of them would've probably been the biggest challenge of his entire career. Argo would've looked like a sunny vacation in comparison. And that's before we get into whatever behind the scenes drama was going on.

All of this is to say that you raise a good point here. And it's something that doesn't get brought up very often when the Affleck Batman movie gets discussed. There's a very strong argument that Affleck bit off more than he could chew with that movie. Which could be what actually killed it. Or at least contributed to killing it.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not to sound like a Debbie Downer. But the older I get, the more I think that some things need to be left in their place. I mean, Keaton's Batman is the founder of the feast for me. I think B89 totally changed the trajectory of my life.

But it ended in 1992. For better or for worse, his time with the character came to a close.

These attempts to somehow revive that Batman have (so far) only showed me how special, unique and unrepeatable that entire experience was. Things end, it's totally okay. Nothing wrong with that.

And I'm starting to think that maybe it was better when BR was Keaton's (unwitting) swan song with the character and that universe. Because the stuff we've gotten since then and the stuff in the pipeline... ain't exactly instilling a whole lot of confidence.

Unless there's a Burtonised Batman Beyond project secretly in the works - which let's face it, the chances of that happening are remote at best - I have to agree with what you said. I thought the writing was on the wall as soon as it was becoming apparent that Burton's timeline was getting retconned to fit into some bastardised Flashpoint timeline. Not only because I hate Batfleck getting phased out, but I've equally resented the idea of rebooting Keaton's Batman. If you do that, he becomes a completely different character altogether, in my opinion.

Still, if the film side couldn't satisfy my enthusiasm, these comics should've delivered. There's no excuse for how it went off the rails. What's even more frustrating is there are some good elements here. The Drake Winston Robin and Two-Face were done well for the most part, and Joe Quinones poured his heart and passion into his great artwork. But if the story starts to go downhill as it progresses and is a dud overall, it won't work.

The way I see it, this limited run comes across as a sequel to a set of Batman movies that don't exist. Aside from the nice Easter eggs by Quinones, this doesn't feel like a sequel that takes place after BR. Catwoman doesn't have an arc, which makes it harder to believe she is supposed to be the same character played by Michelle Pfeiffer. Batman himself is largely inconsequential and even useless. He does so little. Barbara Gordon, why did she have to be in this story? The troubled relationship with her father is largely ignored and neglected by the end of the run. As I've said before, she could've been named somebody else and it wouldn't make any difference to Commissioner Gordon.

I'm surprised to read reactions to this run is a lot more positive outside of this forum. I assume this is because of the novelty of how Billy Dee Williams could've looked like as Two-Face and Quinones' art is highly appreciated. Once all that excitement disappears, I predict time will not be kind to these comics. A missed opportunity.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm sure Keaton is just fine with whatever they've worked out for him, because he's getting paid and is content with his place in his career. Us fans, on the other hand, have our reservations and expectations that I don't believe can be achieved. I believe a better statement would be "WE deserve better" and not "Our boy."

At the core, Keaton's return was about fixing a hole that appeared with Affleck's departure. Without that hook it wasn't going to happen, probably ever. Which brings in the seemingly lack of Burton having a clear say in the projects even if he wasn't making them himself. And that's a problem for me. I get the very credible impression that Bale would not return to the franchise without Nolan. Until Nolan changes his mind he's done, and he's content about that. That type of return would have much more authenticity and would have naturally evolved over a longer period of time, rather than just suddenly appeared.

[eledoremassis02]

I think Batman has a much larger range of whats considered as "Definitive Batman" wheras Spider-man has been overall consistant (besides Garfield who was basically shunned in NWH). It was usually camp Tobey of camp Holland.

There really is a Batman for everyone and I think that makes things a little more complicated (epeshally when alot of peoples memory starts with Bale). Then The Batman made it further complicated.

Heck, they've been showing the 90s Batman films on TV alot and there have been alot of retrospectives of Burton Batman on youtube and I guess it's just hit it's era of Retro-fawning that people are paying attention to it. For a while now Birdman was right with the line "I'm an answer to a trivial pursuit question" if the Batgirl test screenings are accurate then alot of people arent even aware Keaton is back as Batman.

Keaton makes sense for me in terms of replacing Affleck because their Batmen are overal similar and Afflecks Batman is basically the tony stark of DC (post IM3 where he's just in other peoples films) and Keaton works well with less in more.

However, I do think this who multi-verse thing is the last huraah for large comic franchises. I just saw a video the other day where they talked about these multiverses are just about making everything that ever existed relevent and thus bankable and "everything is cannon". How do you go beyond that?

Ninja Turtles has a very similar problem. Every incanrantion since 2010 (first cartoon crossover?) that established everything is cannon has each follow up with "hey lets do crossover with the 80s turtles...again". It lost its appeal fast for me.

In ties to this comic, I feel like this wasnt that great of a re-introduction either. It feels like a draft more than a polished story.