Batman Resurrections (Batman 89 Sequel Novel)

[Gotham Knight]

I've read the entire novel. My thoughts in brief are that it is a very solid book that is not in line with your typical tie in books, which are typically breezy, thin, afternoon novellas that can be devoured quickly. This book is much more in line with that of a proper novel, ambitious in its telling, embellishing the world and the head spaces of the main characters. However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned. He's much closer to the mark than Hamm's comic, but you still see it run off course. The novel stumbles when it needlessly tries to answer what it thinks are dangling questions from the first film, questions that frankly already had sufficient answers in the film or didn't need addressing.

I'd still give the prose and the crisp, professional hand of John Miller praise enough to give this a solid 7.5 out of ten and a hardy recommendation to ardent 89 fans.

Also, be on the look out for the just announced sequel, also penned by Miller, entitled BATMAN: REVOLUTION...spoiler likely a Riddler story.. That's all from me until we get into discussions.

[Travesty]

I didn't know this was a thing. I may just buy it for my kindle.

Thanks for the heads up. 😎👍

[The Dark Knight]

Thanks for your thoughts, GK. My copy is yet to arrive. I'm expecting to feel similar to you. A decent read that generally does a good job, but not without niggles.

However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned.

Not surprising. Any Burton continuation that has a closer relationship with Gordon or has references to Arkham Asylum gets an automatic red mark against it from me. These things didn't happen in the first two films and I see no reason they would have in a third. I believe Resurrection features a scene of Batman in daylight, and while that was an unused idea for B89, it nonetheless didn't feature and I just can't imagine this incarnation doing that.

[Gotham Knight]

Thanks for your thoughts, GK. My copy is yet to arrive. I'm expecting to feel similar to you. A decent read that generally does a good job, but not without niggles.

However, as is typical with the Burtonverse's forays into the expanded canon, we have the same old issues. It isn't as extensive as the 89 comic run, but we still have to deal with a few big problems: trying to re-litigate the films, straying too far from the voices we recognize, and trying to make it more like the comics. It starts off well enough, but as the narrative progresses it becomes apparent that this isn't quite the 89 universe, particularly where Batman is concerned.

Not surprising. Any Burton continuation that has a closer relationship with Gordon or has references to Arkham Asylum gets an automatic red mark against it from me. These things didn't happen in the first two films and I see no reason they would have in a third. I believe Resurrection features a scene of Batman in daylight, and while that was an unused idea for B89, it nonetheless didn't feature and I just can't imagine this incarnation doing that.

Yes, TDK, you are correct. The scene would have played better if Bruce had to makeshift a disguise or put on a balaclava mask during this daylight scene. Instead it has to explicitly be a daylight batsuit with gray on it because gray is comic book. End spoiler.
As for Batman, I accept some of the character expansions because it does allow for understanding why the GCPD endorsed this version and the scene where it is most prominent involves children who are in need of rescue, so I can only complain so much. It really is a solid book that I'm anxious to discuss. Waiting on you guys!

[The Dark Knight]

To tell you the truth I would have liked Resurrection to feature no new villains at all and instead focus on Bruce's ruminations, the remnants of Joker's gang and the beginnings of Max Shreck's string pulling. I have no idea how much time the author is putting in between the two films but I never felt it was terribly large. I like the idea The Penguin being the second villain Batman faced after a period of relative calm following Joker's death. These books rewrite all that if readers are willing to consider them canon.

[DocLathropBrown]

I'm a little over halfway through the book, and I would generally say it's a very good Batman story, but for a Burton Batman follow up, it does have some hiccups. Even as someone who is perfectly happy for Keaton's Wayne to become more like the comics version, for me it needs to be post-Returns to make the most sense.

(spoilers) His verbosity is less-than correct, while in a written format, you're going to be inside his head so I expected to "hear" more from Wayne (so to speak), I do feel he talks too openly to people. Also, he's a bit too-known around town, nor do I care for him having a relationship with someone else. Keaton's Wayne didn't feel like a playboy at all and more of a hermit. Miller pays lip-service at one point to Bruce having been more of a background character, but that falls off as we go on. I wouldn't have minded a small appearance from Julie Madison as someone trying to catch Bruce's attention (because comics easter egg and that's fun), but to me, if his relationship with Vicki is on-the-rocks, he should be a bit more reclusive in all aspects--not dating someone like he's comics Wayne.

I don't mind the daylight scene, as if I recall it takes place at dusk, and the idea of an alternate suit that's easier to conceal/put on being a different color is fine. The more niggling aspects that I don't like are the two moments where Miller feels the need to try to fill "gaps" in the film's logic, drawing direct attention to things that are sometimes whined about by certain fanboys. We don't need to bother drawing attention to where the goons in the cathedral came from, nor whether Napier knew Batman's identity when he said he "was a kid when [he] killed" the Waynes. That feels like pedantic fanboyism, the same that's all over Peter David's novelization of Batman Forever and it's tacky. (end spoilers)

As I said, I'm only a little over halfway and overall I'm pleased enough, but I'm also firmly of a personal mindset that the perfect follow-up to Burton's movies are Schumacher's, so things that feel like they want to further separate the two film eras or re-contextualize what the Schumacher films said for the continuity will always be kept at-arm's-length for me, so things in this that don't mesh perfectly with our understanding of this universe don't really offend me all that much. I just look at it as another branched timeline, like in The Flash. While I was hoping for a product that I'd be able to reconcile with the existing four film chronology, but if it doesn't, oh well.

I have to wonder if making Keaton's Wayne seem more like the standard Batman might be some kind of DC Comics mandate. I dunno if anyone on-high would really care if one particular Batman was portrayed as a bit more bloodthirsty and vicious (since variants like that still come up in Elseworlds comics), but with the weird washover Sam Hamm did on Keaton's Batman in his '89 comics ("I'm not a killer, Selina" -_-), it's making me wonder. Not that I think Keaton's Wayne sets out to kill primarily (like some fanboys want to pretend), but like the Golden Age version, sometimes he just don't give a damn.

Smaller observations aside, the portrayal of the villain so far is great, as I was worried they were going to go grounded with him, and his P.O.V. and tragic nature feels right at home in a Tim Burton-adjacent product. Tim would have definitely played with the same angle, I feel.

My expectations for the back-half of the book: (spoilers) I'm hoping that Bruce's emotional state starts to trend darker, and considering that we may be looking at Napier being alive (which better not turn out to be true since I think that's silly), that might make sense. Considering that a sequel novel was announced, that's further potential for Bruce to turn into the lonely, vicious wretch we saw in Returns, and for me to be overall satisfied with Jackson's work, it's going to have to get-us to a point that feels like it leads into the second film perfectly, otherwise, what was the point? Bruce being more verbose, trying to become more of a public figure and other questionable aspects of this novel will be forgiven by me if we end in the correct place.

The idea that Keaton's Wayne was superficially more like the comics version for a time before trending darker is acceptable to me, allowing for his redemption in Forever to really signify a shift in his overall character, like I personally read-into the final moments of Returns. Let's face it, aside from being very silent and a hermit, he isn't too off-model from the comics in '89 until he discovers who killed his parents--THAT's when he starts killing in the film, so I've always accepted that the sudden opportunity for vengeance warped him and his moral fiber.

[The Dark Knight]

Thanks for the overview, Doc. I've accepted that nothing will feel like a legitimate continuation of the Burton duology and we don't need connective tissue in between the films anyway. The questions Resurrections seeks to answer never perplexed me and we can already answer them ourselves. Bruce simply being reclusive and not spending enough time with Vicki is enough reason why they separated. Also, Joker saying "I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." I mean, how childish can you get?" can be taken at face value if we want. I'll still read the book (it's on the way anyway) but my expectations have been tempered.

[Gotham Knight]

Another huge spoiler I think will be a big topic of discussion: The Batman '89 comic is definitely canon, which is a tad odd considering that Miller went out of his way to say that it wasn't necessarily canon, but that Resurrection wouldn't step on its toes. Batman'89 is absolutely canon, as Drake Winston of Royal Auto has a cameo. Also, it should be noted that something the current run of the '89 comic has been hinting at now makes sense. '89: Echoes has referenced Hugo Strange several times as Crane's former mentor and Bruce keeps mentioning that Hugo worked for him in the past. This now makes sense and also explains why the comic has been delayed several times: These two stories overlap. Hugo did in fact work for Wayne...in Resurrection under the alias of Hugh Auslander and is the principle villain of the novel. So, yeah, these stories literally cross over with each other. I expect the final issues will lay this out.

Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"

Anyway it will be interesting to hear what people thing about that.