Batman film of the 1989 is a BAD BATMAN FILM....

[Cmbmool]

I hope fans of Batman can look at this Youtube video which goes into depth about Batman 89 film and how it explains that while it is an enjoyable film it is A BAD BATMAN themed film...

However as fans of Batman what do you think of this Youtube video ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR5Iteeiq2M

[byrd156]

I think most Batman movies we have had are bad Batman movies. The Nolan movies capture the spirit and struggle of being Batman but they feel more like a crime drama movie rather than a comic book Batman film.

Other than the animated Batman films, the '66 movie is the closest we have gotten to a proper Batman film. Sure it's of the Silver Age Batman but still.

[JBatmanFan05]

Mask of the Phantasm is the only Batman film I have ever seen that understands what Batman is, where he comes from, and what his films can be.

[Alan2099]

I liked it and I still think it does a better job capturing Batman and the world he lives in than the Nolan movies did.

[Minerboh]

Ιf Batman 89 was... a bad film then what can be said for Batman Forever and the Batman And Robin which almost wiped out Batman from the cinematic map almost completely?

[9th.]

Ιf Batman 89 was... a bad film then what can be said for Batman Forever and the Batman And Robin which almost wiped out Batman from the cinematic map almost completely?

That's impossible, those nipple costumes are forever etched into our memory.

[adrikito]

I liked this film, almost like Batman Nolan films.

[Last Son]

In the most basic, fundamental way, Batman is a good Batman film. I feel like if the no-kill rule were so fundamental to the character, Finger and Kane would have thought of it before the character ever debuted. And if being true to a villain's characterization and origin were so important, then nobody would have ever accepted Lex Luthor being changed into a businessman who delegates the science work to his employees instead of doing it himself. Seriously, why is it OK for Lex to be so fundamentally changed and have that be the preferred version of the character by nearly everyone, but make the Joker a mobster who killed the Waynes and it's like burning a Bible? Or for that matter, why is it OK for Ra's Al Ghul to be a white guy from Ireland who has lived for 50 years rather than 500 years and whose goal is to destroy criminally corrupt cities rather than reduce Earth's human population to save the environment? And to top it all off, have him be merged with one of the characters that mentored Bruce on his journey to become Batman? A notorious Batman villain being the guy who trained Bruce and taught him about fear and theatricality is OK, but include the Joker in Bruce's backstory and you never hear the end of it, I guess.

Personally, I don't mind the alterations and retcons and reimaginings all that much, but some comic fans can be absolutely bonkers when it comes to being true to source material, and they apply their outrage very inconsistently when you consider how many alterations superhero movies have made to the source material over the past 20 years and how frequently the comics themselves are retconned and reimagined.

Another thing I'd like to note is just how gaga Superman fans are over any and all callbacks to the original rowdy, lawbreaking Superman of the early golden age, but any mention of golden age Batman and it's always "that version doesn't count!".

[Miles To Go]

Mask of the Phantasm is the only Batman film I have ever seen that understands what Batman is, where he comes from, and what his films can be.

Phantasm/World's Finest/Sub Zero/Return of the Joker are perfection

But Batman Forever>Mystery of the Batwoman

[KingsLeadHat]

Mask of the Phantasm is the only Batman film I have ever seen that understands what Batman is, where he comes from, and what his films can be.

Couldn't agree more. BTAS in general is just vastly superior to even the best Batman films as an adaptation. Hell, I think it's one of the few adaptations that's superior to the comics version.

I do think that the 1989 film succeeded in improving the aesthetic of Gotham city, shifting from a somewhat generic modern cityscape to the gothic, quasi-40's look that's been the style since BTAS.

[MarkRodriguez09]

You have to remember though, movies based on existing cartoon series and take place within their universe don't have the extra burden of explaining anything and just jump right in. Mask of Phantasm didn't have to introduce the Joker. Sub Zero didn't have to introduce Mr. Freeze and Robin. Batman Beyond.... well there's a movie's worth of story just explaining Terry being Batman to begin with.

Live action movies always have the burden of explaining everything and laying down the groundwork. The only movie I seem to remember that literally jumps right in were Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but mostly because they were sequels and it is assumed Batman has been in action for a while and takes down villains constantly.

[ironman2978]

You have to remember though, movies based on existing cartoon series and take place within their universe don't have the extra burden of explaining anything and just jump right in. Mask of Phantasm didn't have to introduce the Joker. Sub Zero didn't have to introduce Mr. Freeze and Robin. Batman Beyond.... well there's a movie's worth of story just explaining Terry being Batman to begin with.

Live action movies always have the burden of explaining everything and laying down the groundwork. The only movie I seem to remember that literally jumps right in were Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but mostly because they were sequels and it is assumed Batman has been in action for a while and takes down villains constantly.

Agreed, not to mention there are different target audiences (or more vast target audiences).

I feel like after rewatch Nolan Batman films and at the very least the 89 Batman film (Batman Returns) is arguable. Did understood and conveyed the core concepts of Batman and certain ideas he represents even though they weren't perfect. Plus the cartoons can do stuff and convey ideas that live action films don't always have the luxury of being able to.

[byrd156]

You have to remember though, movies based on existing cartoon series and take place within their universe don't have the extra burden of explaining anything and just jump right in. Mask of Phantasm didn't have to introduce the Joker. Sub Zero didn't have to introduce Mr. Freeze and Robin. Batman Beyond.... well there's a movie's worth of story just explaining Terry being Batman to begin with.

Live action movies always have the burden of explaining everything and laying down the groundwork. The only movie I seem to remember that literally jumps right in were Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but mostly because they were sequels and it is assumed Batman has been in action for a while and takes down villains constantly.

Mr. Freeze was explained in Subzero and in Phantasm Joker wasn't really the main bad guy so there was no need to explain him. You understood that he was bad and what he did to the Phantasm's family. The movie was more about Bruce's relationships personal and to the mission.

[Mistah K88]

You have to remember though, movies based on existing cartoon series and take place within their universe don't have the extra burden of explaining anything and just jump right in. Mask of Phantasm didn't have to introduce the Joker. Sub Zero didn't have to introduce Mr. Freeze and Robin. Batman Beyond.... well there's a movie's worth of story just explaining Terry being Batman to begin with.

Live action movies always have the burden of explaining everything and laying down the groundwork. The only movie I seem to remember that literally jumps right in were Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but mostly because they were sequels and it is assumed Batman has been in action for a while and takes down villains constantly.

To be fair, Joker was never really introduced in BTAS. He and Penguin were just there while all of the other villains had introduction stories. This means that the Joker and the Penguin were thorns in Batman's side before the series started. You could go into Mask of the Phantasm without having seen an episode of BTAS and you wouldn't be confused or anything at all as with Batman and Joker you can go in with their ubiquity alone. The other DCAU movies do require you to be a little bit familiar with the world established first, but Mask of the Phantasm could be a stand alone movie if they wanted it to.

[Spencermalley935]

Mask of the Phantasm is the only Batman film I have ever seen that understands what Batman is, where he comes from, and what his films can be.

I think TDK trilogy honestly gives Phantasm a run for it's money once you take the whole "It's TAS as a movie" factor out of the equation. Hell in terms of animated stuff, I think Under the Red Hood is just as good if not better.

As much as I love TAS, I've never agreed that all Batman adaptations need to follow it's example or template and it's never fun whenever fans try to tear other versions down to try and build it up.