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

[Spencermalley935]

Also Bruce's looking to retire in Dark Knight and actually retiring in Rises annoys me.

Wasn't he willing to give up his crusade for Andrea in Phantasm? (Yeah I know it was before he became Batman but still) On the subject of "getting Batman", I think The Dark Knight gets Batman's character way more than the 89 film and on the subject of him retiring, I'm gonna quote straight from Nolan himself.

it all comes back to the scene between Bruce Wayne and Alfred in the private jet in Batman Begins (2005), where the only way that I could find to make a credible characterization of a guy transforming himself into Batman is if it was as a necessary symbol, and he saw himself as a catalyst for change and therefore it was a temporary process, maybe a five-year plan that would be enforced for symbolically encouraging the good of Gotham to take back their city. To me, for that mission to succeed, it has to end, so this is the ending for me, and as I say, the open-ended elements are all to do with the thematic idea that Batman was not important as a man, he's more than that. He's a symbol, and the symbol lives on.

Ledger gave a better performance but Nicholson's Joker felt more like the Joker to me

From a more aesthetic point of view, I can understand that since Nicholson's Joker had the Bleached skin and all the gimmicks like laughing gas, joy buzzers etc. but Ledger embodied the character better in my opinion especially his trademark fascination/relationship with Batman. I also never liked the subplot of Joker stalking Vicki Vale that really added nothing to the movie and felt out of character.

[sunofdarkchild]

For me a good Batman movie should have something to say about the character, either by exploring something about his personality or by pushing the limits of what he will do. Pushing the no-killing rule is perhaps the most common way of doing this, which is partially why the complete jettisoning of that rule in the Burton movies and DCEU stand out so much.

One of the reasons I like Batman Forever is that it really explores the psychology of Batman. Like Mask of the Phantasm and Dark Knight Rises, it questions whether Bruce can be Batman and still lead a happy life, or whether he must 'condemn himself to a life of nightly torture.' And unlike pretty much every other version that asks that question, it's ultimate answer is he can do both when he lets go of his guilt. Even Batman and Robin has moments where it shows it could have been a good movie in the scenes where Clooney talks to Alfred, like when he is told that Batman is an attempt to control death itself. Unfortunately the rest of the movie is so bad those scenes just stick out as not belonging, but taken on their own they're actually really well done.

After the 2 Burton films, the only things I can say I know about this Batman is that he's a sociopath, a murderer, and probably criminally insane. How they needed to make Joker the Wayne's killer and make him go after Batman's love interest in order to make the confrontation between them personal is a failure I'll never understand, especially when Batman already was responsible for the Joker's creation. It's Batman and the Joker! Why are any of these stupid changes necessary to add any stakes to the movie or for the main hero to have any emotional investment in actually fighting the villain?

[Jokerz79]

Wasn't he willing to give up his crusade for Andrea in Phantasm? (Yeah I know it was before he became Batman but still) On the subject of "getting Batman", I think The Dark Knight gets Batman's character way more than the 89 film and on the subject of him retiring, I'm gonna quote straight from Nolan himself.


From a more aesthetic point of view, I can understand that since Nicholson's Joker had the Bleached skin and all the gimmicks like laughing gas, joy buzzers etc. but Ledger embodied the character better in my opinion especially his trademark fascination/relationship with Batman. I also never liked the subplot of Joker stalking Vicki Vale that really added nothing to the movie and felt out of character.

Bruce had a moment of weakness where he thought of having a normal life in Phantasm in one of my favorite scenes but once he put the cowl on there was no turning back. The Nolan trilogy he was always looking for an out in Dark Knight he said once Harvey took care of the mob he'd quit to be with Rachel then he did after her death and again at the end of the film. I can't buy Batman quitting.

As for Joker beyond the aesthetics outside of the Vicki subplot Nicholson's Joker just felt like Joker with the pure randomness of some of his crimes like killing Bob where Ledger's Joker's crimes all seemed calculated which felt less like the Joker. Nolan wanted to tell a more realistic to our world Batman and Joker stories in his films and he succeeded and they were amazing films but to me that also made them not as good Batman films as other films while superior films in general.

[Spencermalley935]

The Nolan trilogy he was always looking for an out in Dark Knight he said once Harvey took care of the mob he'd quit to be with Rachel then he did after her death and again at the end of the film. I can't buy Batman quitting.

He didn't quit though, He retired after he had suceeded in what he set out to do. In Batman Begins, one of the lessons Bruce learns is that the corruption among the higher-ups in Gotham is responsible for men like Joe Chill and that's who he needs to go after rather than waste time trying to deal with the symptoms. His passing the torch on the Harvey Dent is the culmination of his entire mission statement from Begins. Once Harvey had successfully broken the mobs hold on Gotham, It really wouldn't make any sense for the Batman established in Begins to switch priorities and prowl the streets looking for petty crooks. Again to quote Nolan himself "For the mission to succeed, It has to end".

Batman's quit dozens of times in the comics, he even said in one issue that "The day I can hang up my cape and stay home is the day I'm working towards". Of course he'll never actually quit for good in the comic's because the fans we'll accept nothing else but a movie isn't beholden to that, They put finitie spins on things from the comics all the time (The Joker dies in Batman 89 instead of having a long colorful history with Batman)

Nicholson's Joker just felt like Joker with the pure randomness of some of his crimes like killing Bob where Ledger's Joker's crimes all seemed calculated which felt less like the Joker.

The Joker was originally a very calculating criminal mastermind in his first couple appearances in the comics and when it comes down to it Ledger's Joker really had no end goal aside from spreading chaos and eroding law which in my opinion held true to the randomness of the character. Nicholson's Joker felt very aimless in his planning.

[talja_l]

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.

What is Batman really?

[Jokerz79]

He didn't quit though, He retired after he had suceeded in what he set out to do. In Batman Begins, one of the lessons Bruce learns is that the corruption among the higher-ups in Gotham is responsible for men like Joe Chill and that's who he needs to go after rather than waste time trying to deal with the symptoms. His passing the torch on the Harvey Dent is the culmination of his entire mission statement from Begins. Once Harvey had successfully broken the mobs hold on Gotham, It really wouldn't make any sense for the Batman established in Begins to switch priorities and prowl the streets looking for petty crooks. Again to quote Nolan himself "For the mission to succeed, It has to end".

Batman's quit dozens of times in the comics, he even said in one issue that "The day I can hang up my cape and stay home is the day I'm working towards". Of course he'll never actually quit for good in the comic's because the fans we'll accept nothing else but a movie isn't beholden to that, They put finitie spins on things from the comics all the time (The Joker dies in Batman 89 instead of having a long colorful history with Batman)



The Joker was originally a very calculating criminal mastermind in his first couple appearances in the comics and when it comes down to it Ledger's Joker really had no end goal aside from spreading chaos and eroding law which in my opinion held true to the randomness of the character. Nicholson's Joker felt very aimless in his planning.

I've disagreed when it happens in the comics only Death or Inability should keep Bruce from being Batman.

As for Joker A few early appearances doesn't define a character to me and wanting to create anarchy and destabilizing society doesn't feel random to me especially with elaborate planning.

At the end of the day you prefer the TDK trilogy to Mask of the Phantasm and Batman 89 and that's cool I always said it was only my opinion and my opinion on these films isn't going to change.

[Spencermalley935]

I've disagreed when it happens in the comics only Death or Inability should keep Bruce from being Batman.

Bruce doesn't actually like being Batman, He doesn't derive any joy or satisfaction from it. He's Batman because he feels obligated to be as such and to honor the memory of his parents by fighting for a better world, one that won't need a Batman anymore. With that in mind, I don't see what the big deal is in having him desire a life beyond fighting crime. He obviously won't ever achieve it because of the nature of comics as a medium but that doesn't necessarily have to bode true for every other form of media.

At the end of the day you prefer the TDK trilogy to Mask of the Phantasm and Batman 89 and that's cool I always said it was only my opinion and my opinion on these films isn't going to change.

I'm not trying to change your opinion but I wanna say one more word on the subject. The 89 movie had Batman flat out state he was going to kill the Joker and he pretty much did, That to me goes against the character more than anything in The Dark Knight.

[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.

[byrd156]

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.

You see the Penguin's introduction but never the Joker which I find interesting. All the villains in the sho except Joker join later on so Dick and Bruce in the early years only ever fought one costumed crazy.

[Mistah K88]

^Did we see Penguin's first interaction with Batman in BTAS? He seemed to be a well known criminal in his first appearance in the show.

Also, it's funny that they used Batman 1989's gangster origin for Joker in BTAS/DCAU. However, I think that the mobster origins for Joker was done better in Mask of the Phantasm.

[byrd156]

^Did we see Penguin's first interaction with Batman in BTAS? He seemed to be a well known criminal in his first appearance in the show.

Also, it's funny that they used Batman 1989's gangster origin for Joker in BTAS/DCAU. However, I think that the mobster origins for Joker was done better in Mask of the Phantasm.

Yeah you'e right I was thinking of the BTAS bible where they explained it and the Birds of a Feather episode. He basically goes straight but turns bad because everyone mocks him. I've always though that was his origin episode since the series is out of order.

[Scott Taylor]

Ok three things:

1) Not doing Batman's origin in '89 was brilliant.
2) Who cares about Bruce Wayne's "story arc"? Its a Batman movie.
3) Burton, Nicholson and Keaton justified the means

Batman '89 is a great movie that deserves all the respect and accolades it routinely gets from longtime fans. The author of the video is just an idiot trying to get views. But kudos, I guess, because I watched most of his video.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Didn’t care to watch the video, but I will say I like Batman ‘89 a lot. Largely because I find Keaton to be an interesting Bruce Wayne/Batman— he’s definitely not the dreamy chiseled, good-looking hunk from the comics and I believe that was intentional. Burton wanted someone who looked like an average man in order help bring a sense of realism to the Batman character and in my honest opinion it worked. Keaton’s Wayne has this awkwardness about him that was sort of endearing and sad at the same time because no matter how aloof he was you could always tell that this man was repressing some deep demons when he was Bruce Wayne and Keaton’s Wayne doesn’t even see Batman as just this fictitious alter-ego that he uses to fight crime but see’s Batman as his true identity and Bruce Wayne as the fake alter-ego he uses to bid his time before he can let his demons out again and be his true self in the night. You can totally buy this guy dressing up as a giant Bat more than most actors who matched the traditional mold of Bruce Wayne from the comics.

So in a way, Keaton’s Wayne was a batcave-dweller(yes, cheesy I know). And imo, Keaton’s Batman is scary as heck to me when I was a just wee boy. In fact, I found him more scary than even Nicholson’s Joker partly because of his eyes. Those eyes... Keaton’s eyes always told me he was disturbed, it ways told me that this Batman was broken, and man they were effective especially in his performance(Burton always said part of the reason he cast Keaton in the role was because of his distinctive eyes that conveyed a sense of intensity). I loved how Keaton’s Batman looked, I love his tough, no-nonsense, serious facial expressions... I love it all. He was really great.

Yeah even his goofy “You wanna get nuts!? LET’S GET NUTS!” line that lot of people hate I dig.

[Spencermalley935]

Ok three things:

1) Not doing Batman's origin in '89 was brilliant.
2) Who cares about Bruce Wayne's "story arc"? Its a Batman movie.
3) Burton, Nicholson and Keaton justified the means

Batman '89 is a great movie that deserves all the respect and accolades it routinely gets from longtime fans. The author of the video is just an idiot trying to get views. But kudos, I guess, because I watched most of his video.

1) He at no point in the video complains about it not being an Origin for the character of Batman, His issue is the lack of development for Batman or the Joker
2) You realized you just contradicted yourself right? Isn't the movie called Batman not Joker?.
3) What does that even mean and how does that disprove any of the points brought up in that video?

[Jokerz79]

Bruce doesn't actually like being Batman, He doesn't derive any joy or satisfaction from it. He's Batman because he feels obligated to be as such and to honor the memory of his parents by fighting for a better world, one that won't need a Batman anymore. With that in mind, I don't see what the big deal is in having him desire a life beyond fighting crime. He obviously won't ever achieve it because of the nature of comics as a medium but that doesn't necessarily have to bode true for every other form of media.




I'm not trying to change your opinion but I wanna say one more word on the subject. The 89 movie had Batman flat out state he was going to kill the Joker and he pretty much did, That to me goes against the character more than anything in The Dark Knight.

Batman killed in 39 and it felt like Burton was going for the early Batman of 39.