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

[Batfan Beyond]

The Bronze Age existed when the 89 movie came out so why was Burton directed to use a more specific era of Batman comics when a more important era existed. It's all a moot point anyway because Burton has said as a point of pride that he has never read a comic book in his life.

Because for producer Michael E. Uslan the whole point of this film since its inception in the 70's was to get back to the roots of the character, and get him out of the shadow of the Adam West series.

I'm also familiar with that Tim Burton quote you're referring to. It reads to me more like a poorly thought out rebuttal than a factual statement. The unfortunate thing is many fans use that quote in order to discredit Burton's prep on the film, as if Warner Bros let a young filmmaker wander on the set, of what was the most expensive movie ever made at the time, without doing any research into what he was making. That notion is preposterous. There are multiple quotes, and articles that disprove Burton's statement.
Michael Uslan (producer): "I only let Tim see the original year of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger run, up until the time that Robin was introduced" (DVD)

Back in the late 1980s, Tim Burton took [Alan] Moore to lunch to pick his brains about making the first Batman movie. Moore's advice was "get Gotham City right".(guardian.co.uk int.2002)
Alan Moore (The Killing Joke writer): "I told them [Tim Burton and Samm Hamm] to make it dark and serious and exorcise the ghost of Adam West" (Ian Winterton Interview 2002)

It's one thing to add mystique to a character, It's another to relegate him to the background and make the movie entirely about the Joker. I think that's a tie-breaker for me. Batman 89 is not about Batman (I don't even think the Parent's death flashback would've been there if it hadn't featured the Joker) while Batman Begins is about Batman from beginning to end. Begins was also the first movie to nail the character of Bruce Wayne and how he's supposed to act in public which was an area Keaton was lacking in.

".....it's another to relegate him to the background and make the movie entirely about the Joker." Another criticism that I'm very familiar with. I seem to be one of the few who has never had a problem with the amount of screen time Bruce Wayne/Batman have. Although, I do think that was a problem with the follow up film "Batman Returns". I never felt like the movie was all about the Joker either. You have Knox trying to uncover more about Batman, Vicki's trying to learn more about both Bruce Wayne and Batman, The Joker's seeking revenge against Batman and hates that he keeps upstaging him at every turn. I've always felt that this film revolves around Batman. On top of that Batman has an arc in the film, but the Joker doesn't.

The 89 film is one of those movies that feels like it was made for me. The things that people scold for were never a factor for me.

[Batfan Beyond]

Same. But I also like Rises better than Begins. What a weirdo!

youre-going-down-a-path-i-cant-follow.jpg
There's a lot to like in Rises, but it just never comes together. Still can't get past the film glossing over Bruce returning to Gotham, and there are 3 characters in there that I think could've been cut out.
1. John Dagget
2. Talia
3. Foley
For me those characters only serve to complicate the plot. Not a terrible film though.

[DCStu]

Not to repeat myself, but again it's just important to note that this film is based on the Golden Age Bob Kane/Bill Finger pre-Robin era. That character was almost a complete 180 from the Batman we're all familiar with. He was an unhinged vigilante rather than a noble hero with a moral code. I'm on the third volume of the Golden Age right now and for the most part this guy has no code. They've introduced the idea that he doesn't kill criminals but it's inconsistent as he will still push a criminal to their death from time to time. Keep in mind that this movie was being made around the 50th Anniversary of the character. In the context of 50 years the Neal Adams version of the character was fairly new at the time, so I can understand the impulse of going back to the characters roots rather than the contemporary comics of the time.

Well - it's a matter of perspective I suppose and the era of comics we grew up in. Those comics you speak of I didn't really know. I'm of the post crisis DC generation.

Not that it matters really. I was 11 when I saw the movie and enjoyed the hell out of it at the time.

As for your other complaints fair enough. Film is a subjective medium, and what works for one person isn't going to work for someone else.

Fair enough.

[Spencermalley935]

youre-going-down-a-path-i-cant-follow.jpg
There's a lot to like in Rises, but it just never comes together. Still can't get past the film glossing over Bruce returning to Gotham, and there are 3 characters in there that I think could've been cut out.
1. John Dagget
2. Talia
3. Foley
For me those characters only serve to complicate the plot. Not a terrible film though.

This complaint irks me to no end. Why is it so important that we show Bruce sneaking past a couple of Bane's guards to get back into Gotham city?. We didn't see how Batman sneaked into a mob bank in broad daylight in The Dark Knight.

[Scott Taylor]

I think Rises mainly gets a bad rep because because it deviates from the notion of Bruce waging a never-ending war on crime (which was never how the Nolan movies were set up).

Take that out of the equation and it's not a bad movie in any way. Quite the opposite honestly.

To me that rep stems from the Harvey Dent subplot from Returns. Batman should have refused to compromise. Rises works for me in spite of the fake redemptive arc and would have worked better for me had Batman entered the movie as a hero and been taken down by Bane regardless then had to come back from it.

Overall Rises still works for me because its an accumulation of the previous two films and it has elements of other great Batman stories in it that I've always wanted to see on film. Plus it squarely makes Batman the uncompromising hero of Gotham.

[Batfan Beyond]

This complaint irks me to no end. Why is it so important that we show Bruce sneaking past a couple of Bane's guards to get back into Gotham city?. We didn't see how Batman sneaked into a mob bank in broad daylight in The Dark Knight.

It's much more than that man. There are multiple obstacles to overcome in the scenario that Bruce finds himself in.
1. Figure out to get back to North America with no money, no Alfred, no resources of any kind.
2. Once you miraculously get past the first problem you also have to worry about how to get back in the city. There's only one bridge which is heavily guarded by the U. S military, and the second option is getting across a body of water that people can't walk half way through without drowning.
3. Then you get to worry about Bane's guards patrolling the city

It's surprising to me because the first two Batman films are all about logic, and explaining how the impossible can be possible. For example, imagine if in The Dark Knight they had the scene of Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Batman discussing bringing Lau back from Hong Kong and the next scene is Lau sitting outside of Gordon's unit with the message from Batman attached to him. You'd have so many questions as to how a massive feat such as that was pulled off. That's what Bruce arriving in Gotham is to me.

I seem to recall Nolan saying that the original cut of Rises was four hours. I have a hunch that the explanation of this problem was possibly cut out, but i have nothing to back that up.

[Mistah K88]

To me that rep stems from the Harvey Dent subplot from Returns. Batman should have refused to compromise. Rises works for me in spite of the fake redemptive arc and would have worked better for me had Batman entered the movie as a hero and been taken down by Bane regardless then had to come back from it.

Speaking of Harvey Dent, they introduced lying to the public of Gotham to keep Harvey's record clean in TDK. In Rises, Bane exposes the secrets kept by Gordon and Batman...the problem is, it seems to fall on deaf ears as Gotham has bigger things to worry about like a NUKE driving around the city... (I feel they might as well have left that plot thread alone).

[Scott Taylor]

It's much more than that man. There are multiple obstacles to overcome in the scenario that Bruce finds himself in.
1. Figure out to get back to North America with no money, no Alfred, no resources of any kind.
2. Once you miraculously get past the first problem you also have to worry about how to get back in the city. There's only one bridge which is heavily guarded by the U. S military, and the second option is getting across a body of water that people can't walk half way through without drowning.
3. Then you get to worry about Bane's guards patrolling the city

It's surprising to me because the first two Batman films are all about logic, and explaining how the impossible can be possible. For example, imagine if in The Dark Knight they had the scene of Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Batman discussing bringing Lau back from Hong Kong and the next scene is Lau sitting outside of Gordon's unit with the message from Batman attached to him. You'd have so many questions as to how a massive feat such as that was pulled off. That's what Bruce arriving in Gotham is to me.

I seem to recall Nolan saying that the original cut of Rises was four hours. I have a hunch that the explanation of this problem was possibly cut out, but i have nothing to back that up.

Do you really think it would have helped the movie to see Batman punch his way past a bunch or goons or figure out a way to cross ice discreetly?

If they'd kept that in the movie all it would have done for me is provide a good time to take a bathroom break.

[blunt_eastwood]

It's much more than that man. There are multiple obstacles to overcome in the scenario that Bruce finds himself in.
1. Figure out to get back to North America with no money, no Alfred, no resources of any kind.
2. Once you miraculously get past the first problem you also have to worry about how to get back in the city. There's only one bridge which is heavily guarded by the U. S military, and the second option is getting across a body of water that people can't walk half way through without drowning.
3. Then you get to worry about Bane's guards patrolling the city

It's surprising to me because the first two Batman films are all about logic, and explaining how the impossible can be possible. For example, imagine if in The Dark Knight they had the scene of Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Batman discussing bringing Lau back from Hong Kong and the next scene is Lau sitting outside of Gordon's unit with the message from Batman attached to him. You'd have so many questions as to how a massive feat such as that was pulled off. That's what Bruce arriving in Gotham is to me.

I seem to recall Nolan saying that the original cut of Rises was four hours. I have a hunch that the explanation of this problem was possibly cut out, but i have nothing to back that up.

1. But he literally did the same thing in Batman Begins. So why is it a problem in Rises but not there? There's a literal precedent for it already in the film series.
2. But again we've already been shown that people were able to sneak into the city in that same movie. Why is it so hard to believe that Batman could do it too?
3. What's hard to believe about Batman evading Bane's guards?

[Spencermalley935]

Speaking of Harvey Dent, they introduced lying to the public of Gotham to keep Harvey's record clean in TDK. In Rises, Bane exposes the secrets kept by Gordon and Batman...the problem is, it seems to fall on deaf ears as Gotham has bigger things to worry about like a NUKE driving around the city... (I feel they might as well have left that plot thread alone).

Revealing the truth is what basically starts his entire revolution. Bane does this to strike at Gothams morale and whips the Blackgate prisoners into a frenzy (I know it's not the only way he could've done it but it is the most convenient way)

How do you think the Harvey Dent stuff should have been handled?

[Mistah K88]

Revealing the truth is what basically starts his entire revolution. Bane does this to strike at Gothams morale and whips the Blackgate prisoners into a frenzy (I know it's not the only way he could've done it but it is the most convenient way)

How do you think the Harvey Dent stuff should have been handled?

Personally I feel that it would have been executed better in a more cleaned up Gotham. With the nuke driving around the city, the revolution definitely seemed more like more of a reaction to what Bane was doing. If the bomb was removed, it would seem like more of a fallout to the events that were covered up rather people acting like scared animals due to a bomb floating around somewhere.

[Batfan Beyond]

1. But he literally did the same thing in Batman Begins. So why is it a problem in Rises but not there? There's a literal precedent for it already in the film series.
2. But again we've already been shown that people were able to sneak into the city in that same movie. Why is it so hard to believe that Batman could do it too?
3. What's hard to believe about Batman evading Bane's guards?

1. Begins showed how Bruce was able to survive without any resources, but he still needed Alfred to get to Gotham.
2. For me that's different because these were undercover agents working for the Government. We don't know how long preparation for that operation took.
3. I actually agree with you on this point, I was just saying there are two major hurtles Bruce would have to overcome before he encountered Bane's guards.

[Spencermalley935]

1. Begins showed how Bruce was able to survive without any resources, but he still needed Alfred to get to Gotham.
2. For me that's different because these were undercover agents working for the Government. We don't know how long preparation for that operation took.
3. I actually agree with you on this point, I was just saying there are two major hurtles Bruce would have to overcome before he encountered Bane's guards.

1. I don't think he really needed Alfred to get back to Gotham, it was just convenient, It stands that he still traveled the world without resources in Batman Begins and he most certainly could do it again in reverse.

[CrazyOldHermit]

I think Rises mainly gets a bad rep because because it deviates from the notion of Bruce waging a never-ending war on crime (which was never how the Nolan movies were set up).

Take that out of the equation and it's not a bad movie in any way. Quite the opposite honestly.

It's not that Bruce is supposed to wage a never-ending war on crime, it's that his reasons for giving up didn't seem to hold up and that plot point failed to live up to the promise of The Dark Knight's ending.

"He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”

Four years later and it turns out that they never actually hunted him, because he was never seen again after that night. It didn't matter that he could take it. And he was neither a silent guardian nor a watchful protector, just a guy with a beard in an old mansion.

Now granted, the movie attempts to address this with the Dent Act, a piece of legislation that denies parole to criminals convicted of participating in organized crime. This is a good idea, because it plays off of Harvey's first scene in The Dark Knight and makes Batman's sacrifice actually mean something. But the movie fails to follow through on the other half of the bargain. The point Gordon raised at the end of Begins, which was also raised by the Joker in The Dark Knight, is that Batman's existence will inspire escalation in the criminal realm. In The Dark Knight the mob died but it was being replaced by something much worse. The Dent Act put the final nail in the mob's coffin but it did nothing to address the threat of more criminals like the Joker. Yet in Rises that escalation just stalled out, so Batman had no more reason to exist at all.

What I'm saying is this plot point feels contrived, based on it being so contradictory to the subtext of the previous two films, and since the entire movie launches off of this plot point the whole story is weaker right off the bat.

This doesn't make the movie bad, but it does make it disappointing. At least to me.

I also felt that Batman having the reputation of a killer was a neat way of addressing the problem Maroni brought up in the middle of TDK, which is that criminals were wise to Batman's one rule, so it's a little disappointing that it didn't pan out. But that's just a minor disappointment.

[Batfan Beyond]

It's not that Bruce is supposed to wage a never-ending war on crime, it's that his reasons for giving up didn't seem to hold up and that plot point failed to live up to the promise of The Dark Knight's ending.

"He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”

Four years later and it turns out that they never actually hunted him, because he was never seen again after that night. It didn't matter that he could take it. And he was neither a silent guardian nor a watchful protector, just a guy with a beard in an old mansion.

Now granted, the movie attempts to address this with the Dent Act, a piece of legislation that denies parole to criminals convicted of participating in organized crime. This is a good idea, because it plays off of Harvey's first scene in The Dark Knight and makes Batman's sacrifice actually mean something. But the movie fails to follow through on the other half of the bargain. The point Gordon raised at the end of Begins, which was also raised by the Joker in The Dark Knight, is that Batman's existence will inspire escalation in the criminal realm. In The Dark Knight the mob died but it was being replaced by something much worse. The Dent Act put the final nail in the mob's coffin but it did nothing to address the threat of more criminals like the Joker. Yet in Rises that escalation just stalled out, so Batman had no more reason to exist at all.

What I'm saying is this plot point feels contrived, based on it being so contradictory to the subtext of the previous two films, and since the entire movie launches off of this plot point the whole story is weaker right off the bat.

This doesn't make the movie bad, but it does make it disappointing. At least to me.

I also felt that Batman having the reputation of a killer was a neat way of addressing the problem Maroni brought up in the middle of TDK, which is that criminals were wise to Batman's one rule, so it's a little disappointing that it didn't pan out. But that's just a minor disappointment.

I agree, and to add to that I don't like that Bruce finds out about Rachel's letter. I liked the sentiment at the end of The Dark Knight that basically says Bruce has done so much for Gotham that he deserves to not know about it.

I remember seeing the end of The Dark Knight and being excited by the prospect of the next film having a rogue Batman. A Batman that is truly working outside of the law. I'm disappointed that we didn't get that, but I will admit that that may have been an unfair expectation on my part.

Also, does the movie really give you a reason why he quit? Is it that the scene with Alfred left such an impact on him that he decided right then and there to hang up the cape after defeating Bane? As it stands in the movie it feels like Bruce quitting may have been a last minute decision. However, that can't be right because he altered his will. So that would mean that Bruce was already planning on quitting before he was thrown in the Pit. Idk, I may be thinking about this too much.