Movies 30 years ago Sunday, Batman 89 released across the United States

[SaysWho?]

 

Details about the film, including Vale finding out Batman's identity.

 

Quote

It’s the choice that should have landed Alfred Pennyworth on a one-way trip back to England. The Wayne family’s loyal butler completely violated Bruce’s trust by personally escorting Vicki into the Batcave, blowing his boss’s secret identity. Alfred’s casual betrayal has baffled fans for 30 years, and Hamm is right there with them. “I’ll have you know that I did not write that scene,” he says. “That’s the scene where I would fire Alfred! Bruce would be like, ‘You’ve been like a father to me for 35 years, but your phony ass is fired.’”

 

Vicki does learn Batman’s actual identity in the Hamm’s script, but it involved some detective work — and a dream sequence — instead of a rogue butler. “It didn’t happen this way for a variety of reasons, but in my script, Vicki was actually the point-of-view character; the one through whom the audience began to unravel the mystery of Batman,” he explains. As in the theatrical version, Vicki partners up with reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) and together they unravel pieces of the larger Bat-puzzle at the same time that she’s growing closer to Bruce, who has managed to remain a man of Willy Wonka-esque mystery. Her two worlds collide when Batman rescues her from the Joker’s attack at the Gotham Museum of Art, leading to a street chase during which the Dark Knight is temporarily knocked flat by his counterpart’s henchmen while Vicki watches from a rooftop.

 

Quote

In the film version, the men move to remove Batman’s mask, but are interrupted by the flash of Vale’s camera bulb. In Hamm’s script, they actually see the face beneath the cowl. “That was another moment where I wanted to play with comic book conventions. I wanted to say, ‘OK, they take off the mask — now what?’ And, of course, when they see him, it’s like ‘Who’s he? I’ve never seen him before.’” Their confusion gives Bruce just enough time to go on the offensive, knocking them down and fixing his cowl firmly back over his head.

 

Vicki missed seeing Bruce’s exposed face, but things snap into place for her during her ride back to the Batcave. “She’s listening to him, watching him and she’s going, ‘I know who this guy is — this is Bruce,’” Hamm says. Sensing another unmasking, Batman deploys a dose of knockout gas. While asleep, though, Vicki’s unconscious mind takes over and pieces together his origin story, starting with the murder of Bruce’s parents in Crime Alley.

“Joe Chill shoots Pop Wayne and Mom Wayne and the little boy is standing there crying. Then Commissioner Gordon is hugging the boy and a flashbulb goes off, and we do a reverse angle that reveals the person holding the camera is Vicki. She wakes up, the phone is ringing and it’s Bruce. At that moment, she knows it’s him. That gradual reveal was part of her story: Her realization that the guy she’s falling for and the crazy vigilante she’s been tracking are actually the same guy.”

 

[skillzdadirecta]

I remember loving it at the time but less so as time went on.

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I remember loving it at the time but less so as time went on.

 

Several years ago, I watched it again.

 

It's worth a watch, but yeah, it's been surpassed in ways I didn't think possible at the time.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Several years ago, I watched it again.

 

It's worth a watch, but yeah, it's been surpassed in ways I didn't think possible at the time.

It was still more of a child of the 60's show than Batman post Dark Knight Returns and Year One. I know Burton is on record saying he was inspired by DKR wh ed n making the movie. There's still more camp in the film than I think needed to be at the time. Plus as great as Keaton was, he just didn't have the physicality to sell you as Batman.  That movie was saved by great art direction, costuming and production design.  And Jack Nicholson's over the top performance as the Joker.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It was still more of a child of the 60's show than Batman post Dark Knight Returns and Year One. I know Burton is on record saying he was inspired by DKR wh ed n making the movie. There's still more camp in the film than I think needed to be at the time. Plus as great as Keaton was, he just didn't have the physicality to sell you as Batman.  That movie was saved by great art direction, costuming and production design.  And Jack Nicholson's over the top performance as the Joker.

 

That's why I noticed during my re-watch. It felt like the darker Batman that was needed at the time; now it feels like it's more over-the-top since we saw what grit was with the new films.

[number305]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It was still more of a child of the 60's show than Batman post Dark Knight Returns and Year One. I know Burton is on record saying he was inspired by DKR wh ed n making the movie. There's still more camp in the film than I think needed to be at the time. Plus as great as Keaton was, he just didn't have the physicality to sell you as Batman.  That movie was saved by great art direction, costuming and production design.  And Jack Nicholson's over the top performance as the Joker.

I'll agree with most of that - except I think Keaton was great.  I don't think Batman could show much physicality in the suit they had for that film.  Keaton could hardly move in it.

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, number305 said:

I'll agree with most of that - except I think Keaton was great.  I don't think Batman could show much physicality in the suit they had for that film.  Keaton could hardly move in it.

Lol that's the problem

[number305]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Lol that's the problem

Keaton has gotten to be more of a badass as he has gotten older too.  If they ever need an old man batman I hope they go back to him.

[Brick]

This is the film that began my love for the Caped Crusader. 

[Dre801]

I don't think I've watched it since the early 90's.

[5timechamp]

it screams of having been filmed on studio grounds.. but there are so many great visual and musical sequences that I cant help but enjoy it....

 

-the museum sequence all the way to the end of the drive to the bat cave

-bat plane sequence and cathedral scene (I love miniatures)

 

theres better bat films but this holds up

[Kal-El814]

As far as Batman takes go, it’s close to being the ultimate expression of the character and the universe he inhabits... serious when it needs to be, funny when it can be, has a preposterous yet entertaining villain, and makes no fucking sense at all if you take the time to think about it even a little. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are better movies but I think there’s something that Nolan never really got (or chose not to portray, I suppose) about the character, which is the absurdity of the whole affair. I appreciate that not everyone is looking for that Batman take specifically, but it’s one of the things I appreciate more about Batman and even Batman Returns (to a lesser extent) as time passes. Batman ‘89 leans into some of What Miller brought to the table in The Dark Knight Returns, but doesn’t suffer from the mistake that SO MUCH Batman media did since then, which was to take that shit straight up seriously.

[DarkStar189]

As a kid I watched this movie so much during the early 90's.  I would lose my shit every time the Joker pulled out that ridiculous gun and shoot down the Batwing.

[SaysWho?]

7 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

As far as Batman takes go, it’s close to being the ultimate expression of the character and the universe he inhabits... serious when it needs to be, funny when it can be, has a preposterous yet entertaining villain, and makes no fucking sense at all if you take the time to think about it even a little. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are better movies but I think there’s something that Nolan never really got (or chose not to portray, I suppose) about the character, which is the absurdity of the whole affair. I appreciate that not everyone is looking for that Batman take specifically, but it’s one of the things I appreciate more about Batman and even Batman Returns (to a lesser extent) as time passes. Batman ‘89 leans into some of What Miller brought to the table in The Dark Knight Returns, but doesn’t suffer from the mistake that SO MUCH Batman media did since then, which was to take that shit straight up seriously.

 

Putting aside that it's not a mistake, you're appreciating it because of the bold. At the time of Nolan's trilogy, Batman media didn't really get serious like that and went from campy to "What killed the dinosaurs?!" It finally grounded the series and actually explored Bruce/Batman in a way that none of the previous films did -- why he's even Batman, why the theatrics, why Bruce has to be the true mask of Batman. 

 

The underappreciated fact of TDK trilogy is that it is funny when it needs to be; it's just not zany funny. Joker's hysterical many times yet actually scary as a villain, yes, but I'm talking little character moments.

 

Selina: "I'm sorry you lost all your stuff."

Bruce: "No, you're not."

 

Alfred: "If those are to be the first of many injuries to come, it would be wise to find a suitable excuse. Polo, for instance."

Bruce: "I''m not learning polo, Alfred."

 

Gordon: "Bruce Wayne? That was a very brave thing you did."

Bruce: "What, trying to catch the light?"

Gordon: "You weren't protecting the van?"

Bruce: "Why, who was in it?"

...

Bruce: "You think I should go to a hospital?"

Gordon: "You don't watch the news much, do you, Mr. Wayne?"

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

Putting aside that it's not a mistake, you're appreciating it because of the bold. At the time of Nolan's trilogy, Batman media didn't really get serious like that and went from campy to "What killed the dinosaurs?!" It finally grounded the series and actually explored Bruce/Batman in a way that none of the previous films did -- why he's even Batman, why the theatrics, why Bruce has to be the true mask of Batman. 

 

If by Batman media you mean the films, sure. If you mean the comics, Batman had been “serious” since The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke in the late 80’s. The comics never ditched the vestigial references to the character’s campy past, like the huge penny in the Batcave and things like that. But Batman has been serious for 30+ years now. 

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

If by Batman media you mean the films, sure. 

 

Yes. Not many options in the film world until TDK trilogy gave a more grounded look at the character, Batman's relationship to Gotham, what Batman means and why he exists. It was not serious for quite a long time, longer than 30+ years since Batman was created in the 30s.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

50 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yes. Not many options in the film world until TDK trilogy gave a more grounded look at the character, Batman's relationship to Gotham, what Batman means and why he exists. It was not serious for quite a long time, longer than 30+ years since Batman was created in the 30s.

Batman TAS

 

sure has some campy or more comic-book like moments, but it did explore the character’s relation ship with both his lives and the city. 

 

Not only in episodes, but also in Mask of the Phantasm. 

 

All the Dark Knight Trilogy did different was ground the character and world more in reality. 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Batman TAS

 

sure has some campy or more comic-book like moments, but it did explore the character’s relation ship with both his lives and the city. 

 

Not only in episodes, but also in Mask of the Phantasm. 

 

Well, I'm talking the film world, so that's about one movie in the 70 years Batman existed until TDK trilogy.  

 

Even Burton's films, which were considered darker and more psychological at the time, didn't explore Batman/Bruce much. I love memorable villains, but they basically stole the whole show. Hilariously, Batman Forever did a bit more than even Batman 89 at going into the character, like him being Batman because he "chooses to be." 89's a better movie, but it's just a sad indictment on the film that an inferior campier movie did a better job than the original Burton film at that.

[Greatoneshere]

Man, people's history must be hazy. Batman Begins was revolutionary for its time. In 2005, when it came out, it was all the rage - we were all blown away by how serious it took itself, how psychological it got, how everything in the film felt justified and practical and grounded. It's funny because having rewatched the film many times since its release, it's actually a very comic book-y movie.

 

But to my recollection, Batman Begins was considered the most in-depth and psychological take on Bruce Wayne/Batman not for internet message board posters/comic book readers, but for a vast majority of American and global audiences. The Dark Knight propelled that into the stratosphere. The DC universe has since ruined the more serious take that Nolan had started and the MCU's more comedic and light-hearted contrast to Nolan's more serious films means we don't get a lot of comic book movies like The Dark Knight anymore, when I would appreciate that - only now and again like with Logan or (hopefully) the upcoming Joker. No one's disputing that other media and comic books had explored Bruce Wayne/Batman with the depth (and much moreso even) of Batman Begins before Batman Begins existed, but those people aren't most audiences/people, that's a specific niche. 

 

It took a live-action serious and grounded (for the time) theatrical film that regular people would bother to watch (at the time) to get this take out there. 

[Bloodporne]

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Man, people's history must be hazy. Batman Begins was revolutionary for its time. In 2005, when it came out, it was all the rage - we were all blown away by how serious it took itself, how psychological it got, how everything in the film felt justified and practical and grounded. It's funny because having rewatched the film many times since its release, it's actually a very comic book-y movie.

 

But to my recollection, Batman Begins was considered the most in-depth and psychological take on Bruce Wayne/Batman not for internet message board posters/comic book readers, but for a vast majority of American and global audiences. The Dark Knight propelled that into the stratosphere. The DC universe has since ruined the more serious take that Nolan had started and the MCU's more comedic and light-hearted contrast to Nolan's more serious films means we don't get a lot of comic book movies like The Dark Knight anymore, when I would appreciate that - only now and again like with Logan or (hopefully) the upcoming Joker. No one's disputing that other media and comic books had explored Bruce Wayne/Batman with the depth (and much moreso even) of Batman Begins before Batman Begins existed, but those people aren't most audiences/people, that's a specific niche. 

 

It took a live-action serious and grounded (for the time) theatrical film that regular people would bother to watch (at the time) to get this take out there. 

That's 100% how I remember it as well and even how I discussed it with several friends, especially that first paragraph. 

[SaysWho?]

9 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Man, people's history must be hazy. Batman Begins was revolutionary for its time. In 2005, when it came out, it was all the rage - we were all blown away by how serious it took itself, how psychological it got, how everything in the film felt justified and practical and grounded. It's funny because having rewatched the film many times since its release, it's actually a very comic book-y movie.

 

But to my recollection, Batman Begins was considered the most in-depth and psychological take on Bruce Wayne/Batman not for internet message board posters/comic book readers, but for a vast majority of American and global audiences. The Dark Knight propelled that into the stratosphere. The DC universe has since ruined the more serious take that Nolan had started and the MCU's more comedic and light-hearted contrast to Nolan's more serious films means we don't get a lot of comic book movies like The Dark Knight anymore, when I would appreciate that - only now and again like with Logan or (hopefully) the upcoming Joker. No one's disputing that other media and comic books had explored Bruce Wayne/Batman with the depth (and much moreso even) of Batman Begins before Batman Begins existed, but those people aren't most audiences/people, that's a specific niche. 

 

It took a live-action serious and grounded (for the time) theatrical film that regular people would bother to watch (at the time) to get this take out there. 

 

Not only that, but at least on the IGN boards, it was routinely considered the best comic book film made at the time, with Spider-Man 2 sometimes beating it for some of the users. It opened weakly but had REALLY long legs at the theater due to word-of-mouth, and then its TV playtime and DVD sales helped spread the word. Ebert said it was the first Batman film to "get it right, to get it exactly right." It followed up Batman & Robin, for crying out loud, and the other boards I posted on were excited as hell for the movie because I finally met people who weren't huge Burton Batman fans who talked about what they were excited for with Begins.

 

And Begins came out at the time when Marvel movies pre-MCU were popular, and also before Spider-Man and X-Men disappointed in their third outings. By the time TDK released that Joker trailer, everyone was posting, "brb going to change my pants."

 

I mean, shit, I love all three of the movies, but take TDK's ending in particular. The exchange between Gordon and Harvey? I've missed plenty of MCU films, but of the ones I've watched, there is nothing like that ending in them or comic book movies prior to TDK. And Batman's, "She wasn't?" G'damn. And to end it like that AFTER the epic social experiment part of the film and the Joker/Batman confrontation? Fuck.

 

Nowadays, the title of "Best comic-book movie" is more diverse. Maybe it was one of the Avengers. Maybe it was Logan. Maybe you really dug Captain America 2. Maybe Spider-Man: Homecoming was the Spidey movie you were waiting for. Maybe it's still Spider-Man 2 or Superman. Maybe you thought Days of Future Past was the best X-Men movie and a return to form. Maybe it's Into The Spider-Verse and its snappy script. Maybe it's one of the Nolan Batmans. But at that time, Batman Begins was out of this world as far as the kind of take it was presenting. 

[Rodimus]

It was about 9 years ago I went and say the Adam West Batman downtown in Austin at the Paramount theater where the original movie premiered. It was great I saw the old bat-mobile and Adam West was alive and there on Stage. He was so proud of being mayor on the Family Guy.

 

I remember seeing this 1989 Batman. It will be the Batman I grew up with. I had my room covered in Batman from bed sheets to clock. This movie also started my interest in reading comics. I thought the sequel was great but at first I was unsure. I like the sequel a lot these days. I agree that at the time it didn't seem they could get any better but they have over the years (Dark Knight Trilogy).

[Kal-El814]

Really all I was trying to say was that by the time Nolan’s Batflicks came out, the character had been deconstructed in the comics for decades by that point. The trilogy is great and obviously hugely influential as it pertains to superhero films, but it’s not an especially novel take on Batman himself. Batman’s obsession with fighting crime being pathos and not just “because comics” dates back to Dennis O’Neil’s run in the seventies, Frank Miller doesn’t do The Dark Knight Returns / Alan Moore doesn’t do The Killing Joke without that, and Nolan doesn’t do ANY of that without 30 years worth of print to pull from. It doesn’t make his films any less of an accomplishment.

[Greatoneshere]

14 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Really all I was trying to say was that by the time Nolan’s Batflicks came out, the character had been deconstructed in the comics for decades by that point. The trilogy is great and obviously hugely influential as it pertains to superhero films, but it’s not an especially novel take on Batman himself. Batman’s obsession with fighting crime being pathos and not just “because comics” dates back to Dennis O’Neil’s run in the seventies, Frank Miller doesn’t do The Dark Knight Returns / Alan Moore doesn’t do The Killing Joke without that, and Nolan doesn’t do ANY of that without 30 years worth of print to pull from. It doesn’t make his films any less of an accomplishment.

 

I think the only point the rest of us were making was that for a lot of people,  it was a novel take to them since that was their first exposure to that take, broadly speaking. I agree with you about the rest. 

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think the only point the rest of us were making was that for a lot of people,  it was a novel take to them since that was their first exposure to that take, broadly speaking. I agree with you about the rest. 

Oh yeah for sure. A novel approach on film, just not for the character in general. 

[TheRealSmallville]

Here's a fun little time capsule of news coverage. 

 

 

[TheRealSmallville]