Batman (1989) - Page 6

I gotta see that version.

Luca... Boddicker... I'll see what I can do.

Interestingly enough, if I recall correctly, the rest of the movie is the same. They just felt the need to change the ending for God only knows what reason.

When I was in elementary school, I told another kid, "C'mere, you gruesome sunuvabitch. Come to me!" having no idea what sunuvabitch meant at the time. The other kids told me it was a baaaaad word.

In junior high, inspired by Drunken Master II, I kicked high-up and dug my heel into a friend's thigh.

I agree that Burton's sense of action ain't any great shakes, but I've realized for myself that the panache that others have commented upon partially comes from the fact that Burton isn't ashamed of the limitations of the Batman suit.

I think I've talked about it before, but the fact that Burton's film is so much more stylized (compared to Nolan's) makes it easy to accept the visual of Michael Keaton having to turn his entire body to look to the side or look up. I think it looks awesome. It makes the image of the Batman so much more dynamic. In terms of animation principles, it makes for a much more striking silhouette.

In Begins, that shot of Batman running through the prison hallway and tossing that bomb at the door looked so goofy. In terms of motion, he moved less like a superhero and more like a healthy old man going for a morning jog. Completely UNdynamic.

Even if it's entirely unanimated, huh? This is the goofiest retroactive rationalizing I've ever heard! He can't turn his head, can't bend at the waist or knees, but it's "dynamic." Holy cow.

Yup! Even so! Jackie Chan does the same thing when he choreographs his action sequences. He'll make his stuntmen perform action over and over again until he believes that their silhouettes register clearly for the audience. A lot of animation principles go hand-in-hand with general composition fundamentals. Just because the film itself wasn't animated doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is invalid.

And indeed, it IS retroactive rationalizing. You got that one right.

EDIT: I should be clear that I'm not necessarily saying that Burton was purposely doing the same thing I said Chan did with his action choreography. I just meant to say that his film wasn't ashamed of the limitations of showing a man in a rubber batsuit.

We turn our heads and bend our joints all the time, but no one would ever call that dynamic. In regards to the way they used the suit in Burton's movie, the limitations made Keaton have to move his entire body to perform simple movements in order to be readable. And in this bit of retroactive rationalizing, the dynamism came from the contrast between how the extremes of Batman's poses looked. When he didn't move, he was an immovable statue. When he did move, it usually resulted in much more striking poses that would probably wouldn't look too bad in the pages of a comic.

EDIT2: And yea, I'm sure this has a lot to do with the fact that this movie came out at a very impressionable age for me. Hahahah.

Until we get into a fight scene, or trying to show Batman get in or out of his car.


They're the SAME pose!

Leave me alone, Phil!!!

(scampers to get DVD for screencaps)

Neeeeee... neeeeee... neeeeee!!!

I checked bluebeaver for screencaps - oddly, not ONE cap of Batman in four blu-rays.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...97_blu-ray.htm

I've seen that review before. I never noticed that. That is kinda weird.

Burton made the costume's limitations work for him. He made lemonade out of lemons. Keaton's Batman is cool; no muss, no fuss. END OF STORY.

Posted this in the B Action Thread, but I'll post it here. I wrote a paper on the marketing of the movie for my Media Literacy class last week, Year of the Batman: How Batman Rewrote the Hollywood Game in 1989. Here it is, unabridged and Bat-tastic:

It was inescapable. The glimmering gold Bat-symbol reigned over city billboards, print ads, posters and stands in movie theaters, hyped on television, and accompanying trailers before movies in the first half of 1989. Many wore T-shirts with a black-and-yellow insignia. Others opted to sport the mug of Jack Nicholson’s Joker. The world was waiting anxiously for Batman, the Tim Burton-directed kick-start to Bob Kane’s gothic comic-book detective, and it was unlike anything the media had seen before. After two decades of being an embarrassment in the media due to the campy 1966-68 TV series with Adam West, the people who associated the costumed vigilante with a catchy theme song and bright-colored graphics reading “POW!” and “BAM!” would get a reality check.

Comic book aficionado Michael Uslan wanted to erase the stigma that the 1960’s had brought forth, and after a tumultuous development history, Batman finally solidified a director and started filming in the fall of 1988. The shoot was just as rough—the budget had skyrocketed from $30 million to $48 million, and Burton remarked the pressure during filming was “torture” due to the erratic and megalomaniacal behavior of producer Jon Peters (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 168). The money was big. The effort was hard. Warner Bros. would have any potential of this film being a disaster over its dead body.

Peters, a notorious Hollywood figure who rose to power as a hairdresser in L.A., hustled production designer Anton Furst to his office late in 1988 to show him concept advertising art for the film that Warner had been working on, “sort of like Conan, or RoboCop—the word ‘Batman’ spelled out in Conan the Barbarian font.” In other words, it was “nothing you hadn’t seen before” (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 170). Peters wanted to “drop everything,” and he asked Furst to design the logo. The aforementioned, glimmering bronze-gold Bat-symbol emerged from his designs, appearing as if it looked “like it was stamped out of the gear Batman wears.” The “simple but evocative” logo became so striking that it was omnipresent well before the movie would hit theaters on June 23. Peters said it was “exactly what we want.” He felt crowding the poster with the images of its actors and their equally sized names was too much, and “he waged an all-out war with Warner” to have the posters simply boasted the new logo and “June 23” at the bottom (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 170). This was, of course, not including the “miniature Batmobiles, Batwings, sunshades, earrings, cloisonne pins, backpacks and boxer shorts” which the logo helped clog up consumerist arteries well before June 23 hit (Corliss, 1989).

Getting the message across on paper was established brilliantly. The elegant black and gold color scheme was a loud heralding that the movie was coming and that it would be huge. However, there was a bigger roadblock than print advertising and merchandising awaiting the production: showing off the product in action to the public. Fans were outraged at the choice of Michael Keaton—better known for his scene-stealing performances in comedies such as Beetlejuice (also directed by Burton) and Night Shift—for the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman because of his prior acting background (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 171). Keaton’s presence was a far-reaching problem for many people, and considering his background, it was apt. The character had never been comedic until censorship of comic books spun him out into wild, wacky adventures in the 1950’s, a move further butchered by the William Dozier-produced show from the mid-to-late 60’s. Furthermore, in the face of the late 80’s, when the film was being made, DC Comics, Batman’s owner, had solidified comics for adults with the revolutionary graphic novels Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, the latter of which found a grizzled, elderly Bruce Wayne slamming his way through a dystopian universe. Without more being said, casting Michael Keaton, no matter how good his abilities as an actor, was a setback.

By late fall, production was wrangling with a significant change to the film’s climax, and the Keaton panic had found its way to not just movie-centric magazines, but the Wall Street Journal (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 171). Peters found an easy solution. A teaser trailer—that is, an abbreviated or ambiguous trailer mainly used to establish hype for a film—was rushed out, “a surreal assemblage” of unrefined odds and ends from the film (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 171). All the teaser consists of are short bursts of action and dialogue scenes from the film; the teaser ends with Jack Nicholson, in Joker makeup, reading a newspaper and scowling, “Winged freak terrorizes? Wait till they get a load of me.” We then smash-cut to a close-up of Keaton as Batman, and the teaser closes simply with “Coming This Summer” in capitalized block letters.

The teaser turned out to be not only a bold marketing move, but a crowd-pleasing foretelling that care was put into the film. It hit theaters in December 1988 with the release of the Mel Gibson/Michelle Pfeiffer/Kurt Russell drama Tequila Sunrise. That film received a monstrous boost at the box office from moviegoers who didn’t bother sticking around for the movie and paid as high as $6 for the sole purpose of getting a glimpse of the teaser trailer (Corliss, 1989). No question, it was a last-minute effort to appease audiences, but it set the record straight unlike any other film could have at the time. It heralded a return to the character’s roots, and in only 90 seconds hit every right note comic book fans and audiences wanted.

As June grew closer, Batman continued to loom large over the pop culture vernacular thanks to the myriad clothes, toys, and the relentless ad campaign, which also spun out a full trailer showcasing Danny Elfman’s score and reasserting audiences of its scope. However, “Warner was [still] a total freak-out,” according to Peters (Corliss, 1989), as parent company Warner Communications had been talking to Time, Inc. about a possible merger (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 173). While they had Lethal Weapon 2 to fall back on in case Batman failed, the upcoming summer was crowded with competition from properties as well cemented as their juggernaut. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier bombed in early June, which eliminated that as a threat, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Ghostbusters II had both subsequently broken opening weekend records within three weeks of each being released (The Economist, 1989). As opening weekend approached, Last Crusade was already a month in release, and Ghostbusters II was cooled by tepid reviews and audience reaction. Disney also had Honey! I Shrunk the Kids positioned as counter-programming to Batman, and insider word was that “heads would roll if [Batman] was a box-office disappointment” (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 172).

On June 22, the anticipation grew with night shows in some markets and reports of some moviegoers camping outside theaters in Westwood, CA (Griffin & Masters, 1996, p. 172). It got $2 million alone from the pre-shows on Thursday. On Saturday, it was reported that Batman had made $13.2 million on opening day, already $2 million over the daily record Last Crusade had set the previous month. Then it made $14.6 million on Saturday. In the end, Batman ran off with $42.7 million in its opening weekend. The film deserved it, too. It deviates from the comics at several points, especially in light of Christopher Nolan’s later films, but Burton’s film is a top-tier popcorn film highlighted by a pair of fantastic lead performances and is a visually arresting experience. No beats in the story are off, and it’s virtually perfect from an aesthetic standpoint, thanks to the Elfman score, the songs by Prince, and Burton’s neo-Gothic visual style.

It has been two decades since Batman exploded in theaters and reinvented the comic book genre and solidified the character for who and what he was rightfully created for. Batman set a bar for marketing a film unprecedented by no other. It was a film with universal appeal, one that did not need to depend on a particular group of people for its success nor was it a niche film. The nerds got their dark interpretation of Batman, and commercial audiences got a blissful, entertaining eye and earful of pop art. While 1992’s Batman Returns did not do as well financially or commercially, it still thrives on Burton’s creative guide and serves as a worthy successor to the original. With the latter two sequels, it descended into the worst circles of the “toyetic” culture of marketing, which the 1989 original had brilliantly exploited. Only Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s dark, realistic, and modern take on the character, would give Burton’s original a rival. Nevertheless, the legacy of Batman’s marketing boils down to scientific fact: lightning never strikes twice.
--------------------
If anyone cares to touch on something not in here, say so.

Ha. I actually busted out some screencaps like a dork. Trying to find some of these, I'm less certain in my position. I think Paul said it best and more succinctly. Burton made the limitations work for him. And the bits of personality that Keaton is able to put into the suit shouldn't be overlooked.

Being 'ashamed' of the suit or not was the wrong way to put it. Kinda. Perhaps Nolan wasn't 'ashamed' of the suit enough when he let Bale clunking around in his suit be flatly lit in the prison hallway, hehe. Burton's leanings toward German Expressionism work well with hiding the suit. And he gets a lot of mileage out of the cape. I think that's where I got a lot of the 'dynamism' from. It's a flair that Nolan only seemed to use when his Batman used the thing to glide. Keaton's used it simply to present himself.

Anyways...

Simply turning to walk away!


Bending knees! Getting out of car!


Go, cape! Go!


I don't think Bale could do this!

I'm starting to feel like Princess Kate. Maybe I should start labeling these with Fig.

Haaaaahahahaha! Good at fighting crime. Fantastic at limbo.


The cape makes it solid AND dynamic!


I forgot that this movie actually had SOME animation. Fun stuff.


Bring it on, old man!!!

This probably is obvious in retrospect, but there's some of Christopher Lee's Dracula in how Batman is presented in the movie. Especially with the cape.

I haven't watched Batman in a long time, but from what I remember I honestly prefered the fight scenes in Batman to any of the Nolan films. In many ways the Burton fights were more ridiculous due to the Bat suit, but atleast it was fun and flashy.

Jesus Christ, you keep bringing it back to Nolan. Okay then: what's funny is that everyone talks about how "crazy" Keaton's Batman is, but among all those wet streets, all that steam and blatant disregard for zoning laws, Keaton's Batman makes total sense; he's a total extension of the production design (the only real star of that film). A guy stomping through a dreary jail cell under flat/harsh fluorescent lighting in a batsuit? THAT guy looks fucking crazy.

I remember seeing Keaton on the cover of Starlog, the first good look we got of the Batsuit, and being crushed. Guy looks like a cake topper.

The people who insist on making comparisons betwen Nolan and Burton remind me of that small cadre of fanatics who swear that Brian Cox's Hannibal Lecter is so much cooler and more badass than Anthony Hopkins'. They're two different things. Why aren't people bringing the '66 Batman movie into this? Or MASK OF THE PHANTASM? It seems to be more about posturing against a geek golden calf than actual discussion.

Ever since I was little, I always wondered what that purple shit was on the Joker's neck. The blu ray brings it even more to light!

It's a make-up problem... Clearly some of the dye from the purple coat rubbed off on the white make-up.

That picture you posted reminded me how perfectly cast Nicholson was in the role.

Although I'm a TDK supporter, I could never get behind the thinking that claimed Heath Ledger did a "better" job with the character. Ledger had more to work with. Nicholson had to bring a rather simplistic cartoon character to life in a vivid way and he did just that.

It's an iconic performance, completely devoid of nuance because the part doesn't call for it. It's as broad as it gets and tons of fun to watch him work.

I just want acknowledge this. That's why I like Nolan's approach, not necessarily prefer it, but like it. Batman really sticks out in Nolan's world, he's played like the intrusive anomaly that he is; Burton's Gotham City is made to give birth to freaks like Batman, The Joker, etc.

Back to '89. I haven't watched it in a spell, but I've always thought that Nicholson was fabulous as the Joker, and way before the rebirth of the series, I was sort of bothered by the fact that there was/is this geek presence that shat all over his performance as if he didn't do anything but show up and be "Jack", which seems to me to be an incredibly poor understanding of his performance and acting in general.

If Jack Nicholson is the narcissistic goofball loser he plays the Joker as then we've all been seriously misled by those Oscar telecasts.

He's pretty great, really. Love the handbuzzer scene - that feels like classic Joker.

Keaton had a cooler cowl, no doubt. Those ears looked like they could kill someone.

Nicholson played the Joker a decade too late, i.e., as a puffy 53 year old man, but that "Wait'll they get a load of me" newspaper reveal (which wasn't a reveal, since we'd already seen him) was pretty cool at the time.

I've read Sam Hamm wrote the part with Something Wild-era Ray Liotta in mind. That would have been something.

Wild.

Almost as if it was always destined to be a shot in the teaser!

Are you talking about this image? Hmm... I never noticed that he juts his hips to the side.

Thats an interesting way of looking at it. I have to admit it was really strange seeing Batman conducting an investigation in a bank amongst other cops in TDK. And also in the jail cell, but strange in more of a ,"how do you explain that Nolan", kinda way. It didn't gel with the whole realism bit. I don't know maybe I'm just being picky, it is a comic book film at the end of the day.
In terms of the action, I remember the church scene from Burtons Batman, was pretty cool. Wasn't the knife weilder and the fight pretty good? For all Batman stiffness and imobility in Burtons Batman, his enemies were all crazy kung fu masters which was pretty cool.

Following this discussion my heart has been with McNooj, most likely as I'm more prone to being swayed by sentimentality and nostalgia. (Seeing the Burton film in the theater 8 fuckin' times may have helped) But Phil has hit on an underlying element that I've slowly begun to appreciate more.

At first, I was not impressed with the use of flat and obvious Chicago locations for Nolan's films. I found it hard to seperate a beleaguered Gotham from the city Bob Newhart strolled through countless times on TV Land. In the end, though, it's exactly this flat and mundane cityscape that accentuates the psychosis of it all. And, not to derail, leads to perhaps my favorite Batman moment in any of his filmic incarnations, the escape through Arkham. The drop down the stairwell, his landing, his run through the cell hall as criminals get their presumably first glimpse of the Dark Knight. Even the melodically vague score manages to suddenly stir with a goose-pimpling ascending chord progression.

I've seen that Hamm tidbit on Liotta as well and it's damn fascinating. Kinda like blowing John Glover as an crazy scientist stereotype (with a scene shamelessly aping SUPERMAN IV).

Hehehe... sentimentality and nostalgia only take the '89 Batman so far with me since it's really not that good a movie. In the end, I much prefer Nolan's films. I just enjoy talking up certain aspects of how each director dealt with the character.

I always loved the way Nolan used Chicago for Gotham. After 4 movies of koo-koo Gotham, it was a breath of fresh air. Pfister's cinematography made it look fantastic.

Me too, and it's not because I am from Chicago and work 3 blocks from where the truck flipped over in TDK, and where Wayne Enterprises is located... oh wait it is!!

Actually, I like both versions for different reasons, but I can't deny that it's pretty cool seeing Chicago as Gotham.

For it's time, I loved it.

I caught this on ION over the weekend, and couldn't watch more that 10 minutes of it. I can't stand Robert Wuhl's constant mugging, him realizing this is his 15 minutes. And how about Kim Basinger's only method of diplaying bewilderment, wonderment, deep thought, and basically every other feeling with a well timed biting of the lower lip? Ugh.

Also, great report, Hunter. It's ironic that your avatar is the OTHER Napier: Charles Napier. The Joker was Jack Napier.

The Kristen Stewart of the late 80s to mid-90s!

All the guy listens to is Prince. Can you blame the ol horndog?

It's my annual bump of this thread:

Things noticed due to Blu-Ray (or me just paying attention). Napier actually pays off Eckhart with money stuffed between two slices of bread. I had literally never noticed that before. Also the audio on the Blu-Ray is kind of tinny, I was hoping for the main theme to shake the windows but it's just sort of there. Looks great though, even if it's apparent that everything is a massive fucking soundstage. There's this odd thing where unless it's nighttime no one casts any shadows in the exterior scenes.

Well, I'll be damned. All this time, I'd assumed Napier was just giving Eckhart a sandwich. You know... because he's a porkins. What a lil' bastard I was.

I had literally never noticed the bread before, just thought it was money in a bag.

Still <3 the movie.

Also the sound issues were because I'd somehow reconfigured my TV. Tried it again and the Batman theme BOOMED.

You might think that I'm joking, but I was actually relieved for you. I've had lots of times when I was disappointed with the sound on a disc when it turned out I needed to alter some setting. Then, bliss.