CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Question on Burton's Batman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question on Burton's Batman

post #1 of 20
10/12/05 at 8:04pm
Thread Starter 
Kind of a random question, but I've wondered since I was a kid.

Does anyone know the reason behind the two extra points on the bat-logo on Keaton's costume? The new DVD's got me thinking about it again. It wouldn't bother me so much if the Bat-Signal and the movie's promotional material didn't keep it the way it was in the comics. IMDB had a little snippet on it regarding copyright issues, but it didn't really explain why it happened. Anybody know the details?
Reply
post #2 of 20
10/12/05 at 8:24pm
What two extra points?
Reply
post #3 of 20
10/12/05 at 9:14pm
Thread Starter 
On the "tail"

Reply
post #4 of 20
10/13/05 at 12:06am
Wow, in all my years of Bat-geekdom, I have never noticed that. Holy shit, I must investigate this matter.
Reply
post #5 of 20
10/13/05 at 12:25am

I forgot all about that too!

wow. i know they had it fixed by Returns.
Reply
post #6 of 20
10/13/05 at 12:31am
Yeah, I always wondered what the fuck that was about. I had Batman notebook in fourth grade, and I remember bitching at length about it. No one else gave a shit.

The weird thing is, unless they were retouched, there's photos/stills of Keaton in costume with the correct logo.
Reply
post #7 of 20
10/13/05 at 12:58am
Thread Starter 
Those are probably from Batman Returns. It was the regular logo in that movie. It's what the majority of the images are in a google search of "Keaton Batman".
Reply
post #8 of 20
10/13/05 at 1:20am
I've watched that movie 20 times, and I've never noticed that either. Weird.
It's like little bat-feet or something.
Reply
post #9 of 20
10/13/05 at 3:18am
Thread Starter 
It's blowing my mind that people missed this. I noticed it right away. It didn't make me all mad or anything, but it was certainly a little annoying.

I guess I really am just a dork.

Still no answers. This new DVD better explain it.
Reply
post #10 of 20
10/13/05 at 3:21am
Yeah I noticed that the first time I saw the movie too. I think it was just something burton liked.
Reply
post #11 of 20
10/13/05 at 5:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserNameIndeed
Still no answers. This new DVD better explain it.
I'm sure there will be a riveting documentary discussing it at lenghth. Oh, or a kick-ass multi-angle feature (I LOVE those!).
Reply
post #12 of 20
10/13/05 at 9:33am
I've heard that it was a copyright issue that was resolved between Batman and Batman Returns.
Reply
post #13 of 20
10/13/05 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserNameIndeed
Those are probably from Batman Returns. It was the regular logo in that movie. It's what the majority of the images are in a google search of "Keaton Batman".
Maybe it was as simple as noting the "real" Bat symbol was used in the marketing, but the suit was different. Believe you me, I could spot the differences in the Batman & Batman Returns Batsuits even at that tender age. Which I did. Which is why girls didn't talk to me till high school.
Reply
post #14 of 20
10/13/05 at 11:43am
I remember noticing those points right away in a collector magazine I bought before I saw the movie (in my fanboy youth I apparently insisted on reading all possible spoilers for a movie).

The suit in Batman Returns is also different in the abdominal area; the Batman (1) suit is more anatomical, the Batman Returns suit looks a bit more like armor.
Reply
post #15 of 20
10/13/05 at 11:51am
Was this all through the first Batman movie, merchandising and promo material? Or was it the suit only? If it was only the suit, I don't see how it could be a copyright thing, though that whole world is very weird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-6
It's like little bat-feet or something.
Actually, it looks more like it has a little bat-penis.
Reply
post #16 of 20
10/13/05 at 5:32pm
Thread Starter 
It was just the suit, which is why it confused me. All promo material, even the Bat-Signal IN THE MOVIE was the regular comic logo. Sorry for the thread guys. I hate to think I've drawn attention to something nobody noticed before, and now even more people will be annoyed by it. Pretend I didn't point it out.
Reply
post #17 of 20
10/14/05 at 2:36pm
No not a bad thing at all. Definitely want to go back and watch the movie again. (not like i havent seen it enough) Never noticed it, so its time to rewatch the batman movies. Guess nothing wrong with that.
Reply
post #18 of 20
10/27/05 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserNameIndeed
It's blowing my mind that people missed this. I noticed it right away. It didn't make me all mad or anything, but it was certainly a little annoying.

I guess I really am just a dork.

Still no answers. This new DVD better explain it.
I noticed it when I was kid. But, I was to enthralled by the coolness of Batman to care.
Reply
post #19 of 20
10/27/05 at 1:00pm
There was something like a copyright issue, but it's kind of counter-intuitive: DC had the classic logo trademarked, but not the "extra-points" version, so they used the classic logo in all promotional material to protect their interests. The issue wasn't "the old symbol is trademarked," but "the new symbol isn't, yet."

As to why Burton added the extra feet... beats me.
Reply
post #20 of 20
10/29/05 at 5:40pm
In my film studies one of my classes is Business of film and my instructor deals with legal issues and is going to tell us abou the problems they faced on Batman, so it'll be nice to hear from him.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Question on Burton's Batman