Batman 1989 was the first dark comic book film. Before this the biggest successful big screen hero was Superman. Without this we would not have films like the Crow, Blade, Dick Tracy, Sin City among others. However I ask the question is the movie good on it's own? Or is it being more praised for what it inspired?
shareI think its recognized for what it accomplished as a movie and what it inspired ever since.
shareBoth.
It's like Robert Johnson. He was a brilliant guitar player, but also he inspired hundreds of others to hit new heights.
Okay, maybe Batman '89 isn't as good of a film as Johnson was a guitar player, but the analogy is pretty close. Batman is a great movie in and of itself. The fact that it inspired so much other material is a lucky bonus.
One metric for proof is that Batman, at its time of release, became a phenomenon. Another metric is that it has also been perennially appreciated.
Interesting perspective.
shareTo me, the 1989-1997 tetralogy improved as it progressed. Absolutely. This first one looks great, sounds good and has a quality cast, but the story is thoroughly tedious. I've seen it three times over the years and it has never improved (I'm talking about the dull story). Remember how the Joker stops the formidable Batplane with a mere gun with an overlong (goofy) barrel? Seriously?
shareIt improved through all four films? Like, Batman Forever is better than Batman Returns...?
I've watched it a lot more than three times and I am entertained start-to-finish each time. I have a hard time figuring out whether Batman '89 or Batman Returns is the better flick, but I love 'em both a tonne.
I do remember the overlong gun barrel. It works for me because the universe is a comic book universe. Don't mistake me: I don't think it's not taking itself seriously, sending itself up, or that it isn't dark, atmospheric, serious, or for adults, but it is a "hyper reality" which isn't trying to be real; it's just trying to be Batman.
I don't question the Joker's gun or Batman's ability to deduce and pinpoint the Joker's chemical warfare code in this. Contrast to the Nolan Trilogy (I like the first two a lot) where unrealistic things happen, but it's painted as though it's completely real or plausible. When Nolan tries to "ground" everything and make it "realistic", I question stuff like the microwave emitter that vapourises water (but not water in humans, apparently), or the impossibility of the Joker's plan. But not the Burton stuff. Burton never said it was "real world". Nolan did.
I think the films got more compelling & entertaining as the series progressed. I'm not going to say Batman Forever is superior to Batman Returns, but they're at least on par.
All four movies have the same general cartoonish tone and there's just no validity to the position that Burton's "Batman" or "Batman Returns" are more serious/realistic in tone compared to Schumacher's "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin." They each have the same colorful we're-not-taking-this-too-serious approach.
If you can accept this approach, these can be fun, half-serious Batman films. You can't watch 'em expecting the tone of "Batman Begins" or "The Dark Knight Rises" or you'll be severely let down.
"Batman & Robin" is my favorite of the four for these reasons:
- It has the best Batman/Bruce Wayne in George Clooney. Although Val Kilmer has the better Bruce Wayne demeanor (i.e. grimmer), Clooney just LOOKS like Wayne. In addition, he's charismatic and entertaining in the role from beginning to end.
- It has the best sense of family between the inhabitants of Wayne Manor. The love and camaraderie of Bruce, Dick/Robin, Alfred and Barbara/Batgirl is a pleasure to behold.
- It has Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. Nuff said.
- It has Uma Thurman shining in the role of Poison Ivy. I usually don't find tall, thin women appealing, but I have to admit that Uma completely owns the role of Poison Ivy and is quite alluring.
- Arnold is great as Mr. Freeze. Yes, every time he merely opens his mouth you know it's Schwarzenegger, but he's amusing and he has a great look/costume.
- The film has heart. Although Poison Ivy is evil and gets her comeuppance, you can't help but sympathize with Freeze's love for his wife and desire to resurrect her. Batman is able to see under his icy veneer and see a heart that's willing to accept redemption and make restitution.
- The film is full of vibrant colors and goofy over-the-top thrills. It's just a fun flick.
- I also like that Smashing Pumpkins song.
"Batman & Robin" is my favorite of the four for these reasons:
Ehhh...if your favourite Batman was the goofy version, I could see liking Batman and Robin more than the others. Of course, anybody who did would probably HATE the Nolan films with a passion and their favourite Bat-film would be the Adam West movie hands-down.
shareThe 1989-97 series is a different world compared to the Nolan series. The latter is more realistic. Why can't a person appreciate both? It's like music -- why can't a fan of Motley Crue or Priest also be just as much a fan of Bathory and Agolloch?
shareYou're right. You could.
But I still think, if you were a fan of silly Batman that the Adam West one would be your favourite. Maybe not, but...it nailed it so well (Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!)
But, yes, I retract my earlier statement: you could dig on Batman: The Movie and The Dark Knight.
I find Nolan's Batman to be silly as well. His Batman screamed incoherently while punching the joker with a chair in a generic looking basement. If that shit was shot with a lil worse camera it would look like a comedy sketch.
shareIf it was shot differently it would look dumb. A lot of music videos have that, too. The dance moves look better photographed and shot a particular way. But that's just the cinematographer doing his job properly.
Nolan's Bat-movies seem serious to me because of their tone, and that's achieved partly through the shots. Design helps, too. Batman '66 has tilted angles, gaudy colours, and cheeseball dialogue. The Dark Knight Trilogy has a grimmer design, more "straight" dialogue, and camera movement to make it "intense".
If you found it silly, that is what it is.
Lol this is where I stopped reading.
The odd/even Trek thing never worked for me.
I like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It's slow and needs a trim, but it's like Star Trek got mixed in with 2001 and it's a smooth combo; so right out of the gate I disagree.
Maybe it's cliche or "conventional wisdom", but Wrath of Khan remains the best one.
I didn't really like Star Trek III. It's a bridge between II and IV and a lot of it's just to undo Spock's demise. It feels perfunctory.
IV's funny.
Haven't seen V.
VI is great.
First Contact is the only Next Generation film I really like, although I actually don't mind Insurrection...
I like the first JJ Abrams one, don't like Into Darkness, and I think Beyond is really underrated.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I love the first Trek picture (it does throw in a 2001 vibe) and I think the reboot films shook things up in a compelling way featuring a worthy new cast in the old roles. "Generation" is my favorite of the TNG film (the concept of the Nexus is amazing).
"Wrath" is my least favorite Trek flick, believe it or not, although I love the original Khan episode "Space Seed," mostly because the character is fascinating; by the time of "Wrath" Khan became one-dimensional and dull IMHO. But I'm happy others like it; it has its points of interest, like the Genesis Project.
The Nexus is a good concept and Soran was a good villain (mostly thanks to Malcolm McDowell), but Generations never felt really "special" to me. It wasn't "big". If it was a two-parter episode, sure it'd be a decent one, but it wouldn't make a top-ten for me. It's been awhile since I've seen it. I remember enjoying it, but not terribly much. I think it might have been over-stuffed. You've got the Nexus, you've got Data's emotions chip, the Klingon sisters...it's a lot for one film to tackle, and they never really get into the possibilities of the Nexus as a phenomenon. What if more crew members got trapped there? What kind of emotional pull might it have on them? What if the main threat of the movie was more existential: should you stay in the Nexus and indulge in fantasy or go to the real world? If the Nexus is what it is, why not be a god in your world than just stump around outside? Why not tie in the emotion chip? If Data suddenly *feels*, if he got into the Nexus, he could feel desire and longing for that egomaniacal world.
So, it's a bit over stuffed on plotlines and it doesn't dip into the real meaty, sci-fi potential of its central conceit, which is why I think Generations is a bit drab. It's not as awful as its rep, though.
As far as believing you on Wrath, you just said that Batman and Robin was better than Batman Returns, so I'll definitely believe it. Your personal taste is clearly not running alongside the average Joe here.
For me, Wrath isn't about Khan, it's about Kirk. The film starts with Kirk getting reading glasses and being an admiral and sitting around. He's missing being a space hero. He's never had to grow up in some ways because he's been playing cowboy and flipping off death for so long, but it's catching up anyway. It's a movie about aging and finally facing the inevitable, the no-win scenario. Spock's sacrifice is Kirk's Kobyashi Maru test because Kirk, after a five-year mission where he *always* won, he can't get away with everything.
You're right that "Generations" is overstuffed, but I value it because it's ambitious, high-concept sci-fi; it leaves the viewer with many interesting questions to ponder long afterwards. Although the Nexus has been criticized as a mere gimmick to get Kirk and Picard together, I find the concept fascinating: No matter how much we want it, an illusory paradise is just that — an illusion. The concept of the Nexus and its implementation into the storyline is nothing short of brilliant. Who created the Nexus? Who else but the Talosians, the 'antagonists' of Trek's very first episode, "The Cage"! (And repeated in the Original Series’ only two-parter “The Menagerie”). Think about it.
Furthermore, the film has numerous highlights: The usual Trek humor, Data’s amusing experiences with the emotion chip, Malcolm McDowell’s outstanding performance as the mad Soran, his believable obsession and justifications, B’Etor & Lursa and the renegade Klingons, the startling obliteration of them and their vessel, the thrilling crash-landing of the Enterprise-D, the meeting of Kirk and Picard in the Nexus, the final showdown with Soran and Kirk’s death.
"First Contact" is my third favorite TNG movie. It's generally entertaining and I love the revelation at the end (regarding who they made first contact with, which should be obvious for Trekkers, but somehow it took me by surprise), but as a Borg story it failed to rival the best Borg episodes, "Q Who?" and "Best of Both Worlds."
I can watch "Wrath" and enjoy its good points, but I have a whole list of legit reasons why I feel it's the least of the Trek films. If you're interested in perusing them click this link and scroll to TWOK at the bottom: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066150491/. I feel "Nemesis" does a better job with the same basic plot.
The ambition is there and the Nexus does provide a great sci-fi concept worth exploring. This conversation has inspired me to re-watch Generations at some point and reevaluate its potential. At this juncture, I think it's largely un-mined, but it is there... You have also made me wish for a film (or series) to explore something like the Nexus in better detail and do the concept more justice.
To counter your assertion that paradise in the Nexus is an illusion: what is an illusion? Everything in the Nexus is as real as outside of it. At what point is it not so much an illusion as it is just your willpower using the energy ribbon to create a (legitimate) new universe? And, see, I guess this is what you're getting at: this idea is fascinating and worthy of exploration as a theme and a story.
If it was tied into the Cage and Kirk and Picard both had to return again into the Nexus to get *Pike*...how cool would that be?
What if Generations had revealed that all of Trek was at Pike's whim? Pike was trapped for millennia in the Talosian menagerie, but eventually evolved and overcame their technology. He bent it to his will, which created the Nexus - now Pike's "ship". He has been warping the galaxy as he saw fit from that point, and was responsible for the Q continuum and for altering the universe as a toy! I'm not saying "it was all a dream", but just "Pike is a godlike being manipulating the universe". Ergh...it would have ticked off EVERYBODY but would have been pretty cool...
Spiner was good in the film - the emotion chip stuff did have some good humour ("I HATE this!")
I do think B'Etor and Lursa were underused and are a "bloat element" in the film. I think they were hoping for a Wrath of Khan thing - take series villains and put them into HYPERDRIVE to wow everybody - and they missed the mark there.
First Contact I liked a lot, but I wanted them to lean into the horror movie vibe more. "Zombies in space" - run with that. I did love the movie a lot, though.
I've got the list open, and I'll give it a read and get back to ya...
shareSo, I do disagree with your evaluation of Wrath of Khan, respectfully, of course.
My biggest disagreement is that the story is/isn't compelling. You say it isn't, I say it is. My reasons are above, but so you don't have to scroll up: I love that it takes Kirk from space cowboy into "adulthood" and has a childhood hero (for so many people) confront middle age. I think the film's action works to driving character forward. Giving him a an ex and a kid was a masterstroke to ground Trek into this real world. It's fantastic adventure, but it's also human.
That human connection is strong here. I'll also push back on Spock's death scene. The scene's great, as far as I'm concerned.
On top of this, the action is good, the pacing and editing are great, and I really don't see the camp sensibility you're seeing. I have a tolerance for dramatic acting, though. But I would draw a distinction between campy, hammy acting, and a performance that is theatrical and grand, but appropriate. Montelban's performance here is HUGE, but he's riveting and he makes it work and earns every snarl.
Shatner and Nimoy are good here, too. Kirk's oft-parodied "KHAN!" doesn't deserve the derision it gets, in my opinion.
The specific flaws you list, some of them I think are explicable (Kirk doesn't notice Spock's absence because of the sheer number of things flying at him at the moment, Spock doesn't have time to suit up) and others aren't (Scotty! Get to sickbay!) But, I guess I agree with your statement that I'll ignore the inexplicable logic-jumps in the film for a compelling story, and I think it was compelling indeed.
PS
I'm gonna read the rest of your list later, because I'm intrigued by your methods of evaluation and I want to see what you have to say about the other Trek films.
Alright, so...
STIV: Totally agree that it's a fun movie and the most accessible for a non-Trek audience.
TMP: 100% on board. This might just be my second-favourite Trek picture (after our much-debated Khan)
ID: Conversely, I didn't like Into Darkness much at all. I felt like it was a plot-hole-riddled mess. I preferred the reboot because the reboot was, yes, a plot-hole-riddled mess, but it made me forget the plot and enjoy the ride. ID just had me clawing my hair the whole time. I felt the portrayal of Khan was bungled and they wasted their time making a soft-remake of Star Trek II without understanding its themes at all. They also jammed in a Bush-era parable of warmongering after the Bush-era.
Generations: We've been jawing about this all thread...Yada, yada, yada.
STIII: I never connected with this one. Sort of a necessary bridge to get to IV, but it felt a little pat to me.
Star Trek Reboot: JJ Abrams does what he does best. He entertains and thrills and switches off your brain. It's fun, fast, and entertaining, and that's what it's going for. It's not great "sci-fi" or great Star Trek, but it is what it is; you can't want it to be otherwise.
Nemsis: I don't hate Nemesis, but I also don't really remember it. Data's space jump was an epic shot, his sacrifice was reasonably moving (although, I cared more about Spock's scene, so I'm not with you there; I like Wrath of Khan better than Nemsis, too), but large chunks of the movie feel perfunctory to me. They came up with a great concept - clone-Romulan Picard - and then...it's kind of an action movie. It doesn't take advantage of its potential and I feel like they killed Data to make people sad, not because they needed to for the plot and themes.
VI: One of my favourite. I love the Shakespeare and the Cold War analogy. Like WoK, it makes Kirk confront things he's got inside that he doesn't want to deal with and are contrary to "space hero" archetypes: frankly, he's racist towards Klingons.
V: I haven't seen it.
(continued)
FC: Zombies in space! Love it. Cochrane has great moments thanks to a great performance. It also caps off Picard's Borg arc nicely. If they ever were crazy enough to "reboot" Next Generation, they should focus on the Borg v. Picard. I would have liked to see the film tap into its themes more. That is to say, the horror and inevitability of technological advancement and dependence and the struggle to maintain humanity in a world run by computers (ie, RIGHT NOW!) But still...space zombies...
Insurrection: I like this one. I know it's flawed. I know why it's flawed. I kinda like it.
Beyond: Underrated. Simon Pegg's script sets up SO MUCH STUFF and then pays off EVERYTHING. It's a really tight script. I agree that the story is flawed in the third act. It has to rush to deal with the lore of regeneration and rage, and the villain wasn't a great villain, but the script is tight, keeps everything moving, and pays off everything. It's actually my favourite of the three reboot films. I also really like the alien chick character. Don't remember her name...
And that brings us to Khan: my favourite. I know I'm not original here, but...yeah.
Great write-ups/reviews of the movies, though.
My order of preference:
Wrath of Khan
The Motion Picture
The Undiscovered Country
First Contact
Beyond
Voyage Home
Reboot Star Trek
Insurrection
Search for Spock
Generations (I'm going to reevaluate!)
Nemesis
Into Darkness
That little gap in the middle is where I think they go from great movies to good movies. Into Darkness I don't like; I think it's middling at best.
Appreciate your interest and feedback, Ace. I do strongly agree with 3 films in your top 6, but also disagree with 3 films in your bottom 6. So we're in accord 50%.
I only saw "Beyond" once, at the theater, so it's due for a rewatch and re-evaluation. For some reason I left the theater with a "Meh" feeling. Then again, I wasn't so crazy about "Generations" the first time I viewed it either.
Also, thanks for your interesting commentary on the Nexus and living in illusion. People are living in delusion all around us; or they constantly seek to escape reality one way or another. I suppose it's a survival mechanism.
I have a friend who used to be a drummer years ago. He says he's in a band, has a band name with a logo and a website -- proficiently designed -- but no band members or songs. He wrote lyrics, but has no music (because he needs a songwriter). He has a drum set, but hasn't set it up for years, let alone played it. Obviously he's a dreamer, not a doer, but it gives him hope and enables him to live. You could say he's in the Nexus.
The moral of "Generations" is not to be like that. Be a dreamer, yes (the world needs dreamers), but -- for God's sake -- ACT on your dreams in reality; face & overcome the challenges thereof and actually produce something. Don't just live in a dreamworld.
I've really enjoyed discussing the Star Treks with you. You've got a loopy perspective on this stuff, and it's insightful and opens up new ways of looking at the films that make me want to revisit them and question my own loopy perspective.
Illusion is important for people to cope with reality. Then there's the whole philosophical argument that reality itself is only illusion, or at least perception, and so illusion is valuable as reality.
I think in proper doses, fantasy (illusion) is necessary and desirable. Only when you take an "overdose" does it become a problem. It cannot supplant reality, it must supplement.
Your drummer friend would be aided greatly by bumping into a "doer" who can augment his dreams and galvanize them (and him) into something tangible.
And, yeah, I think that's something that Generations had in its script. It might have been there by accident, since the dialogue suggests the theme is actually on time (the fire in which we burn), and Soran and Picard have different views of time and history and that's a central conflict/theme, but I think this idea of illusion v. reality is maybe a stronger theme and would resonate more with more audiences.
Good stuff.
Except I don't think living in a dreamworld vs. reality theme was there by accident because (1) the Nexus is central to the story as the mechanism that allows for Picard to bypass time and meet Kirk and (2) illusion vs. reality ties into the issue of time: In the Nexus Picard exhorts Kirk, "Come back with me. Help me stop Soran. Help make a difference again!" So they leave the illusionary ribbon-world to thwart Soran's mad plan. Later, when Kirk lies dying, he asks, "Did we do it? Did we make a difference?" Picard replies, "Yes. We made a difference."
When Soran says "time is the fire in which we burn" he adds, "Right now, Captain, my time is running out. We leave so many things unfinished in our lives."
Discarding the balance of reality for the perpetual solace of a dreamworld means you won't make a difference in reality, in real time. You'll live & die leaving so many things you were meant to do "unfinished." Why? Because of obsession with fantasy.
Speaking of dying in a dreamworld, Soran said, in reality, time is a predator that hunts us down and eventually makes the kill whereas in the Nexus, "Time has no meaning... The predator has no teeth." He was wrong: The best the Nexus could do was give the illusion of immortality.
My friend had a couple of "doers" in his life, but forsook them in favor of this current project. Those doers are about to release an incredible album -- making a difference in the real world -- while he continues in his dreamworld. We've fought about it and were separated for over a year, but reconciled six weeks ago. There's still hope for his situation but, as you point out, like Kirk in the Nexus he needs a "golden connection" -- a figurative Picard -- to motivate him to re-enter the real world and produce something tangible.
I'm not being condescending here since this principle applies to ALL OF US, including me.
Here's a relevant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcWoYEzfA0A
Maybe not an accident, but it didn't seem to be the main theme they were pushing. Ah...I'll give it another viewing and see if I change my mind. It just seemed more like they were going for "what are you doing with your time" theme and the world of illusion was a secondary thing. The film doesn't cap off with a statement about reality or fantasy, but with Picard contemplating his photo album.
Accidental, primary, secondary, or deliberate, it's still a great thread for a film to pull on.
I hope your friend finds a path forward in the real world and realises some music.
I'll check out the song when I get a second. I'm not on an audio-capable machine right now.
Like you say, they crammed many things into the story and arguably needed to make it more focused and flow better, but Moore & Braga had a (dreaded) deadline. Nevertheless, the flick's ambitious and I revel in its successes.
My friend will definitely do something productive -- and does -- but I doubt it will be a drummer since he refuses to set up his instrument, practice and record. You can't be in a band, release albums and tour if you don't first set up your instrument and practice. Anything involving designing on a computer, however, he's quite good at -- logos, websites, t-shirts, etc.
Well, some people are drummers and some people are designers who work via computers. C'est la vie, que sera sera, and all that jazz.
shareHey, what's your ranking of the Star Wars pictures? Your Trek thoughts have me intrigued with how you view the other ubiquitous sci-fi franchise.
shareI've actually only seen three of the Star Wars flicks -- the original '77 one, The Force Awakens and The Phantom Menace (in that order). TFA is the only one I've seen in the theater. I enjoy 'em when I see 'em, but I prefer the adult science-fiction of Star Trek to the space fantasy of Star Wars.
I re-watched "Generations" last night (after almost six years) and, once again, found myself reveling in it. Unlike, say, "The Voyage Home," it's necessary to be relatively familiar with the first two generations of Star Trek to fully appreciate it. It respects the intelligence of the viewer to figure things out (including false plot holes) and read in between the lines. For instance, the renegade Klingons and their usage of Geordi's visor to spy on the Enterprise in preparation to take down the vessel. For me, it's high concept sci-fi of the highest order.
At 3 minutes shy of 2 hours, it's arguably over-crammed, but I like the fact that they streamlined the movie, figuring viewers who cared would figure it out or at least scratch their heads trying; and fudge those who didn't care.
They are very different universes. I think it's interesting that you've seen the first film from each of the Star Wars trilogies. Like each time you were dipping your toe in going, "Is it still...? Yeah, it's still not hard sci-fi. Peace!"
I'm a big original trilogy fan, but haven't enjoyed the others nearly as much.
I haven't had a chance to rewatch Generations yet.
That's interesting, but totally unintentional on my part. I own the original trilogy in my film library, I just haven't gotten around to watching "Empire" and "Return" yet, although I've seen a clip here & there, of course.
Our discussion has sparked me to re-watch a few of the Trek films; I'm thinking about watching the reviled V tonight.
I recommend Empire and Jedi. They're sci-fantasy for sure, but they're great.
For your Trekathon, you could back-to-back Khan, Nemesis, and Into Darkness.
So, I can see where somebody might make a case that B&R is great cheesy, campy fun.
That said, I do think there is a pretty obvious tonal shift from '89/Returns to Forever and then another shift from Forever to B&R, each time going campier and more for comedy.
I definitely think Burton's films take themselves seriously. There's a difference between not taking something seriously (B&R) and taking something imaginative and fantastic seriously ('89, Returns, and even Forever - to some extent).
Thurman and Schwarzenegger were great in their roles, although I don't think Schwarzenegger was going for a "character", but rather just using his persona to be the over-the-top villain. There was some touching stuff with Freeze and his wife, but they're almost always undercut by stuff like "I hate when people talk during the movie".
B&R actually does have one of my favourite Batman moments, weirdly enough, when Alfred points out that Batman is just an attempt to stop death, and Bruce replies, "But I can't, can I?" It's a great moment and feels like it's in a completely different film. Of course, those moments destabilize the camp comedy in the film. It lacks tonal balance.
Clooney wasn't a good Batman, in my opinion, and he neither gave a straight-on performance as the Dark Knight nor did he send up the material well enough to fit in the with camp. This performance is actually one of the reasons I think the movie is really bad: it lacks a Leslie Neilson/ Adam West straight man to sell the material. Clooney is too wry, too ironic to fit the zany material as a comic turn nor is he deadpan enough to anchor everything.
O'Donnell wasn't good, either. And I don't think Silverstone's Batgirl is 'nuff said.
For me, all four are campy fun and I don't see any significant change between the first two and the latter two. Sure, there are some dark moments in the first two, like Joker burning that guy to a crisp, but Mr. Freeze freezes someone to death in the opening of "Batman & Robin." Whether frying to a crisp or or freezing to death, it's the same result. Yet the overall tone is too silly/cartoony to be disturbed by the dark elements, like Joker's goofy gun taking down the kick-axx Batplane so easily.
While I totally disagree with you about Clooney as Bruce Wayne, I appreciate your reasonable attitude concerning "Batman & Robin" as opposed to the "I can't believe you actually like that film" attitude of others.
I'd comment more, but I'm in the process of rewatching the series. I saw the '89 film last night, but can't get to the other three until next week. I last saw all four back-to-back in 2012.
The Burton films are gothic. The Schumacher ones are not gothic in the slightest.
shareNot to mention "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" are all-around more compelling & entertaining compared to Burton's painfully overrated "Batman." "Batman Returns" was a quality improvement though.
shareCan't agree on that one. While I am not huge on Burton's vision I infinitely prefer it over Schumacher's. However to each his own.
shareI appreciate your perspective; life would be boring if we all agreed on everything. The sets, costumes, cast, cinematography & music of "Batman" are wonderful as a cartoonish, film noir-ish interpretation, I just found the story tedious and there was too much footage devoted to Jack overdoing it as The Joker where his antics became redundant. I'm not dissin' Nicholson though; how else can you perform The Joker in that context?
shareDon't worry man, I dig Batman and Robin too. Far from my fav but I do like it.
"I do remember the overlong gun barrel. It works for me because the universe is a comic book universe."
A movie has to follow its own rules, else it's bad writing. We know what a handgun can do in the Batman '89 universe, i.e., it can't even defeat Batman's soft body armor, so it broke its own rules when a handgun downed an aircraft.
You might say, "Well maybe it was a super, duper powerful handgun," in which case, "like reality unless noted" comes into play. It was a S&W K-frame revolver, which can only fit, and handle, up to about a .357 Magnum cartridge (and specifically it was a model 15, which from the factory is chambered for .38 Special, which is especially pathetic), which is a pea shooter compared to the type of cartridge you'd need for downing an aircraft in one shot to be even remotely believable. The rifle-length barrel does add some velocity, but that's not even close to being enough to matter.
I've read that there was originally supposed to be a tank hidden in one of the floats and that's what was supposed to shoot down Batman's aircraft, which would have been believable, but they were too cheap to film it.
Another problem with that scene is: why does Batman keep missing with all the rounds he's firing at the Joker, complete with a high-tech aiming device? Furthermore, how does the Joker know that Batman will keep missing? Self-preservation instinct should have prompted him to get out of there as soon as bullets starting whizzing by his head. He knew he was safe because he was informed by the script, and characters being informed by the script is always a case of bad writing; no exceptions whatsoever.
I thought that entire scene was utterly absurd even when I first saw it in 1989 as a 14-year-old, and it contributed to my overall disappointment with that artificially hyped movie.
Well, all of what you're talking about is real world ballistics, and you don't need to tell me that a revolver can't shoot down an airplane, given the reality of real world ballistics. But, again, it's not the real world. So, it doesn't do a lot of good to complain that it's a K-frame revolver, because while that is true, that's only what the prop is made out of. Arguing that the prop is made from a Smith & Wesson, and therefore cannot shoot down an airplane, is like arguing that Han Solo's blaster pistol is based off of a Mauser C96, and therefore shoots 7.65mm cartridges instead of blaster bolts.
Now, none of this is to say that you have to like it. If you don't like the movie, if you find such elements unconvincing or hokey - fine. But I don't. And my point is that the hyper-real world of Batman - the comic book-inspired non-reality - works for me because it always stays true to the style of a comic where we see Batman dodge Omega beams or create an alternate consciousness to protect against mind alteration. In that world, a handheld supergun is not impossible, and the fact that it looks like a S&W K-frame revolver is just aesthetics.
As for the targeting computer, it's possible that it was calibrated for larger targets, maybe? I won't try to defend this as hard; I do think it was a bit of a mistake to show the computer make a lock-on and then miss. I let it slide, because I love the rest of the movie, but yeah, I won't act like it's not a hiccough.
But, when it comes to the Joker's actions... I don't think he has a self-preservation instinct. He oscillates between different levels of nutcase and, in this instance, he thought it was fun to stand there. I don't think the Joker should be written without *any* sense of motivation (he'll always seek out chaos and try to fight Batman, for instance) but there is also a manic unpredictability to the character. Sometimes he does do things that don't make normal sense because he doesn't conform to normal sensibilities.
"But, again, it's not the real world."
Again, "like reality unless noted," and again, a movie needs to have consistent in-universe logic (i.e., follow its own rules), else it's bad writing.
" So, it doesn't do a lot of good to complain that it's a K-frame revolver, because while that is true, that's only what the prop is made out of."
No, that's also what the gun was in the movie, because, again, "like reality unless noted."
"Arguing that the prop is made from a Smith & Wesson, and therefore cannot shoot down an airplane, is like arguing that Han Solo's blaster pistol is based off of a Mauser C96, and therefore shoots 7.65mm cartridges instead of blaster bolts."
Wrong. The departure from reality was first noted in Star Wars in the opening crawl: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Mausers were only manufactured on Earth. It was again noted by the fact that the Broomhandle Mauser prop was dressed up with greeble of unknown functionality that a real-world one never had, and again noted when we saw it fire some sort of plasma burst, which established that, in the Star Wars universe, it wasn't a firearm of any kind.
Batman, on the other hand, takes place on Earth, and not only is there nothing noting that firearms work any differently in the Batman universe than in the real world, but it's shown that they do work like real-world firearms, such as when Batman's soft body armor stops handgun rounds, something that real-world soft body armor can do as well. Then, without noting any departure from reality with regard to firearms/ammunition (such as showing the Joker inventing some incredibly devastating form of ammunition that will miraculously fit in a K-frame revolver and not blow it to pieces when fired), the Joker shoots down an aircraft with a .38 Special. That's bad writing.
"But, when it comes to the Joker's actions... I don't think he has a self-preservation instinct."
Of course he does. Why do you think he was struggling to get free of the gargoyle that was tied to his leg when he was on the helicopter's rope ladder? Why do you think he tried to avoid getting hit again with his "You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses..." bit? Why do you think he had armed henchmen? Someone with no self-preservation instinct wouldn't last long, especially in a city. They would soon, e.g., wander into traffic and either be killed or seriously injured.
Well, we have a fundamentally different understanding of the in-universe rules of Batman '89. I'm of the opinion that the film does have its own internal logic and you aren't. See, for me, when I see the Joker pull out the extra long pistol, I already suspect that this is not an ordinary gun. I can't think of a real world chemical that will transform a person's skin white and hair green, either. I think Batman probably couldn't use two small pitons to create a zipline (in the art gallery) that could hold his weight and Vicky Vale's. I don't even know where he'd store "all those wonderful toys" on his utility belt without clanking like Jacob Marley everywhere he went. There are many things that don't behave like real world counterparts. I just think one of those things is the gun. I think this because of the heightened reality the world creates and develops. I don't need it to spell out every difference.
I should have phrased the last point more clearly. Joker doesn't think the way normal people think. I should have emphasized more that he pirouettes through different modes of insanity. Standing in the path of gunfire is not out of the question for Joker.
"I'm of the opinion that the film does have its own internal logic and you aren't."
I didn't say that. All movies have internal logic. Some of them break it more than others do, and some of them don't break it at all.
"See, for me, when I see the Joker pull out the extra long pistol, I already suspect that this is not an ordinary gun."
Except we can clearly see that it is an ordinary gun, a Smith & Wesson model 15, with an unusually long barrel, which does nothing other than increase the velocity and sight radius. The K-frame isn't even S&W's biggest/strongest revolver frame; it's their medium frame which was largely supplanted by their L-frame (medium-large) because it didn't hold up very well to a steady diet of .357 Magnum rounds. We can clearly see that the frame and cylinder are far too small to accommodate anything that's even remotely close to being an anti-aircraft round. There are no modifications you can possibly do that can make it accommodate such a round while still having it look stock from the outside, unless they incorporated the "TARDIS effect" into the Batman universe.
"I can't think of a real world chemical that will transform a person's skin white and hair green, either."
That's not a problem, because the chemical was unknown from the audience's perspective. Had the chemical been known to be, e.g., CH3CH2OH (ethanol), then it would be a problem, just like the known gun (S&W model 15) shooting down an aircraft is a problem (the problem being bad writing).
"I think Batman probably couldn't use two small pitons to create a zipline (in the art gallery) that could hold his weight and Vicky Vale's."
That's not a real-world production item with known parameters like a S&W model 15 is.
"Standing in the path of gunfire is not out of the question for Joker."
Only when the script informs him that he'll be perfectly safe, despite the hail of machine gun bullets and explosive shells all around him. Also, there was nothing in the movie that indicated he was insane, quite the opposite in fact. Insanity is a severely disordered mind, which results in a person being largely incoherent and out of touch with reality. The Joker indicated that he had a very well-ordered mind and was very much in touch with reality, enough so that he could manipulate it to his liking by putting various plans into effect.
My point is that the movie is operating as though changing the barrel matters. I know it doesn't in real life, you know it doesn't, but the film implies it. In fact, you highlight three ways we know Han's blaster is different than a Mauser and two of them clearly apply.
1) There's an additional element added to the gun. They cased Han's gun in sci-fi stuff so we wouldn't see a German pistol. In Batman, they give Joker's gun a huge barrel so we know it's different.
2) We see the effects of the gun. Han's gun fires different shots. This effect makes us know it's different. Well, we kinda see the effect of Joker's pistol, too.
The third element you highlight - the opening phrase, "A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away..." I would actually argue we have as well. The Batman logo tells us this is a comic book where we have special weapons.
I know that you don't buy it, and that's fine, but to me, it's that the props department just gave it a super-long barrel. I know that wouldn't work, but I know what they're telling me. In Firefly, they frequently utilize real world firearms for sci-fi weapons, giving ordinary firearms "pew-pew" type sound effects. I know they're suggesting these are advanced, future weapons, even though I can clearly see the guns are revolvers or H&K assault rifles. But the on-screen depiction suggests otherwise. That's all I'm saying here.
As to the Joker, he frequently behaves in unpredictable and strange ways. He decides to go on a crime spree that includes mass murder and destruction of art, but he also obsesses over Vicky Vale. He uses acid to make "people art". He kills his own goons sometimes. He has a "bang" gun. That's just in this movie. The character throughout his history is anarchic and chaotic. I don't know what more to tell you. If you don't buy into that essential element of randomness, I guess we just think of the Joker very differently.
"1) There's an additional element added to the gun. They cased Han's gun in sci-fi stuff so we wouldn't see a German pistol. In Batman, they give Joker's gun a huge barrel so we know it's different."
As I already said, the stuff on Han's gun was unknown stuff with an unknown function, because the prop makers invented it. A longer barrel isn't an unknown thing with an unknown function; it's just fundamentally a pipe, and you could custom order most any barrel length you wanted from S&W way back when, so the Joker's gun could have been 100% factory-stock.
"2) We see the effects of the gun. Han's gun fires different shots. This effect makes us know it's different. Well, we kinda see the effect of Joker's pistol, too."
The effect of Han's gun isn't standalone though; it happens in a movie universe which is already established to have highly "futuristic" (relative to the real world) technology, and we see other "blasters" fire the same plasma type shots before we see Han's do it. And it was established right from the start that it's taking place in a completely different galaxy than our own.
On the other hand, the Joker's gun is an ordinary revolver in a non-futuristic Earth setting, and we see the ordinary effects of ordinary revolvers in other parts of the movie, i.e., they can't defeat soft body armor, exactly like in reality. So when one magically becomes an anti-aircraft weapon, that's a problem, a problem that Han's blaster doesn't have.
The act of breaking your movie's internal logic doesn't count as a valid notice of departure from reality; that would be circular reasoning and would give a free pass to every internal logic inconsistency in every movie ever made. The notice has to be made beforehand.
By the way, Star Wars isn't completely beyond reproach in this respect, since they did use production items as the basis for some of their props (e.g., various makes/models of guns, and flash bulb handles) instead of building all the props entirely from scratch, but because of reasons I've already mentioned, it's minor compared to the Joker's magical gun.
"The third element you highlight - the opening phrase, "A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away..." I would actually argue we have as well. The Batman logo tells us this is a comic book where we have special weapons."
And a Smith & Wesson model 15 is definitely not a special weapon, no more than Bob's Colt Government Model was a special weapon, and no more than young Jack Napier's Colt New Service was a special weapon, and no more than the mugger's Smith & Wesson model 19 was a special weapon, and so on. The Joker's handheld electrocution device was a special weapon for example, albeit, an impossible one, but at least it wasn't a production item.
"As to the Joker, he frequently behaves in unpredictable and strange ways. He decides to go on a crime spree that includes mass murder and destruction of art, but he also obsesses over Vicky Vale. He uses acid to make "people art". He kills his own goons sometimes. He has a "bang" gun. That's just in this movie. The character throughout his history is anarchic and chaotic. I don't know what more to tell you. If you don't buy into that essential element of randomness, I guess we just think of the Joker very differently."
None of that means he's insane, and he certainly has a normal self-preservation instinct, as demonstrated in the movie multiple times, except for that one time when the script informs him that he'll be perfectly safe standing in front of machine guns and explosives being fired directly at him.
It improved through all four films? Like, Batman Forever is better than Batman Returns...?
I've watched it a lot more than three times and I am entertained start-to-finish each time. I have a hard time figuring out whether Batman '89 or Batman Returns is the better flick, but I love 'em both a tonne.
I do remember the overlong gun barrel. It works for me because the universe is a comic book universe. Don't mistake me: I don't think it's not taking itself seriously, sending itself up, or that it isn't dark, atmospheric, serious, or for adults, but it is a "hyper reality" which isn't trying to be real; it's just trying to be Batman.
I don't question the Joker's gun or Batman's ability to deduce and pinpoint the Joker's chemical warfare code in this. Contrast to the Nolan Trilogy (I like the first two a lot) where unrealistic things happen, but it's painted as though it's completely real or plausible. When Nolan tries to "ground" everything and make it "realistic", I question stuff like the microwave emitter that vapourises water (but not water in humans, apparently), or the impossibility of the Joker's plan. But not the Burton stuff. Burton never said it was "real world". Nolan did.
Thank you!
shareThe only recollection people had from "Batman" prior to 1989...was the television series.
I think it's a terrific superhero film. When compared to todays overly done visual buffets, Batman 89 seems a bit more realistic. Too bad all the sequels got progressively worse.
shareI agree that the answer is: both
shareIt definitely stands on it's own. It's an incredible achievement for a superhero film. Not only because of the film itself, which in my view, is a masterpiece, but also of the happenings before and after the release of the film.
share