Looking back, I also enjoyed what Joel Schumacher did with Batman Forever. Sure, it may have been a bit more kid-friendly as opposed to Batman 89 and Batman Returns, but it was still a big hit. Schumacher just got carried away with the use of corny lines in Batman & Robin (one of the first lines in the movie being "chicks dig the car", and those countless ice/freeze puns). Of course, that was the least of the film's problems.
As pleased as I was with Batman Forever for its time period, still kinda makes me wonder how much better it and Batman&Robin might have been had Tim Burton also directed them instead of Schumacher.
Batman didn't kill Joker in 1989; just got his leg tied to the building so he couldn't escape in the helicopter. That he eventually lost his grip wasn't his fault. (Hey - how come he didn't just remained tied to the building after he let go?)
Batman was a little more ruthless with lethal force in that film, but they were reflecting the very early days of the comic, where criminals did die & Batman shrugged it off as part of the good fight. That got pulled back in the late 40's - same time as it happened with Superman - and this editorial edict of 'Batman Doesn't Kill' took hold.
Oh - Joker 08 beats Joker 89.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
The Joker held on and kept trying to take off until one of the gargoyles came lose and it pulled him to his death. That's why he died when he let go.
Personally I don't think anything Batman did in 1989 was even THAT ruthless. For example I don't think him blowing up Axis chemicals was any worse than what Batman did in the Dark Knight by blowing up all those cars to "intimidate" the thugs when he first appeared. Batman blew up Axis chemicals with all those thugs inside true but he didn't go there to kill the thugs he went there to destroy the chemicals the Joker was using to kill everyone else. Though I do believe he'd be more careful than that if it was true to character. However I don't get how that is anymore wreckless than the "intimidate" scene because when he blew up those cars he had no way of knowing no one would die or get hurt.
And when he flipped over the Joker's truck he had no way of knowing the Joker wouldn't die or that none of his henchmen weren't in there could potentially die too. But you rarely hear anyone complaining about his irresponsibility with human life in those cases
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
However, it does seem "less" lethal now a days due to heat seeking cameras/motion detectors/etc. being able to distinguish between living
and on-living objects...
And Begins Bats lets them die on crashing trains without any remorse. I think both series have problematic portrayals of his no kill policy. 1989 completely ignored it though I agree but I think they were going for a different Batman portrayal period. But even as it has been played up as an important aspect of his character in the new series there have been too many careless moments on Batman's part to ignore.
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
Gender: Unspecified Location: Your mom's basement.
as my friend once said [when we had a very long Batman/comics in general conversation] all the previous incarnation of the Joker and Batman [whether it be in the cinema or on TV] is very much geared towards the children [i admit that when i was a kid i loved the Tim Burton Batmans] but with the new milenium, theyre making very dark and more like the comics
especially the Joker. before Ledger's performance, the Joker wasnt really a serious villain to be dealt with, very weak and kiddie clown like. but with TDK the Joker was based more on the comics so he comes off as the baddest mother****er youve ever dealt with
same with the comics industry, Marvel aims more at children[not just with their movies like Spiderman and X-Men but with their comics] while DC is more adult oriented
I disagree. It's always about the good guy. It gets boring. Bring us something about the bad guys. They have cooler costumes, sometimes better catchphrases and well, they are cooler in every way.
I respect people who think TDK is all about the Joker, but I disagree. It is very much about Batman and his ethics, as well as the ethics of vigilance in general.
Yea I think TDK is about Batman and the Joker's struggle for control over the fate of Gotham and everyone else in it are just pawns or bit players. Unfortunately for my beloved Two Face
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
Yeah.. We may have not gotten as much Face as we might have liked, but he served his purpose. The emphasis was put on Dent rather than Two-Face. A genius move, as Harvey is very tragic and captures the audiences' emotions in TDK.
And he's my favorite Batman villain, so yeah.
As my second favorite Batman villain I think he was gyped be being made just a pawn in the Joker's game. I like Two Face and Harvey about equally but I would have preferred this movie being a set up to Two Face being a villain in the third than having him offed like that before he really got to do any real damage as a villain.
Yes it was emotional to see Harvey fall but what I liked about Two Face especially his portrayal in the animated series is that seeing him fall made watching him as a villain that much MORE compelling and created more conflict for Batman when it came to fighting him because Batman was still obsessed with saving him even though really there was only half a man left to save and not the Harvey that Batman can't seem to let go of.
There is a complexity there that was completely missed or short changed in my opinion because of how quickly he was gotten rid of
__________________ Bruce: You've got, sort of a dark side, don't you?
In Detective Comics #27, in one of the panels after the criminal dies (because Batman PUNCHED HIM INTO A POOL OF ACID), Batman says "a fitting end for his kind"...
Burton's Batman was a different portrayal, is all...
__________________ JESUS SAVES!
Last edited by Bat Dude on Feb 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I just watched 89 Batman, and I can't lie, Jack's Joker was pretty much like the comic one, he had no idea what he was doing. Then I watched Ledgers performance, and he knew what he was doing, he was just crazy. I like both, but IMO, Jack's is better because he did it just like the real Joker. Both Jack and Heath did better than Cesar Romero.
To be honest I thought that Heath took the character much more seriously than the other two. Jack just seemed to be acting as himself if he got drunk on Halloween while dressed up as a clown. I enjoyed the performance, I really did, but no one went as in depth with the psyche and twisted nature of the Joker like Heath did.
You're kidding, right? Batman clearly killed the Joker in the '89 version. He shot a wire around his legs and wrapped it to a gargoyle so he'd fall. If that's not intentionally killing someone, then what is? Also, in TDK, he didn't kill the Joker. There's a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone, and actually doing it.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 21st, 2009 02:58 AM
)
Good point.
And I knew it was when they showed me Batman's ass for no reason
