@frozen: here's the thing, golden age batman was not simplistic but since you had to right a story that's entire plot was 10 to 13 pages tops most of the characterization had to be in subtext. There is not even a basic characterization in Burton's film I can't even get the slightest grasp on it, but with bill fingers golden age stuff there was acually some really interesting am character stuff done with even the one off characters and especially with batman in stuff like the monster men (which was like 13 pages). Heck the penny plunderer (granted he got a bigger story and was from late golden age) has a very interesting backstory and his story is very much like a greek myth with the themes of the worth of human life and not being able to let go of revenge. Bills batman did not enjoy killing but would make obvious excuses to deal with his guilt. There is some brilliant stuff done in those first 2 years the sad thing is that the way they made writers do short story's caused writers to be unable to really let their ideas come to full fruition. I really wish bill could have writen in the modern day cause in 13 pages he did more complexity and interesting stuff with characters the most writers and characters have had with 3 years if the new 52. Ya I went there. I suggest to everyone to get their hands in robin dies at dawn as soon as possible. It's a two parter that is acually one single story not just two issues using the same villain like dr deaths two parter. Yes it is late golden age but it is mostly the same characterization as early golden age batman but with some of the self doubt removed, granted this story is about batmans self doubt but its a different reason.

Does it hold up? Not particularly. It's still an okay-ish movie

Keaton was a decent Batman. He would've been a lot better if Batman was written well. Batman wasn't a character, he wasn't even Batman, he was just a guy in a mask with some gadgets. Bruce Wayne was horrible, not Keaton, it's the writing yet again. He's weird, acts like a man with secrets, and the "let's get nuts" scene... REALLY? What was that?

Alfred was probably the dumbest Alfred in all of Batman history. He brought Vicki Vale into the Batcave. Why...?

Nicholson was great. I wouldn't say he became the Joker like Hamill or Ledger, but he was very fun in the film and he's the reason to watch it. I just didn't like how he always covered his bleached face with makeup to appear normal.

Prince music in a Batman film? Not only is it unfitting for the character, it dates the movie.

The whole last act of the film was garbage. Joker throws a parade, Batman comes, tries to kill the Joker with the Batwing, he misses every single shot, and the Joker takes out the Batwing with a silly handgun... Okay? The Joker retreats to the bell tower, Batman goes after him, and all of Joker's henchman spawned in the tower as if it was a video game. Batman gets his ass kicked by henchman, he fights the Joker, he let's the Joker die, the end.

I almost forgot to comment on the art design by Anton Furst. He did a fantastic job with the design of Gotham and the design of the Batmobile. His Batmobile and the BTAS Batmobile are definitely my favorites.

@frozen:

There's two sides to every story. Here's Burton's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Burton

Burton claimed that The Killing Joke was a major influence on his film adaptation of Batman:

"I was never a giant comic book fan, but I've always loved the image of Batman and the Joker. The reason I've never been a comic book fan – and I think it started when I was a child – is because I could never tell which box I was supposed to read. I don't know if it was dyslexia or whatever, but that's why I loved The Killing Joke, because for the first time I could tell which one to read. It's my favorite. It's the first comic I've ever loved. And the success of those graphic novels made our ideas more acceptable."^[12]

I honestly think that within. 10 to 15 years dark knight rises will be considered average for a super hero movie.

I agree. This is a very interesting idea, and I would certainly like to see a re-visiting of Superman 1 and 2.

@dude4: Doesn't that just illustrate Kevin Smith's point?

@muyjingo: No. He said that he read the Killing Joke because he could understand it and that it influenced the movie.

He also gives a legitimate reason for not reading comic books due to his dyslexia/reading disorder.

If you go by the Kevin Smith quote it makes it sound like he never picked up a comic book to do any research into the Batman universe for the film and that he looks down upon comic readers, like he's too good to be a comic fan.

I'm sorry, I like Kevin Smith and all, but I have to call bullshit on this quote of his. I know that him and Burton have a bad relationship after the whole Death of Superman debacle but that's no excuse to take unsubstantiated pot shots at the guy.

I think it's kinda long and boring if you ask me, but I always preferred Batman Returns to it.

@dude4: I think it does help illustrate Smith's point.

Burton said he never read comics, Smith said that explains Batman. Burton gave a reason for why he never read comics (until he did), which supports the notion that Batman wasn't a good comic book movie (although obviously others feel differently) because he wasn't familiar with comics.

He doesn't have dyslexia. He just had trouble following comics for a while.

Then again, I think Burton's a pretty talentless hack, so I'm probably biased.

This movie defined Batman for the generations to come.

I have to admit this is my second favorite Batman movie. I'm actually more fond of Batman Returns as it's a lot more fun than the original, but that being said, it still holds up well and I do have the steelbook bluray version.

I must also confess that while I've, until recently re-watching this, gave Keaton a lot of personal crap for playing Batman, but he does, as Pfeiffer points out, have a really intense gaze as Batman. Just watch his eyes the next time you watch this. Sadly, this era's Batman probably showed him doing more detective work, albeit not all that much, than the Nolan films did. I also think that both Nicholson and Ledger pulled off two parts of the Joker's personality very well. Nicholson's was thoroughly charismatic while Ledger's really stressed the criminal genius aspect of him. I like both portrayals equally.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is the best part of the film, and tbh I think this version of Batman's archnemesis is miles better than Heath Ledger's. First of all i love the fact that this Joker has a backstory, because it makes him more interesting than the nameless looney who just shows up randomly to cause chaos in Gotham as depicted in TDK. Also i like that Nicholson portrayed a psychotic clown unlike Ledger who played a psycho who wore make up and laughed like a retard. Lastly, i loved that Joker killed Batman's parents and wish this would have happened in the comics. I actually think having that in the comics and having Joker kill Robin as well as cripple Batgirl would make Batman's and Joker's relationship more interesting.

Batman 89 did not define Batman. It influenced Batman in several ways, for sure - but it has not even remotely come close to 'defining' Batman. Schumacher's first Batman film was more popular with kids for some time.

The truth is, Batman can never be defined. And that's largely why he works --- and in some aspects, Batman 89 works. There are so many different interpretations of Batman yet all so successful at crafting a new and unique version.

A re-visit to Superman I & II would be great. I am for this too.

Batman 89 is among the least likely to hold up, so if it does, most other comic book movies have a much better chance.

Really? Less likely to hold up than the older Captain America movie? How about The Shadow or The Phantom from the 90s? I think you'd be surprised at the number of comic book movies worse off than the 89 Batman film.

No, I don't think I would be. I didn't see the old Cap movie, but The Phantom certainly still holds up. It's a period piece, and works as well now as it did when it came out. The Shadow wasn't a great movie to begin with, but I would say it still "holds up" just fine. How a movie "holds up" is separate from if it is a good movie or not.

Batman is very, very outdated and it shows, and is full of cringeworthy scenes like Joker dancing to Prince music. Hell, I think the 60s Batman show holds up better than Batman 89.

I remember both The Phantom and Shadow movies to be boring as a kid. In my mind that's a much bigger sin for a comic book movie than simply being silly or cheesy. These are comic books we're talking about. A movie can be silly and still be entertaining where as when it's boring then it's excruciating. I think you're being far too strict about the term "holding up" in regards to movies. To me it's a figure of speech that just means you can watch it again years later and find it entertaining. Plus it's all subjective to Corey's taste and nostalgia so it matters not whether or not the movie is actually good by today's standards.

Were you familiar with The Phantom as a kid? I'm originally from Australia, and growing up comics were about $7 each due to being imported (almost $11 in todays money), while The Phantom was locally printed and was available for less than a dollar. So, I could be biased but I thought it was a fairly faithul adaption that happened to be a fun, if cheesy action adventure film.

I thought The Shadow was pretty cool as a kid, re-watching it I don't think it's a great film...but I enjoyed the characters and premise as a kid. I'd put it below Batman, but I'd put The Phantom above Batman 89 any day of the week, although I'm probably alone in that regard.

I agree with your definition of "holding up"...my point was that I think Batman a movie that holds up worse than the rest, because it has become far more dated than other movies.

Still, my main point was that most comic book movies hold up better than Batman 89, and I stand by that. Pretty much every comic book movie after X-Men is better than Batman, barring one or two stinkers (ghost rider, wolverine origins etc).

I would argue that Batman '89 holds up better than most, if not all, pre-2000 comic book movies. Yeah, it's dated, but it holds up better than the original Superman movies, in my opinion - or, at least, better than Superman 2+.

Batman '89 is what it is: the originator of the popular image of Batman. I see it the same way as I do TDKR: while both are dated, we have to remind ourselves that they shaped the comic book industry. We never would have gotten TDK, or Batman TAS (which was heavily inspired by Batman '89, as was Mask of the Phantasm). For that reason, if nothing else, it should be appreciated. Doesn't mean that it cannot be improved upon, though.

@jedixman:

I see it the same way as I do TDKR: while both are dated

The Dark Knight Returns is...dated?

@muyjingo:

and growing up comics were about $7 each

When was this? If you do not mind me asking.

We've had this discussion before, I believe. I do not have a high opinion of it - partially because I don't like the art, especially in the second half.

It's okay, but there are other Batman stories that I like more:

• The Killing Joke
• Year One
• Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth
• Morrison's entire Batman run
• Hush (to a lesser degree)

@jedixman: We may have had it before - I don't remember so often these days. Anyway I understand your point, the art is definitely bad by modern standards.

I'd say aside from Hush (haven't read Arkham too), all of those listed are great stories. The Killing Joke is a great and twisted story - I'd argue that made TDK what it is. Year One is timeless (by contrast to DKR, the art is much better).

What's Arkham Asylum like?

It's ok overall. It's a great example of what happens when you put great actors in a bad movie. The result is enjoyable but nothing special

Arkham Asylum is surreal. It feels like a nightmare; the art is weird, and it is made to feel horrific and chaotic. Each character has unique text for their dialogue, which is artistic in and of itself. TDK drew a lot of inspiration from this, as well. It even has a pencil scene. The only complaint that I have is that Joker's dialogue is difficult to read because of how it is written - but that's probably intentional, and as I said, it goes along with the chaotic tone. The entire thing can be interpreted as a nightmare that Bruce has one night, which is how I view the story.

@frozen: Mid 90's, Australia.

In 2050: Does THe Dark Knight still Hold Up?

Just because Burton wasn't a regular comic book reader doesn't mean that he was a poor choice to direct the movie. Bryan Singer wasn't an X-Men fan and he still came out with the two best entries in the X-Men cinematic universe.

I'd rather have someone that understood the language of film and the mediums needs direct a Batman film than the local comic shop owner that has every issue of Batman since the 50's. This also goes for Nolan's movies as well, you can say it strays from the source material here and there but overall they are good movies in their own right.

"Then again, I think Burton's a pretty talentless hack, so I'm probably biased."

He is now, but once upon a time he was a pretty good visual storyteller.

@dude4: I thought Singer was a huge X-Men fan?

I don't think Burton has created anything worthwhile other than Edward Scissorhands.

Hard to say. But the lack of CGI and emphasis on practical effect/story in TDKT makes me think it'll stand the test of time.

I'm looking at the art and it definitely looks creepy and nightmarish. It sure looks like a visual experience. I'll check this book out, I'd seen it on the top Batman story lists but I always love a perspective story. Color me interested.

I can definitely see The Dark Knight influence in how they used the text for Ledger's Joker.

@muyjingo:

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/singer.html

"For a guy who never liked comic books, Bryan Singer has spent a lot of time reinventing them."

OK. I thought I read somewhere how he related to the mutants as outsiders because he was gay, as a kid. Guess not.

@frozen: That's kinda what I meant by defined. The movie influenced so much of the Batman stuff for such a long time that in a way it kinda defined Batman.

@muyjingo: Well Singer might of related to the concept of the X-Men in general but he was never a real reader of their comics. I'm totally ok with that. As long as Hollywood attaches a good director to a comic book movie it doesn't bother me if they aren't 100% familar with the source material. The only thing I care about is how good they are as directors.

Then again, there is that whole Ang Lee/Hulk fiasco that proves me wrong.

@dude4: I thought Ang Lee's hulk was amongst the best comic book movies to date...

@muyjingo: I wholeheartedly agree. I think it is too easy to disregard a lot of comic book films in light of today's over-saturation. People forget that these earlier films paved the way for the current and coming glut of DC and Marvel. Some wax lyrical about CA:WS which I just saw the other day and was frankly not as impressed as the hype would make it out to be. Without wanting to sound patronising I think as I grow my taste matures with experience and you get a better idea of what a 'classic' actually is. I believe that in 15 years time when the 'comic film' interest has become established nay perhaps boring, people will look back at the last few years of films with a more forgiving and understanding eye. But I could well be wrong. Maybe there is no hope for Iron Man 3?!?! LMFAO

@muyjingo: To each his own, my friend.

I couldn't stand it.

I re-watched it not too long ago and it just didn't hold up for me at all. I watched the hell out of this and Returns when I was a kid and I loved them...hell I even liked the Schumacher ones when I was young. I still liked the 80's feel and the art-deco feel of the city. The Batman costume just looks ridiculous and I could see Nicholson's mouth inside the makeup mouth every scene you see him. It's still a great movie, but having seen many many movies since then it just wasn't as good as I remembered. The Animated series from the 90's holds up much much better and it's my favorite Batman media that isn't the comics.

The only exposure I really had to The Phantom before that movie were the cartoons, Defenders of the Earth and Phantom 2040 respectively. Admittedly maybe not the best cartoons but I thought the character was interesting. I just remember seeing the movie in the theater as a kid and finding it underwhelming. I suppose in that sense it would be the perfect "Does it hold up?" movie for me since my memories of it are less than stellar.

Speaking of Pulp Era Superhero films from the early 90's, we should do a "does it hold up" for the Rocketeer and Dick Tracy films. To me they are both better than the Shadow and Phantom movies.

@frozen: Schwarzenegger is the only thing I like about Batman and Robin. For some reason I love his Mr Freeze.