Hey, do that again and it'll be considered trolling and then you can get suspended. Won't that be fun?

Also, Batman Returns is way better than Batman '89.

I got Batman 89 on VHS for christmas on the same day the family received our first VCR. I watched it to death. At least once or twice a day for a year. I can recite every line, musical cue, sound effect to this day, still. It holds a huge place in my heart. I love Returns too, but it just has way too many issues with it that bug me while I watch it, such as full sized men in bad penquin suits, some of those horribly painted city backdrops, Bruce Wayne scratching the cd like a dj...little things, but there are so many that it takes me out of the experience sometimes.

Neither are very good films but Aliens is fucking horrible. The only reason why anyone would say they like it better is because it's cool to say you like Aliens better.

Both are very flawed, but I find Batman Returns' flaws less annoying.

Batman has the lame junk about Jack Napier (before he was The Joker) killing Bruce Wayne's parents, the Joker constantly playing annoying Prince songs, the Joker shooting down the Batwing with an oversized pistol, Jack Nicholson's overrated performance (I personally think it was a bad performance and just Jack playing himself for the most part), and virtually no plot whatsoever because nothing holds together (the movie mostly seems like a series of unrelated scenes randomly strung together).

So, despite the worst stuff in Batman Returns, such as too many over-the-top characters and the "Penguins Of Unusual Size" at the end, it had more of a plot and a lot less annoying music than the first film, so those alone makes it easier to watch for me.

Now, what I do like the most about them are the Expressionistic look of Gotham City (both movies are very strong visually), a superb Batmobile design, Danny Elfman's theme music, how they handled Bruce Wayne/Batman (in both) and Selina Kyle/Catwoman (in Returns)... but I don't like much else in either one.


(Still both films look absolutely brilliant in every way when compared to the crap that Joel Schumacher spewed out.)

Batman Returns. I never cared for Batman, even as a kid, but enjoyed the hell out of the sequel and Devito's performance.

Does anyone remember the fallout after Batman Returns and why Burton didn't direct the 3rd installment? Was he fired by WB? Was he not interested in directing anymore Batman movies? Was Keaton on board for the 3rd movie if Burton directed?

My views of the first two Batman movies have drastically changed over the years. I saw them both in the theater so I was able to get a pre-Schumacher, pre-Nolan Batman view of the first movies.

I originally enjoyed Batman 89, but wasn't blown away like many of my friends. Of course Nicolson steals the show, and again I thought it was entertaining, but not a great movie. I almost walked out of Batman Returns as it was terrible.

I recently watched them both again, I actually prefer Returns now as I think it delves deeper into the Batman lore. It's still not a great movie, but I think it holds up better then Batman 89.

For what purpose do you do this?
Unless you have a good reason,
Can't think of one, though.
Knowing you like one over the other is fine.

Other people like Returns.
For some, Batman is better.
For me, however, I like Returns.

i found BR to be a dreadful bore. i tried watching it when it was on HDNM but couldn't get through it.

Mod Note: You didn't believe me, did you?

Keaton was definetly uninterested in a 3rd movie.

Burton serving as a producer for the 3rd was a sign that he still had some interest in the franchise, but the suits wanted to head the series into a brighter look after the previously dark entry (Anyone remember McDonalds quickly recalling those tie-ins?)

...And don't forget that a Wayans brother was nearly cast as Robin for Returns

The 89 movie is more of a Batman movie in the traditional sense. Returns is basically a Tim Burton movie with Batman as a character.

I think it was because Batman Returns wasn't as financially successful as the first one. It cost twice as much too make, but made 1/2 as much as the first.

I suppose they believed the reason for this was because it was too dark, and turned off audiences. I thought the original was darker, because of the tone. Despite Batman Returns having roughly same level of violence, the overall tone was alot more silly and humorous at times. Also, I remember the original '89 film being criticized for more violent than it's PG-13 rating suggested.


Keaton probably bailed when he found out Schumacher was directing and that it was going to be less dark.

This.

Batman is very un-Burton like. It's a fun movie and has some interesting stuff. I actually think Keaton is pretty good in the role. It managed to mix some of the fun weirdness of Batman with more of the 80s dark and gritty stuff without being too much of either one. Returns is a Burton movie through and through. Your enjoyment of that will depend on your love of Burton.

I'm sure I've posted about this before, but the reason I love Batman Returns is because it's a big-budget homage to German Expressionism. The production design is clearly meant to echo Metropolis (with a hearty dose of Burton whimsy thrown in), the lighting is moody, Max Schreck (the name of the actor who played Nosferatu) has a Caligari-style hairdo, and so on. As an homage to German Expressionism, I think a literal reading of the film is too simplistic. The characters stand in for elements of the psyche (Catwoman is id, Penguin is ego, Batman is supergo). Bruce Wayne is seemingly given short shrift as a character. When you first see him, he's sitting alone in his mansion, brooding, waiting for the excuse to become Batman. But if you look at him as an expressionist character, this makes a lot of sense. Like Caligari's somnambulist, Wayne waits to shrug off the constraints of the real world so as to play in a fantasy. All three of the main characters in Returns use fantasy to escape a harsh reality (the death of Wayne's parents, Selina Kyle's failed life and attempted murder, the Penguin's rejection by his parents and subsequent harsh treatment). The heightened, exaggerated nature of the world around them shows how powerful their delusions are. Catwoman even appears to have nine lives.

Looked at in this light, I think Returns is one of Burton's most brilliant films. The fact that he did it to a Batman movie makes it even ballsier, but also explains why many have a low opinion of it. I think it's exactly right to say that Returns is a Burton film that happens to feature Batman, and not a proper Batman movie. But as a cinematic exercise, what a treat.

In contrast, Batman '89 feels too pedestrian, too by the numbers. Not only that, but it's clear that Burton has never helmed a production of that size before. I never liked the production design of '89. The architecture doesn't feel unified, with every style possible smashing into each other. Returns may feel smaller, but Bo Welch gives it a unity that '89 lacks. The performances by many of the actors are total cheeseball, starting with the guy who plays Eckhart, but rarely letting up. Nicholson is fun, but often feels like he's constrained by the makeup. The Prince songs, while enjoyable on their own merits, make the film immediately feel dated. I never bought Wayne and Vale's relationship, especially when she's let into the Batcave and has almost no reaction. The movie's just a big mess.

I think I gotta go with Returns on this one. As a kid, it was reversed. I preferred Batman and had that shit memorized. As a mature man, I like to look at a woman in skin tight leather.

The comic book movies in the years surrounding 1989 include the Captain America B-movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1-3, Superman IV, and Howard the Duck. Batman was the 1st movie where some attempt was made to actually look like the comic in terms of tone and imagery, all while the mainstream consciousness of Batman was still ZAP POW! (I mean far fewer adults read comics in the 80s than now) It was anything but by the numbers, and I thought the sense of scale was there. At the time I thought maybe Vale should have been a little more surprised, but I liked Spiderman 2 and I thought Come on MJ you seriously haven't figured this out?

Well, shit. I voted Batman when I meant to vote Returns. Looks like ten year old me is still subconsciously making my fucking decisions.

Batman Returns. Easily.

I seen both in theater I was a kid and definitely Batman ('89) is my favorite Batman movie and Returns is was OK.

I do remember your original post Supermallet and I think it was then and is now a breathtakingly perfect assessment of Batman Returns.

Why thank you! I'd love to dig up that old post. Let me see if I can find it.

Edit: It appears there is no single post where I really break down Batman Returns, just many small posts that reiterate the same points I made in this thread. I should really go into it one day, I think there's a lot going on in Batman Returns.

"Returns" if only for the lack of Nicholson, who delivered a great performance, just not one that should have been in a Batman film.

Returns for the scene where Batman straps a bomb to a henchman and blows him up, while laughing.

Because it's the scene that epitomizes why Burton should never have been allowed to helm a Batman feature.

That's pretty cool about looking at it as a tribute to German expressionist films. I like Dr. Caligari and Nosferatu but I see only inspiration on the surface, like with Max Shreck's name being used, the set design, and so on. The other scenes come off as previews of what was to come with the Schumacher films.

So far I'm watching the film and Dragon Tattoo is right, there's a scene where Batman straps ticking dynamite to a thug and lets it explode. Then there's the superfluous Bat Signal/s that perfectly align to Bruce Wayne's study. Or the programable remote control Batarang where Batman types in bathroom logos to denote where the villains are standing that gets ultimately gets snapped up by a poodle. The Penguin flying around on umbrellas.

The whole thing reminded me of the 60s live action Batman show with modern costumes.

I really liked Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, but Michelle Pfieffer seemed to capture the sexiness and playful but dangerious disregard of the comics character much better.

This.

While Schumacher gets all the blame heaped on him for Batman's Cinematic Shame Spiral of the 90s, lets not forget that Returns embraced the loony preposterousness whole hog too--and ultimately set that spiral in motion. You want two bad guys teaming up for full campy effect? You got it. You want to bend the laws of physics or reality in general as blatantly as you please? Look no further. You want terrible one-liners like: "Eat floor, more fiber" and god-awful puns being tossed around like a dinghy in a hurricane? You found your movie.

I was 14 years old when this movie came out and I my jaw dropped at different it was from Batman '89. I remember thinking: "The penguins becoming pall bearers for the newly deceased Penguin? Puh-leez."

While Bats 89 had a modicum of silliness, it had decent grounding in its half-way believable settings and characters. It was a clear progenitor of the Nolan-Batman movies.

And lastly: I don't care if the ghost of Fritz Lang gave his ethereal blessing for Batman Returns supposed homage to German Expressionism--its not worth turning the Batman mythos into a silverscreen shit sandwich throughout the 90s.