JCC BATMAN 89: Celebrating 30 years

HI DAVEEED

 

dave

 

So, um, what was the purpose of this particular symbol?

 

dave

 

He doesn't have to be godlike or perfect, but he should a least use his brain and try not to kill people IN A MOVIE THAT'S ALL ABOUT HIM NOT KILLING PEOPLE. I mean, Harvey's going on and on about how Rachel is dead and no one understands his pain and how he has to make Gordon understand by threatening his family and blah blah...like how dumb is Bruce that he doesn't try pulling off the mask and saying "You don't have to kill anyone because I loved her too and I do understand"?

I won't offer any more on the matter. For me, the resolution was contrived and felt totally wrong for the movie. But I suppose everyone's mileage may vary.

 

Daveed wants us to talk Burton films>

 

I've a mind to make me a moogie...

 

(I'm of a mind to make some mookie...)

 

Taking the mask off would've been a bonehead, unnecessary move. Bats had been shot and Harvey forgotten all about him in the midst of his tete-a-tete with Gordon. As injured as he was he possibly could've snuck up on Harvey, disarmed him and subdue him without actually throwing him off the damn building. Taking his mask off and telling him he understood is by no means any guarantee of success when dealing with such an enraged individual. And Harvey was pretty far gone at that point. In fact, that act could've enraged Harvey worse than he was and he might've shot Bruce in the face right then and there.

Regardless of the outcome, we would've had the untenable situation of Batman revealing his identity to Gordon, his family and - if he had lived - to Harvey as well. Saying that would complicate his role as Batman would be one hell of an understatement. One of the reasons as to why Gordon "doesn't know" Batman's true identity axis many versions of the mythos is that it gives him plausible deniability in regards to his "partner's" activities since, as a law enforcement officer, he should not abide a vigilante under any circumstance. That plausible deniability would be gone the intent he's confronted with the undeniable reality of Batman's identity, complicating his working relationship with the vigilante to the point he'd had no choice but to arrest him or resign his commission. Seeing that part of the Joker's plot was to Batman to unmask himself, effectively destroying him, then that would've also given the Joker another victory. That was not an option.

But no, the script needed Harvey to ultimately die as the fallen white knight that Batman ultimately needed to redeem by taking Harvey's sins upon himself. But it could've been done without Batman actually killing him, regardless whether that was the intent or not (i.e. Gordon could've shot him or actually be the guy to push him off the edge), because ultimately the Joker would've won as well by making him break his "one rule". Regardless, it doesn't matter now, since Rises shot to hell the interesting premise left in place by TDK's finale.

 

Nah, because then Harvey would still blame Bruce for not protecting Rachel and blame him for her death in the first place.

This is movie Batman, not comic book Bat God.

Creative license. Like so...

 

Yes, but at that point sinister Robin's basically Nightwing (ironically, new 52 Nightwing) with cape and Batman still has the Bat symbol. Why did the Burton one add those little flourishes at the bottom?

 

Not flourishes. I think those are meant to be the bat's hind legs. Still unnecessary, though.

 

I see you're resorting to the usual automatic ad hominem strategy instead of addressing the point. Nothing new there. Do you assume that being a feminine hygiene product in lieu of having a coherent or consistent argument "adds value"?

If only those things weren't mutually exclusive! And wasn't his being forced to kill lampshaded in dialogue?

 

Arwen, all you do is post fairly flaccid, passive aggressive one liners and never actually hold a view of your own. For example, we can only assume you like The Dark Knight Rises because of your collection of almost-pithy one liners in response to critiques of it. But you've not said why you like it, only that critiques are wrong. Similarly you did the same passive-aggressive BS when people complained how paper thin Talia was in Rises, without explaining why they were wrong.

This is your MO. You don't actually have anything to say to anyone, nor any real value to add to this community. There's no insight, no interesting viewpoints, observations or opinions. Just a person sniping away with one liners that aren't nearly as clever as the author believes.

Stand for something or just **** off, it's exhausting.

 

Your unlikely nonsense here is transparent to anyone who's actually been paying attention ( or who may have ventured out of this forum at some point in history ). I'd say my views are considerably explicit and fairly well known in certain circles. But enough about that pesky "reality" thing which the rest of us happen to be living in. I see that you're still committed to the strategy of automatic personal attacks when confronted with the failures of your position. Hey, if that's all you got, knock yourself out. At least your tactics are consistent; that's gotta count for something.

 

So, they're not well known, they're assumed by virtue of elimination. We know, by way of throwaway one liners, what criticisms you'll critique so implicit in that imperfect method is that you must like the subject of criticism.

So, to prove me wrong and all that, why don't you articulate your opinion on Batman 89? That's all you have to do, a few lines on if you liked it, and why/why not?

 

DDDAAAVVVEEEEEEE

 

I was referring to the lack of yellow oval in the bat symbol, not Dick's costume.

If you're referring to the Joker saying that he'd have to break his one rule and Bruce saying that he was considering it, then no. That scene was about driving Batman over the edge to prove a point, whereas with Harvey it was about making a choice save Gordon's son or Harvey and he did the only thing that he could do. One was to be intentional, the other was more consequential.

"Dave's not here."

 

I once read that the original drawing of Batman entailed a red Batsuit. Does anyone know if that's correct?

 

No, it's wrong.











It wasn't even a batsuit.

 

Right. But I can't find anything on Google that verifies this. All I've been able to find are search results talking about Bill Finger's unsung contributions to the character.

 

You can't find anything on Google? It's discussed on the Wikipedia entry for Batman, Steranko's history of comics, Daniels' history of Batman, most interviews with people who weren't Bob Kane, Bob Kane himself, you name it. I think the original sketch is probably lost, though.

 

I skimmed through the Wikipedia and other Wiki-type entries to find sentences such as, "the Batsuit went through several changes and varying colors," etc, etc, etc.

Thanks for your link. Appreciate it.

 

NM