By which I mean 1989's Batman, directed by Tim Burton, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. Opening day, twenty-five years ago, baby.
Why Tim Burton’s Batman Is Still the Best
The man behind the bat, and Gotham, were weirder and more interesting
50 view(s)
To expand a bit …
There is a lot about the '89 Batman that is more than a bit goofy. Yes, there's the rubber suit. Most of the stuff the Joker does later in the movie (the art gallery, shooting down the Batwing) are silly and indulgent.
But Keaton — who everybody thought was the Worst Casting Ever when announced — was brilliant as the disturbed Bruce Wayne (and the equally but differently disturbed Batman). I'm not a huge fan of Nicholson's Joker, but I respect it. And the supporting cast is all pretty good. Throw in Burton's eye for quirky detail and grandiose vision, and some Danny Elfman music, and it's still a classic.
You were actually there before the movie premiered. A year or two before, you and i and maybe you 500 of our closest friends at Comic Con listened to Tim Burton, I think, talk about the Batman movie he was working on . There were a lot of questions about whether Michael Keaton was going to play the role straight, or whether this was going to turn into something like the TV show-Pow, Bam, Fizz. We were reassured over and over again that this movie was going to reflect the background of the Dark Knight series of comic books.
That presentation was one of the first times that I felt Comic-Con gave me information before anyone else. They came to comic con because they believed that they needed this audience to come to the movie in order for it to be successful. It was a special moment of acknowledgement of what would eventually be recognized as a powerful market for movies and television.
Yes — you are absolutely correct, Mary (and I I’m kicking myself for forgetting about it).
Another good reveiw here: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/06/you-wanna-get-nuts-lets-get-nuts-the-schizophrenic-excellence-of-1989s-batman