did anyone have a problem with Batman killing back then?

[The Joker]

No. I don't recall anyone having a problem with Batman killing back in 1989.

From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

Course all of this was in those pre-internet days, so if there were a vocal minority who disliked Batman killing, it wasn't going to get a ton of traction. Similar to the hoopla Keaton got when he was cast as Batman. Sure, there was a negative article, and Keaton received hate mail, but I doubt 98% of the people back in 1988/1989 honestly cared. Superhero movies were very hit and miss, and the general public's investment was just not there. For most people, the trailer looked good, the hype was strong, the movie was released, people liked it, Keaton was accepted. Pretty much it.

From my perspective, that's how it when down back in 1989.

[thecolorsblend]

No. I don't recall anyone having a problem with Batman killing back in 1989.

From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

Course all of this was in those pre-internet days, so if there were a vocal minority who disliked Batman killing, it wasn't going to get a ton of traction. Similar to the hoopla Keaton got when he was cast as Batman. Sure, there was a negative article, and Keaton received hate mail, but I doubt 98% of the people back in 1988/1989 honestly cared. Superhero movies were very hit and miss, and the general public's investment was just not there. For most people, the trailer looked good, the hype was strong, the movie was released, people liked it, Keaton was accepted. Pretty much it.

From my perspective, that's how it when down back in 1989.

That's my memory of it took. I think the controversy over Keaton gets overstated a lot. But whatever backlash there was mostly vanished after the first trailer. Kind of like Ledger as the Joker, once people had a basic idea of what the film would be like, the opposition pretty much evaporated all by itself.

One thing I find interesting today is how NOBODY is willing to go on the record as a Keaton-hater back in 1988 and the first half of 1989. Everybody acknowledges that there was some opposition there but nobody seems willing to admit that they were ever one of them.

I take the dearth of anybody doing a public mea culpa over that stuff as evidence of how great a job Keaton did with the part.

[The Laughing Fish]

A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

The explosion that ensued following the strongman's plunge down the hole is ambiguous at best. First off, the guy could've taken the bomb out of his pants before it went kablooey.

But even if he didn't, that was a pretty wimpy explosion. There's no reason to assume he died from that. He might not have even been too horribly injured.

Frankly, I have to disagree. If Burton wanted to show the Strongman had survived, he would've done so. The explosion might've evaporated rather quickly, but you can see the fire erupting before it turns to smoke. The shrapnel would've fatally injured the Strongman.

I reckon the firebreather who Batman set on fire with the Batmobile had a better chance to survive, as he could've easily rolled into the snow to put the flames out. Although judging from the severity of the flames, he'd likely suffer from third degree burns for the rest of his life.

The examples of Batman taking people out permanently raised so far are rather easy to defend.

One particular death I dispute that Batman is responsible for is the Penguin's. At best, Batman might've tried to scare Cobblepot into thinking he was turning his kamikaze penguins against him, but he couldn't have anticipated it would result in that accidental fall. I'd say Cobblepot created his own demise.

[The Joker]

That's my memory of it took. I think the controversy over Keaton gets overstated a lot. But whatever backlash there was mostly vanished after the first trailer. Kind of like Ledger as the Joker, once people had a basic idea of what the film would be like, the opposition pretty much evaporated all by itself.

One thing I find interesting today is how NOBODY is willing to go on the record as a Keaton-hater back in 1988 and the first half of 1989. Everybody acknowledges that there was some opposition there but nobody seems willing to admit that they were ever one of them.

I take the dearth of anybody doing a public mea culpa over that stuff as evidence of how great a job Keaton did with the part.

That's very true, and the Ledger casting being chastised, then later praised, similar to Keaton, is an astute observation that does have it's parallel's with one another.

It's funny, but if we're talking strictly the more modern live action Batman's, Keaton & Affleck no doubt are the top two in receiving fanboy ire and later praise. I don't remember Val Kilmer being considered 'controversial', nor Clooney or Bale, and for my money, Keaton & Affleck are right up there for the absolute best.

With the role of the Joker, it sure seems like that outside of Nicholson (who I think was regarded as a good choice right from the jump), that part just invites dissatisfaction and conspiracy theories. If only initially. The negative reception Ledger got upon being cast is well documented, but I also recall these amusing theories that Ledger's Joker wasn't actually going to be THE Joker, and that he was essentially going to be a stand in for the REAL Joker who would appear later in the film. This was the sort of stuff that was being spewed out prior to the 1st trailer for The Dark Knight. Fast forward to Suicide Squad, and Leto was getting the same thing. That he wasn't really THE Joker, but rather .... Jason Todd of all people? Now, I've seen recent articles that, lo and behold, are spouting off the same crazy theory about Joaquin Phoenix's Joker!

Rinse and repeat.

[The Laughing Fish]

Also, the Joker's death is really more on himself than it is Batman. If the Joker had simply let go of the helicopter ladder, he would've dangled off the side of the building. Batman may have intended to kill the Joker... but when the Joker actually died, it wasn't because Batman intended it. Batman fired a spear gun at the Joker's ankle. If he'd been aiming to kill, he would've fired the spear gun into the Joker's chest.

Forgive me if I sound pedantic, but I wouldn't call the weapon Batman had used a spear gun. It was a gun that fired two bolas; one had wrapped around the Joker's ankle and the other had wrapped around the gargoyle. Still, I thought Batman had a more direct role in Joker's death than the Penguin's death.

[GoNerdYourself]

From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

This is how I remember it. I honestly can't say I remember seeing a single person complaining about Batman killing the bad guys until, I don't know, maybe a decade or so later.

Personally, it never bugged me. I actually want to see the main villain die. It helps bring closure to the story (something I long for that in franchise films these days), can lead to operatic finales like the one in Batman Returns, and if done right, it can be feel rewarding to the audience. The bad guy got what he deserved.

[thecolorsblend]

Actually, one thing I wish I'd mentioned before is how much things have changed. And also, how were fans perceived (and were perceived by) the wider culture.

It may be easy to forget now. But there was a time when comic book fans usually had pretty low expectations of comic book films. For a lot of them, it was enough that the character's look was similar to his comics counterpart. That may sound like low standards. But you have to remember that there was a time when The Culture (eg, the mainstream, the straights, the normies, whatever you want to call them) looked askance at comic books and comic book fans. My sense of things is that slasher movie aficionados were more widely accepted back in the 80's and most of the 90's than we were.

So yes, people (probably) died because of Batman's actions in the Burton films. But back then, it's not that fans were necessarily okay with stuff like that. Rather, they were simply trying to focus on the big picture. And back in the 80's and 90's, the big picture was "Batman isn't Adam West". That was the battle they were most concerned about. When B89 came out, fans were happy to have a darker version of Batman on film. Nevermind that there's nothing wrong with West. Because that wasn't the core audience's attitude back in 1989.

They wanted a dark Batman. They were concerned about getting a Batman movie starring a comedian like Bill Murray or something. Tim Burton gave them a dark Batman movie. So in the general mind of fans, it was Mission Accomplished.

Again, it may seem like no big shucks these days. But things were different back in the 80's and 90's. If Batman took somebody's life in a movie, well, fans tended to be a little pragmatic about it. Stuff like that was regarded as a "flaw" in an otherwise credible presentation of a dark Batman. They were prepared to look the other way on some issues. That would change in time but back then, that's how it was.

In today's world, you have people throwing tantrums because the lead villain's name in Infinity War is pronounced THAN-KNOWS rather than THAY-KNOWS. That's how much things have changed. Fans today can argue around the margins about irrelevant minutiae.

But back in 1989, fans weren't prepared to have hissy fits over "small" issues of Batman killing his foes. Not in a time and place when a dark Batman movie (A) existed and (B) had become very successful. Nobody wanted to rock the boat.

I'm prepared to say that fans were concerned over Batman taking life in the movies. If you go back and read old letter columns from BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS, you'll see letter hacks occasionally mention that very subject. But my memory of it is that most of them mentioned it in passing, as an aside, a small quibble. It wasn't a deal-breaker for them back then because they knew they couldn't afford for it to be.

Their priority was Batman as a grim avenger of the night. That was their focus. And protecting that might entail making other compromises, such as accepting a movie where Batman was a grim avenger of the night who occasionally killed his enemies.

It's only been relatively recently that Hollywood has begun creating more comics-accurate depictions of these characters. Fans today can argue over whether Sam Raimi created a more faithful adaptation of Spider-Man than Mark Webb. They have that luxury.

But back in the 80's, that was simply out of scope for fandom of that time. Fans of that period were simply happy if a movie was vaguely similar to the comics at all; they mostly didn't want to split hairs over the finer elements of the source material.

[Silver Nemesis]

^ Well put. Context is indeed essential.

Modern viewers need to take into account that Batman 89 was grown in the soil of eighties action cinema; a landscape fertilised with the bullet-riddled corpses of a million dead henchmen. The most successful recent superhero movie at that time was RoboCop, in which the gun-toting hero racks up a body count that would put a slasher villain to shame. Batman 89 needed to compete against that in order to be taken seriously. Back then it was less about being a good 'comic book movie' than a good 'action movie'. CBMs weren't generally acknowledged as a separate genre in the eighties, so any superhero films had to fit into either the sci-fi or action genres. And being an eighties action movie meant lots of guns and a high body count.

[eledoremassis02]

A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

I think Batman knew he wasn't going to get win against him, and the strongman had the attitude showing it, so Batman on-upped him. Plus this Batman wasnt exactly "there". I think Catwoman really woke him up at the end of the film (as to where was/heading towards) thus why he tried to stop Catowman from killing Shrek

[The Laughing Fish]

I think Batman knew he wasn't going to get win against him, and the strongman had the attitude showing it, so Batman on-upped him. Plus this Batman wasnt exactly "there". I think Catwoman really woke him up at the end of the film (as to where was/heading towards) thus why he tried to stop Catowman from killing Shrek

Not saying you're wrong, but what always bothered me about that ending with Catwoman is Batman suddenly dismissing her claim the law doesn't apply to them, despite the fact he has killed out of revenge and with impunity. When he says "wrong on both counts", it didn't ring true to me because we don't actually see him looking back at his past violent actions with regret. It just suddenly happens.

It's why I keep saying Forever, for all its faults, should be given credit for building from that moment and explore why Batman wants to spare anybody wanting to kill for revenge.