I'm sure this has been mentioned a few times. I was wondering what everyone's take is on this mini-battle. And why they decided to have Batman pretty much beat down by that last thug.
For the record, I LOVE that sequence. We get to see Batman roll, go into brawler mode, get beat down, and then get back up. Probably the only reason that irks some viewers (or makes it more memorable) is that the final thug is never alluded to as a being of great importance.
I know that Burton wasn't aware of where they were going, with the sudden script change. But maybe there's more to it than that.
What are some reasons they decided to have the last wave of thugs / have the final thug toss Batman around?:
1. Maybe just because it looked visually exciting - Maybe the producers just wanted one final brawling scene to spike interest before the confrontation with Batman and the Joker? There's a chance they just wrote it in because they thought it'd be cool if Batman fought his way up, tier to tier, to make his way to the Joker. Or maybe they thought it needed something more than Batman following Joker up and then it ends quickly.
I would love to ask the stunt coordinator what he thought of these changes too. I know they really emphasize on telling us "He made a last minute change to the script" but if you watch the final scene you can see there is some careful planning going on there. (Props, Stunts, Camera, Lighting, these areas had to adapt greatly to these changes.)
2. Brutalize Batman - Maybe they were trying to make Batman look even more heroic by overcoming great odds? I know in the original script Batman's leg is pretty destroyed..... and yet he keeps on going. Perhaps that's why the minor villains stand a chance. I know they wouldn't want to make Batman's final assault look too easy.
3. But Batman isn't just a Brawler - Often scriptwriters like to mention that we should show physically powerful characters outsmarting the bad guys. Batman isn't just about his physical strength, there's a certain cunning and stealth to him. Even the Joker, as we see when his men and guns are taken away, doesn't look so strong physically fighting Batman one on one. It's the power and leadership that the Joker possesses, not his physical fighting ability. Batman even uses his sidekick here, which has thwarted many a foe in this film, and it doesn't work. The guy just won't go down. But the Batman outsmarts him. Maybe they just wanted to show Batman as more than brawler, that he uses his cunning and wits to "survive."
4. Foreshadowing? - After the final thug is handled and he fights the Joker, we see Batman fall off then cling to the side of the cathedral. Even further towards the end, we see him fall from great heights and shoot his grappling hook which leaves him dangling, hanging with Ms. Vale. Maybe they showed Batman defeating the final thug that way, to make his next set of falls (and recoveries) more believable? Maybe in a way, it's like saying through Batman's agility and wits he survives what the final thug cannot. Through his agility and wits, he survives the cathedral fall and Joker does not.
5. Climbing the Cathedral, then going directly into fighting (one-on-one) Jack Nicholson as the Joker, wouldn't look right? - The first draft doesn't have any mention of the final group of thugs fighting Batman at the belfry. Maybe they added them in to add some length to the final scene? Or maybe they thought (with Nicholson's frame) that it wouldn't be visually believable to have the Joker keep up with the Batman in fight?
Even though it probably made Burton crap his pants to see such a big change in the script, that they got this final scene just right. It gives the final scene a little kick and has this nice rising movement to it. The suspense builds as he follows Joker up the church. He barely manages to get past Joker's henchmen, albeit in brutal, action-filled fashion. And finally his confrontation with the man who created him.
-
Does anyone have the final shooting script? On most sites it says its removed. The most I can find is the Fifth draft that's all over the internet. In this thread on IMDB someone mentions the final thug was originally supposed to be on steroids?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/board/thread/209032105?d=209507376&p=1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/board/thread/209032105?d=209544295&p=2#209544295
To any one who's read the Batman Movie novel..... do they elaborate on this? Or atleast mention the final set of thugs? Novel writers tends to work with people involved with the movie. That's why we sometimes see things left in the novel, that are in the first drafts of a script, but not in the final movie.
Yes I've heard some moaning about that battle myself. I too love it. It's great fun to watch. And for me far more brutal than any of the attempted "brutality" in Nolan's fights. Plus you can actually see what's going on unlike the super fast editing of Begins battles done by Lee Smith.
Are people bothered because Batman gets beaten up by a common thug (even in a headlock at one point)? First off let's not forget he just got blasted outta the sky and crashed as a result of The Joker. He even stumbles in the Cathedral's great hall. Clearly wounded and not up to scratch. It's possible he would be a tad weak. Also how boring would it be if any foe didn't outmatch Mr Wayne once in a while, common or not? This is Superman's problem, nobody can beat him. Giving Batman that vulnerabilty is more exciting to me than simply having him win easily every time. On another level as you say the scene is also meant to show how Batman can take anything and just keep coming.
Some Batman villains are not suited for a punch out showdown with the Dark Knight and for me The Joker is one of them. Even in Batman Returns, in which they do have a kind of fight sequence with The Penguin, Batman merely dodges his sword umbrella quite confidently. I'm glad they never had Nicholson go toe to toe with him. I think his one and only puch against Batman's chest is so funny and perfectly right. There is a battle sequence in The Killing Joke which this scene is totally in the spirit of in which one panel shows The Joker desperately trying to avoid a vicious Batman punch. He has a hilarious pleading look to his face. The Joker has no chance on a physical level with Batman whereas Catwoman perhaps does. I never bought The Joker's attack on Batman in The Dark Knight (although he pins him down and had the help of those three dogs). But really Bale's Batman should have knocked him out with merely a slap. There was certainly no contest there (or at least there shouldn't have been). It's only a brief sequence mind you.
The cathedral sequence is right at the top with the best Batman moments. Violence juxtaposed to Joker's 'romantic' dance.
The goons Batman puts down in the belfry required little effort. Raising his gauntlet - thug goes down. A thug jumps through the floorboards to his doom. Batman had to do nothing at all there.
The African thug was a full frontal attack that required hard work. All we needed to know is that this thug is big, angry and not going away. Anyone with those traits is of great importance, especially when you've just survived a plane crash.
This fight is amazing.It gets a lot across in a short time. Batman is human, will endure, survive and ultimately defeat you no matter the odds. Those legs emerging from the darkness around the thug's head, smashing it into the bell and throwing him down never, ever gets old.
@The Dark Knight
Definitely. It never gets old. That scene may be my favorite. Although the producers sometimes get flack for their last minute decisions, we wouldn't get that amazing build up to final fight with Joker. We get to see Joker's dance like you said. His nonchalant, whimsical dance while Batman is fighting his goons is a perfect touch. It brings the characters of Batman, Vicki, and The Joker together in an exciting fashion. In the early scripts I think Vicki isn't even at the Cathedral in the final scene.
Also the lighting of the final fights make it look very dream-like and mysterious.
-
@BobTheGoon89
I never like to get into the arguments because who knows what opinions will be in another 20 years. We're living in the time of Nolan's Batman series so I think it's normal to see so much love for the series. (For many younger viewers, Batman Begins was "their" Batman 1989.)
However...
They aren't mindful of a few things. People tend to think anything that's great and new is better than the old. That trend follows even outside of movies. Also, calling things "dated" as if they're incredibly observant for noticing 80's-isms in the Burton's Batman. They have to remember that while Nolan's films are "in" right now, in 20 years those Nolan Batman films will also be dated. I can just imagine another great director stepping up to the plate in the next 10 years. Then it'll be the new director's fans vs the Nolanites.
Both movies were made for their time. In the 80's there was a certain standard for movies, Burton's Batman went above and beyond that. In the 2000's there was a certain standard for movies, Nolan's Batman went above and beyond that. You see what I mean? When kids these days make fun of 89' Batman's flaws, they have to realize that there's a 16 year gap of filmmaking technology and techniques there. Nolan's Batman was made in the early 2000's, when there was already a legion of great movies and film techniques that came before it. Nolan could draw from previous film technique and equipment that Burton could not. It's pretty unfair to compare the two. You could say that Batman 89' also had movies to draw from, but superhero movies were never made so dark like that and not to that scale. There were far less superhero movies in that time - Batman 89' truly paved the way for the superhero movies following it. Nolan's Batman might not evne be here without the Batman 89' movie. Many superhero movies owe their creation to Batman 89.'
There's a standard for their time, and both Nolan & Burton went beyond their time's standard. Give it another 10 years and we'll see if there's a battle between Nolanites and a new Batman director.
-
Back to the Final Thug
Ok so I read that the producer changed the script last minute because "It didn't look right seeing Batman beat up a 50 year old man." So it resembles what we said about the Joker going one on one with Batman. It just doesn't feel right.
But here's something to think about. Even with the last minute changes, there still HAD to be preparation. You don't just run-and-gun shoot a piece of cinema history like that without a little preparation. There's a lot of stunt work and choreography that has to be agreed on with the director, stunt coordinator, and producers for the final fight scene.
I looked up Clive Curtis, the actor that played the black Joker Goon. I found this: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110127175911AAnfp6G
" That was Clive Curtis who was the last goon in the bell tower. And Dave Lea as the stunt double for that fight scene. In an interview Dave Lea states that he was just having fun on the last day of his fight scene. And the scene was added to the movie to give Batman a more human aspect to his fighting skill instead of being able to just beat everyone with no problems. "
I would love to hear any of Tim Burton's thoughts on the final scene. It's great that they were having fun and made a very epic memorable scene. I always thought there would have been at least some strong planning before going out to shoot a final fight scene like that. And it's cool to know they were really trying to show a more human side to Batman.
The resource mentioned in that article is from batmanmovieonline.com. Before it became batman-online.com. The link from yahoo answers doesn't work anymore. Does anyone know how to search the site to find particular articles with keywords and names? Would love to see more of that interview. From the main page batman-online.com, I see facebook updates and the latest interviews but I don't see any more places to click to find less recent articles. Thanks for your help!
The Dave Lea interview is here
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2009/12/19/michael-keaton-stunt-double-dave-lea-interview
I spoke with Clive Curtis briefly over emails, but he said he didn't remember much with clarity to want to put it in an interview (incase he remembered something incorrectly).
Thanks! Just saw it, didn't know it was the same interview as the other thread.
Yeah I searched Clive Curtis today and found the other thread, which was amazing so I resurrected it, commented, and hopefully more people will send in requests and thanks for your interviews there.
Another thing I remembered was that Clive Curtis was also a weight lifter back then. So maybe outside of the Joker Goon jacket, he looked quite buff or menacing? By then (filming the final scene) all the stunt people were probably hired so the most physically commanding may have been Clive and they sent him in there. He could have also been very skilled in stunts and performing choreography so maybe that's why they wanted him as the final thug.
Imagine if Clive was very tall and even more muscular, maybe there would be a smaller amount of fans asking why "Why was that random guy beating up Batman?"
(Think Punisher vs The Russian in the Thomas Jane movie. If "The Russian" had been short and lean instead of tall & muscular, people might ask the same thing.) Clive was a weightlifter so (maybe under the Joker Goon jacket) the people in charge of the scene thought Clive had the physique to believably thrash Batman.
I don't know why some people dislike this fight. It's epic and the best shot fight out of any of the films I think. That fight scene in Batman Forever in the party, and Bane versus Batman #1 were pretty sweet to, but as far as the actual choreography and shooting of the scene I think this one in 89 is the best.
I don't even get why people dislike it. The man just crashed his plane, he's gonna be a little beat up.
Quote from: LongLiveTheBatman on Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 18:47
@The Dark Knight
Definitely. It never gets old. That scene may be my favorite. Although the producers sometimes get flack for their last minute decisions, we wouldn't get that amazing build up to final fight with Joker. We get to see Joker's dance like you said. His nonchalant, whimsical dance while Batman is fighting his goons is a perfect touch. It brings the characters of Batman, Vicki, and The Joker together in an exciting fashion. In the early scripts I think Vicki isn't even at the Cathedral in the final scene.
Also the lighting of the final fights make it look very dream-like and mysterious.
-
@BobTheGoon89
I never like to get into the arguments because who knows what opinions will be in another 20 years. We're living in the time of Nolan's Batman series so I think it's normal to see so much love for the series. (For many younger viewers, Batman Begins was "their" Batman 1989.)
However...
They aren't mindful of a few things. People tend to think anything that's great and new is better than the old. That trend follows even outside of movies. Also, calling things "dated" as if they're incredibly observant for noticing 80's-isms in the Burton's Batman. They have to remember that while Nolan's films are "in" right now, in 20 years those Nolan Batman films will also be dated. I can just imagine another great director stepping up to the plate in the next 10 years. Then it'll be the new director's fans vs the Nolanites.
Both movies were made for their time. In the 80's there was a certain standard for movies, Burton's Batman went above and beyond that. In the 2000's there was a certain standard for movies, Nolan's Batman went above and beyond that. You see what I mean? When kids these days make fun of 89' Batman's flaws, they have to realize that there's a 16 year gap of filmmaking technology and techniques there. Nolan's Batman was made in the early 2000's, when there was already a legion of great movies and film techniques that came before it. Nolan could draw from previous film technique and equipment that Burton could not. It's pretty unfair to compare the two. You could say that Batman 89' also had movies to draw from, but superhero movies were never made so dark like that and not to that scale. There were far less superhero movies in that time - Batman 89' truly paved the way for the superhero movies following it. Nolan's Batman might not evne be here without the Batman 89' movie. Many superhero movies owe their creation to Batman 89.'
There's a standard for their time, and both Nolan & Burton went beyond their time's standard. Give it another 10 years and we'll see if there's a battle between Nolanites and a new Batman director.
-
Back to the Final Thug
Ok so I read that the producer changed the script last minute because "It didn't look right seeing Batman beat up a 50 year old man." So it resembles what we said about the Joker going one on one with Batman. It just doesn't feel right.
But here's something to think about. Even with the last minute changes, there still HAD to be preparation. You don't just run-and-gun shoot a piece of cinema history like that without a little preparation. There's a lot of stunt work and choreography that has to be agreed on with the director, stunt coordinator, and producers for the final fight scene.
I looked up Clive Curtis, the actor that played the black Joker Goon. I found this: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110127175911AAnfp6G
" That was Clive Curtis who was the last goon in the bell tower. And Dave Lea as the stunt double for that fight scene. In an interview Dave Lea states that he was just having fun on the last day of his fight scene. And the scene was added to the movie to give Batman a more human aspect to his fighting skill instead of being able to just beat everyone with no problems. "
I would love to hear any of Tim Burton's thoughts on the final scene. It's great that they were having fun and made a very epic memorable scene. I always thought there would have been at least some strong planning before going out to shoot a final fight scene like that. And it's cool to know they were really trying to show a more human side to Batman.
The resource mentioned in that article is from batmanmovieonline.com. Before it became batman-online.com. The link from yahoo answers doesn't work anymore. Does anyone know how to search the site to find particular articles with keywords and names? Would love to see more of that interview. From the main page batman-online.com, I see facebook updates and the latest interviews but I don't see any more places to click to find less recent articles. Thanks for your help!
Lol, I am the guy who asked the question about the Joker goon who beat Batman up on Yahoo Answers. I remember reading the answer and being quite satisfied that they decided to give a human aspect to Batman
You have to copy and paste the Yahoo Answer link , Long LiveTheBatman put there, it won't come up if you just click on it, lol:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110127175911AAnfp6G
I think the in story reason to Batman getting roughed up is the fact that he had just come out of the crashed, burning plane. He is heavily bruised, bones probably fractured (I mean he crashed head on in a speeding plane), and when he came face to face with the goon he couldn't give move his arms and legs about properly .
My guess is that if Batman had been in his normal physical self, seen through out the rest of the film he would have handled the thug as well as he did the previous ones, with or with out gadgets
It's still my favorite fight in a live action Batman movie, by far. You see Batman kicking, dodging, punching, rolling around on the ground, etc. all of which can clearly be seen.
I don't know why anybody would have a problem with it?
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, 23:01
I don't know why anybody would have a problem with it?
I think some people find it hard to accept they got things right 20 plus years ago and it still hasn't been matched. People like to think the best is yet to come.
There is so much to like. Batman standing firm as a screaming thug somersaults towards him. Badass. Even when he's getting beat up and thrown around, he rolls straight up and gets back into it. And hey, at least he wasn't thrown into some bizarre pit in some random desert country.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, 23:01
It's still my favorite fight in a live action Batman movie, by far. You see Batman kicking, dodging, punching, rolling around on the ground, etc. all of which can clearly be seen.
not on my tv. its too dark! lol.
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 05:48
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, 23:01
It's still my favorite fight in a live action Batman movie, by far. You see Batman kicking, dodging, punching, rolling around on the ground, etc. all of which can clearly be seen.
not on my tv. its too dark! lol.
Can't you adjust the lighting?
:P
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 05:58
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 05:48
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, 23:01
It's still my favorite fight in a live action Batman movie, by far. You see Batman kicking, dodging, punching, rolling around on the ground, etc. all of which can clearly be seen.
not on my tv. its too dark! lol.
Can't you adjust the lighting?
:P
nope.
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 06:38
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 05:58
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 05:48
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 10 Mar 2013, 23:01
It's still my favorite fight in a live action Batman movie, by far. You see Batman kicking, dodging, punching, rolling around on the ground, etc. all of which can clearly be seen.
not on my tv. its too dark! lol.
Can't you adjust the lighting?
:P
nope.
Hm *sighs* mewo :-\
A lot of people are just dumbed down by todays movies where everything is spelled out and explained verbally. After the plane crash Batman was barely standing, and instead of blatantly explaining that, we have subtle glimpses that audiences of its times should get, like Batman being dizzy after exiting the wreck and then even stumbling and falling while walking in the cathedral. He was extremely weakened
Quote from: GothamAlleys on Sun, 31 Mar 2013, 13:58A lot of people are just dumbed down by todays movies where everything is spelled out and explained verbally. After the plane crash Batman was barely standing, and instead of blatantly explaining that, we have subtle glimpses that audiences of its times should get, like Batman being dizzy after exiting the wreck and then even stumbling and falling while walking in the cathedral. He was extremely weakened
Heh, it's funny because it's true.
There's not much to criticize about the B89 showdown. About the most I can come up with is:
01- So those thugs were just hanging around the cathedral during the Joker's parade? Must've been because they somehow managed to get up there ahead of him, Vicki and Batman. Small potatoes and, hey, there was a WGA strike going on, after all. No big.
02- This is
REALLY nitpicking but Batman has a rep by this point in the movie so you'd think that the Joker's lackeys would've attacked simultaneously rather than going in one at a time. Again, small potatoes... and you could counter-argue that they are brawlers who aren't necessarily used to attacking a single opponent as part of a team. I'm just throwing it out there.
01 - I gather that's it. I'm sure the novelisations says they were watching the parade from up there. Hey, it is the highest viewpoint in the City. Joker could have asked the chopper pilot to pick him up on the street. But I'm 100% sure he wanted to drag it out and play a game. The goons in the cathedral would've seen and heard the crash, and Joker knew they were in there.
02 - Film making is my explanation. Buttering up the audience. Two goons are dispatched with ease. The viewer feels all is well. And then the African thug stomps in, increasing the stakes in a battle to the death.
When you think about it, some stuff didn't make the most sense. The martial arts goon fighting with the scimitars just jumped out of an alley and attacked Batman (it could be argued that he was in the car, and immediately hid to get a sneak attack). The reason for that was the scene was done in post production. Though I thin the fight with the black thug actually seems more in place. Joker was able to hire some highly skilled goons. Batman could outwit most of them, but this guy was all brute force. Batman tried once to outsmart him by hiding on the bell, but it was only the second time by flipping him over the balcony was he able to finally get him.
The goons were pretty interesting, there was core group that remained throughout the whole movie, which really helps keep a sense of continuity. Of course there's Bob, but there's also Lawrence, and the thugs played by Richard Strange, Mac MacDonald, Philip Tan, and Terry Plummer (probably more). Most of them are given some kind of scars or signifying mark to distinguish them (like Strange's scar), and it goes to show how loyal they are to the Joker. The only thing I was disappointed by was the extent of Lawrence's fight with Batman (accidental death). Can't complain about Bob, because he was supposed to have an awesome little fight scene with Batman.