I agree with the "loving the look" sentiment... but I totally disagree on it being limited in size and scope.
Then you're totally, blissfully ignorant. From the very first scene, we are put in front of the Monarch Theatre. Every scene outdoors after that rotates on a street or two. And it's very visible that it's the same location looped over and over again. Thus pretty much destroying the illusion of Gotham being a sprawling landscape. As were the tiny streets, big enough to be alleys in real world metropolis cities.
Not just does the limited set destroy the size and scope of Gotham, but they very clearly used matte paintings which make a lot of the picture very dated, cartoony and fake.
I loved the look of Gotham as a child (was 4 when the '89 film came out), but much like the rest of the film ... it hasn't aged particularly well, and nostalgia aside it has lost a LOT of it's luster and sheen. Not just as a movie (clearly the Nolan films are head and shoulders better) but it's most redeeming aspects of it's aesthetics I've even come to have some issues with. The limited size, scale, and scope of the film due to the sets being a major one. It's even worse on the even smaller Batman Returns lot, which feels like it's filmed in a Wal-Mart sized Hot Topic store. Both films a circle jerk to Burton's fantasies, goth sensibility, and cheap german expressionism.
But I could never tell that when watching the film since it was shot so incredibly well.
You must not have an eye for detail, then. Because it's blatantly there. I noticed it even as a child of 4, 5, and 6 years old while wearing out the B89 vhs tape.
either way- I'll take the 3 or 4 large streets of a Gotham City that actually looks like Gotham City
What does Gotham ACTUALLY look like, though? LOL ...
It's a fictional city, and has been visually interpreted many different ways. And not just in Goth excess, either.
Gotham City IMO should be a visibly American City. Not look like a bizarre Germanic city. After all, the city itself is supposed to be like New York or Chicago.
come to life over green screen or location shooting in Chicago any day.
Gotham in the comics has looked like Chicago, before. See Batman: Year One ... Gotham has looked like a contemporary, sprawling American metropolis (without gargoyles and naked men statues everywhere ala B89, Returns, Forever, BnR) ... see The Killing Joke Gotham skyline.
IMO, the more grounded the reality around Batman, the more weight it gives his legend, and more depth and immersion to the story. Batman should have impact. I don't feel the Batman should something that blends into other absurdity, like Burton's Gotham.
Beyond the fact that filming on locations in real streets, real rooftops, real skyscrapers allowed for fantastic action scenes, and sheer epic scope. The batmobile bursting to high speeds on real streets was a thing to behold. If one didn't know it was filmed in Chicago, New York, and Pittsburgh ... no one would make the claim it isn't "Gotham". But hey, Gotham is a living, breathing American city in the comics too. Only thing that makes it different from a normal city is it has a vigilante stalking criminals at night time dressed as a giant bat. A freak that attracts odd theatrical criminal elements as well. Gothic statues isn't what defines Gotham in the source material.
