Hot Toys - Batman 1989 - Michael Keaton

[haytil]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

It's haytil.

That's a good thing, right? Knowing how much you hate the "same-old, same-old" discussions about HT Batman figures, I figured you'd appreciate some new ideas and conversations.

At this point for Batman, the gloves are off, the gauntlet is thrown. Not only is the Joker a murdering psychopath, but he is in fact the man that killed his parents when he was a boy. The Joker is essentially the reason that Bruce is the tortured soul that he. The lives of the Joker thugs that get in his way of eliminating the Joker and his plan are insignificant to Batman.

Before the third act (Bruce Wayne discovering that Jack Napier murdered his parents), Batman pretty much apprehends every criminal he comes across. The guys on the roof, the mob at Axis Chemicals, even the Joker's thugs. He doesn't kill. One might think that this Batman has "rules" and a "no-kill policy" as well. However, when things get personal all the rules with the Joker and his men are off.

If you're trying to justify "why" Batman kills in the movie, I'm right with you. I think it's appropriate for that particular characterization. I just don't think there's any point in _____-footing around, and saying "Well, it was unintentional, or incidental, or indirect" or whatever. Just come out and say it - Batman kills in this movie, and quite a bit.

This isn't the Batman of the comics, it's the Batman of Tim Burton. Which is an entirely different beast. And that's fine. Let's just be honest about it.

So, Axis Chemicals. Batman at this point learns the Joker's location, the plant where he produces smylex that's killing off innocent Gotham citizens.

What does Batman do, he has the Batmobile (he isn't driving it by the way)...

The fact that he's not driving it is irrelevant. He's controlling it via remote control (or deployed it with an autopilot). Either way, the actions the Batmobile take are the direct responsibility of Batman.

...go into the heart of Axis Chemicals, and destroy it in hopes of eliminating the Joker and destroying the production of smylex.

He's taking out the Joker's infrastructure. Which includes his manpower.

Batman knew there had to be people inside that big-ass factory. Whether they were civilian workers or Joker thugs, there was no way it was empty. The lights were on and there was even a guard outside the front gate!

If Batman didn't want to kill anyone, he would've given them 5 minutes to evacuate. He didn't do that - he drove in, guns blazing, dropped a bomb, and drove out. (A warning wouldn't have prevented the success of his mission, as we see how much more firepower the Batmobile had against the Joker's goons, who were completely ineffective.)

He doesn't drive in, stop when he sees the thugs and purposely "drop a bomb on the thugs". The auto pilot Batmobile is directed towards the center, the Joker's men are trying to stop it and it sets off the bombs that are meant to destroy the factory (and boy it does).

No, he didn't drop the bomb right in front of the thugs on purpose - he dropped it right in the middle of the factory, using a bomb big enough to blow up the whole factory, on purpose. The natural assumption is that anyone caught in the building when it blows will be killed. Batman knew this - it's why he didn't risk going in himself. He knew it was dangerous, even if you were in the shielded Batmobile!

Like I said above, if the ONLY objective was to take out the factory without killing people, then he'd have warned them to evacuate and then deployed the bomb. I think his actions demonstrate that his objectives including both taking out the factor AND taking out the Joker's thugs (or, at the very least, being callously indifferent to the fact that he's killing people).

The Thugs are casualties, not victims of a Batman on a killing spree.

....What? The thugs are casualties of Batman's killing spree. That's what a "casualty" is.

An example of a DIRECT kill would be BATMAN driving in and driving the Batmobile, guns a blazin, shooting up every thug he could see, then seeing the small group and dropping the bomb right there.

What is the difference between "Shooting up every thug he could see" and "Blowing up every thug he could reach with the explosion radius?" Killing is killing, and dead is dead, whether you're shot or blown up. If someone is killed by YOUR ACTIONS, it's direct.

But how the Joker ultimately dies isn't DIRECTLY Batman's fault. Batman is hanging on for dear life, the Joker is about to get away. The Joker has killed so many people at this point, so would Batman just let him get away and risk him killing and causing more chaos? Of course not.

No, he fires a grappling hook that attaches a rope to the Cathedral and the Joker's leg.

The Joker was in a position that if he let go, before he was pulled up, he'd go back on to the Cathedral's ledge. He wouldn't have pancaked, the distance was only a few inches away from the ledge. The Joker's thugs were in a position where they could navigate the helicopter to the ledge, and not have the Joker fall to his death.

Did you see how goofy his helicopter crew was though? The Joker didn't have a chance. They don't even realize that he's stuck and they're yelling for him to come up.

So from Batman's perspective it's completely indirect and justifiable. He's essentially "apprehending" the Joker so that he can't get away.

I just popped in the DVD, you're right. When Batman chains him, he's only a few inches from the building - it's only when the helicopter crew continues to pull him up that he is farther away.

So in this case, I would say that Batman killed him (since he placed him in that lethal scenario), but it was unintentional and "indirect," to use your terminology. Something akin to manslaughter.

The really cold-blooded stuff is what happens in the factory.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

That's a good thing, right? Knowing how much you hate the "same-old, same-old" discussions about HT Batman figures, I figured you'd appreciate some new ideas and conversations.

Yep, exactly. Good conversation to have if we are indeed on the eve of upcoming '89 goodness in 1/6 form.

If you're trying to justify "why" Batman kills in the movie, I'm right with you. I think it's appropriate for that particular characterization. I just don't think there's any point in _____-footing around, and saying "Well, it was unintentional, or incidental, or indirect" or whatever. Just come out and say it - Batman kills in this movie, and quite a bit.

Nah, I wasn't trying to go around the fact that Batman kills. The black cathedral thug and all the Joker's goons that were riddled with bullets turned into swiss cheese were definitely intentional.

I was just pointing out that I felt two of those incidents weren't direct. Those of course were the deaths at Axis Chemicals and the Joker.

Batman kills in '89. Period.

This isn't the Batman of the comics, it's the Batman of Tim Burton. Which is an entirely different beast. And that's fine. Let's just be honest about it.

Batman killed in the comics, unless you mean modern Batman.

There's actually a really good blog I found on this very subject. I think you'd be interested in it, check it out.

Killer Batman, Comics and Films

The fact that he's not driving it is irrelevant. He's controlling it via remote control (or deployed it with an autopilot). Either way, the actions the Batmobile take are the direct responsibility of Batman.



He's taking out the Joker's infrastructure. Which includes his manpower.

Batman knew there had to be people inside that big-ass factory. Whether they were civilian workers or Joker thugs, there was no way it was empty. The lights were on and there was even a guard outside the front gate!

If Batman didn't want to kill anyone, he would've given them 5 minutes to evacuate. He didn't do that - he drove in, guns blazing, dropped a bomb, and drove out. (A warning wouldn't have prevented the success of his mission, as we see how much more firepower the Batmobile had against the Joker's goons, who were completely ineffective.)



No, he didn't drop the bomb right in front of the thugs on purpose - he dropped it right in the middle of the factory, using a bomb big enough to blow up the whole factory, on purpose. The natural assumption is that anyone caught in the building when it blows will be killed. Batman knew this - it's why he didn't risk going in himself. He knew it was dangerous, even if you were in the shielded Batmobile!

Like I said above, if the ONLY objective was to take out the factory without killing people, then he'd have warned them to evacuate and then deployed the bomb. I think his actions demonstrate that his objectives including both taking out the factor AND taking out the Joker's thugs (or, at the very least, being callously indifferent to the fact that he's killing people).

....What? The thugs are casualties of Batman's killing spree. That's what a "casualty" is.

But was Batman on a killing spree? Was his goal to kill as many thugs as he possibly could?

I always saw his objective at the Axis raid was to 1. Destroy the Joker's compound and 2. Kill the Joker.

That's hardly a killing spree unless Batman meant to kill individuals in the factory other than the Joker.

What is the difference between "Shooting up every thug he could see" and "Blowing up every thug he could reach with the explosion radius?" Killing is killing, and dead is dead, whether you're shot or blown up. If someone is killed by YOUR ACTIONS, it's direct.

I always saw direct and indirect as intentional and unintentional. Maybe I'm wrong?

To put it in laymans terms, a direct kill to me would be aiming and shooting someone in cold blood. An indirect kill is more cause and effect. I guess the best example would be friendly fire? You bomb a facility, but people, we'll say your allies or friends are killed in it. Quite different though considering hired Joker thugs aren't exactly friends.

But, I think you get what I mean. Think about the character we're dealing with. Surely, if Batman were "real" so to speak he'd have many unintended/indirect deaths as a result of his actions.

What if he beat someone up too hard? Or as with most stories, an enemy falls? Surely there would be deaths, caused by Batman that were completely unintentional that wouldn't be avoided.

Is it direct if someone decided to commit suicide because of Batman?

The really cold-blooded stuff is what happens in the factory.

I'd say the really cold-blooded stuff is what happens on the float. Batman is literally targeting on the parade float, pulling the trigger and blasting away at all of the opposing Joker thugs.

This isn't an operation to take down a Joker plant, it's Batman, in complete control letting loose on thugs in the street. It's sort of ambiguous though if the thugs are shooting at the crowd (not just to make them flee) and/or at the Batwing or if they're just standing there, waiting for Batman to mow them down.

 

[haytil]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

There's actually a really good blog I found on this very subject. I think you'd be interested in it, check it out.

Killer Batman, Comics and Films

That's a good link. A lot of people try and awkwardly excuse and rationalize the actions of Nolan's Batman, twisting the facts to claim that he didn't kill (claiming the ninjas weren't confirmed dead, that Batman didn't kill Ra's al Ghul, he just "didn't save him," etc.). It's good to see that this guy isn't pulling any of that crap.

It's also interesting to note that, even though he shies away from guns as weapons in modern continuities, he still has no problem using them as tools (to shoot other guns, explosive barrels, etc.)

But was Batman on a killing spree? Was his goal to kill as many thugs as he possibly could?

I think his goal was to wage war on the Joker.

When your army is ordered to destroy an enemy army's production center, and you go in with a bomb to blow it up, you shoot any enemy soldiers that you see along the way. And you blow up any enemy soldiers that are in the factory (which is deliberate, as you generally don't warn them to get out before it blows up).

It doesn't matter if killing soldiers wasn't your "primary objective" for that mission. Your actions still directly killed those people, and you took those actions with the understanding that enemy soldiers would die. That's part of waging war, and it includes intentional and direct killing.

That's hardly a killing spree unless Batman meant to kill individuals in the factory other than the Joker.

Was Timothy McVeigh on a killing spree when he blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building? His main goal was to take down a building (as a symbol of a federal government he felt was oppressive and evil) - the casualties were a by-product. But I don't think anyone would argue that McVeigh wasn't a mass murderer and only killed "indirectly." He placed a bomb, knowing there would be people around, and knowing the bomb would be big enough to kill those people. So there's nothing "indirect" about it. And I'm sure plenty would characterize it as a "killing spree."

I always saw direct and indirect as intentional and unintentional. Maybe I'm wrong?

I think they're not exactly the same (direct and indirect are related to the cause, intentional and unintentional are related to the motive).

It's a tricky thing, though, because they're often very closely related and correlated - usually an indirect kill is unintentional, and a direct kill is intentional.

But if I shoot you, with the intention of maiming, but you die from blood loss, I will have killed you directly but unintentionally.

To put it in laymans terms, a direct kill to me would be aiming and shooting someone in cold blood. An indirect kill is more cause and effect. I guess the best example would be friendly fire? You bomb a facility, but people, we'll say your allies or friends are killed in it. Quite different though considering hired Joker thugs aren't exactly friends.

So your example of friendly fire is another example of direct but unintentional. But killing the Joker's thugs (or any enemy soldiers) in the blast would be both direct and intentional (since you're deliberately waging war and using lethal weapons).

What if he beat someone up too hard?

Beating someone to death (without meaning to kill them) is also direct but unintentional. Of course, we only know it's unintentional because we can read Batman's thoughts. If Batman were real, I think most people (including a jury) would naturally assume it was intentional, even if he claimed otherwise.

Or as with most stories, an enemy falls? Surely there would be deaths, caused by Batman that were completely unintentional that wouldn't be avoided.

Yeah, killing in self-defense is found in every version and continuity of Batman. Direct and unintentional.

Is it direct if someone decided to commit suicide because of Batman?

That's really tricky. I would say that it was indirect, unless they committed suicide because Batman placed them in a position where the only alternative was a fate worse than death (or a more painful death), since otherwise the true cause of death was the victim's decision to end their own life.

I'd say the really cold-blooded stuff is what happens on the float. Batman is literally targeting on the parade float, pulling the trigger and blasting away at all of the opposing Joker thugs.

Haha, I always figured that was just because Batman has really poor aim. All those bullets and missiles, at least most of which were targeted at the Joker, and he never even scratched the Clown Prince.

I was always amused to see, even if it was just once, that sometimes it's the hero, and not just the villains, who graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy of Marksmanship.

 

[jrice73]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

If anyone out there is still unsure whether Batman has ever killed in the comics, I suggest reading the first 10 issues of Detective Comics (issues 27-36) illustrated by Bob Kane and written by Bill Finger. Batman does pack a pair of .45s and on a couple of occasions does indeed kill some baddies, in fact in one issue he uses his gyro-copter (early Batcopter) to strafe a van and kill the crooks inside to stop it. Batman laments after doing the deed he hates killing but it had to be done in this case. That scene reminded me a lot of when the Batwing strafes the Joker's thugs in the '89 film. Once Batman took Robin as his partner, the killing continued too. Just re-read that blog too. Good stuff.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Haha, I always figured that was just because Batman has really poor aim. All those bullets and missiles, at least most of which were targeted at the Joker, and he never even scratched the Clown Prince.

I was always amused to see, even if it was just once, that sometimes it's the hero, and not just the villains, who graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy of Marksmanship.

This is the only thing from the film that I just don't understand. The script states that the Joker "dances wildly" and avoids the bullets and that the shot he fires is actually from the float and is an explosive shell. THAT makes sense.

But when it comes from translation to film, I don't get that at all. It's an iconic sequence but I just never understood how Batman misses OR how the Joker takes him down in one shot. On paper in most of the drafts and on the Topps cards, it all makes sense. Batman disposed of the balloons and is going to finish off the float but in the film, it just gets muddled.

The targeting system is perfectly lined up on the Joker when Batman takes the shot. I know when I was younger I assumed that Batman missed the Joker to scare or intimidate him, but I think my logic was just "Batman can't miss, he's Batman". He doesn't really seemed surprised when he misses either, so maybe that's why I thought that. I mean, I guess it could make sense (wouldn't he want the Joker to know that he killed his parents before killing him) that he "missed" but I don't know. What if he accidentally killed him?

Then from the Joker's perspective, did the Joker just accept the fact that he might die and decided to goad Batman on one last time?

I don't know. Like I said, it's a great iconic scene, but it just doesn't make any sense. I'm sure it has something to do with the way it was shot, something missing scene wise, pacing wise or maybe they just didn't know how to wrap the sequence up, who knows?

With that said though, I wouldn't change it. Love the entire sequence. That would actually be a great pose for the Hot Toys Joker, depending on how it looks (arms out stretched, "come on you gruesome son of a _____").

 

[Desamo]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Its ok that Batman kills bad guys IMO.I didnt know before that Batman used gun in comics.

 

[intothevoid]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

I prefer the modern version of the character, but I can appreciate the Burton version too

 

[agonistes86]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Just got my Blu-ray Batman Anthology in today (£9.99 from amazon.co.uk ), can't wait to watch these films in all their HD glory.

 

[gotham_collector87]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Just got my Blu-ray Batman Anthology in today (£9.99 from amazon.co.uk ), can't wait to watch these films in all their HD glory.

My girlfriend got me it for Christmas and you won't be disappointed.

 

[Minimodel]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Even "Batman and Robin??"

 

[agonistes86]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Even "Batman and Robin??"

That's actually the only one I don't have on DVD. Just couldn't get myself to actually pay money for it. Now that I have it on blu I will watch it again though.

 

[spindrift]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Even "Batman and Robin??"

In it's own way- a classic of camp and just a mess! Arnold is beyond hammy and Clooney just looks like he is acting in a different movie. Alicia in her batsuit is lucious, though!

Not awful but just a mess. Maybe awful to most. Very fun if you are in that frame of mind.
Hard to believe it is in the same series of movies started by Burton's Batman.

 

[gotham_collector87]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

In it's own way- a classic of camp and just a mess! Arnold is beyond hammy and Clooney just looks like he is acting in a different movie. Alicia in her batsuit is lucious, though!
Not awful but just a mess. Maybe awful to most. Very fun if you are in that frame of mind.
Hard to believe it is in the same series of movies started by Burton's Batman.

Yeah it actually makes me laugh at how campy and cheesy it is. When Mr. Freeze's thugs start ice skating, I cant help but laugh.

 

[Jay1138]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

The part there Batman whips out the Bat-American Express card. I almost want to press the stop button on the remote.

Keaton & Nicholson are my most anticipated items to see at SDCC!

 

[Johnny Utah]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Keaton and Nicholson in the same year. My collecting life has come full circle. Now all I need is HT to do Star Wars and I'm set.

 

[tOMmy]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

Keaton and Nicholson in the same year. My collecting life has come full circle. Now all I need is HT to do Star Wars and I'm set.

if hot toys did do star wars i think a lot of people including myself would be in trouble

 

[a-dev]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

For some reason, despite being a Star Wars fan my whole life I've never felt any desire for HT to get the license. I've stuck to the Hasbro range for my SW needs.

 

[eighthsamurai]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

For some reason, despite being a Star Wars fan my whole life I've never felt any desire for HT to get the license.

yeah me too. know why? because at $150 a pop minimum, such a large universe of popular characters, and HT's well known love for the franchise, i'd be out on my ass. in a damn cardboard box. maybe the one the 1/6 millenium falcon comes in.

 

[a-dev]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

^theres also that!

 

[thenammagazine]

Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming

yeah me too. know why? because at $150 a pop minimum, such a large universe of popular characters, and HT's well known love for the franchise, i'd be out on my ass. in a damn cardboard box. maybe the one the 1/6 millenium falcon comes in.

Been collecting Sideshow's since Jedi Luke. If HT took the license I'd wave it goodbye. At $250 a pop (HT pricing with LFL licensing) with HT's lack of desire to get into the character pool and swim, it wouldn't be worth collecting.