Batman '89 - book cover
  • Publisher : DC Comics
  • Published : 30 Aug 2022
  • Pages : 152
  • ISBN-10 : 1779512686
  • ISBN-13 : 9781779512680
  • Language : English

Batman '89

Continuing the adventures of the Dark Knight from Tim Burton's classic movie Batman, Batman '89 pulls on a number of threads left dangling by that film while continuing in the tradition of DC's very successful Batman '66 series.

In 1989 moviegoers were amazed at the new vision of the Dark Knight brought to the screen by filmmaker Tim Burton, starring Michael Keaton as Batman and Jack Nicholson as The Joker. Now, in the tradition of DC's very successful Batman '66 series, Batman '89 is set in a truly gothic Gotham City and features colorful villains including The Joker, Two-Face, and many more.

Collects the first 12 chapters of the Batman '89 digital comics series.

Readers Top Reviews

Norman BatesAdamJBur
The Story: Written by Sam Hamm, a name famous to the dedicated audience of the Tim Burton Batman films. Lesser known to most is that despite the credits, almost the entirety of Hamm's contributions were replaced in re-writes (some credited, most not). As such, I didn't know what to expect but was cautiously optimistic it would carry the spirit of the films. The book starts of relatively strong, echoing the beginning of Batman Forever, an interesting choice, but not unwelcome as it made for an interesting concept of one path diverging into two distinct alternate realities of two alternate sequels to Batman Returns starring Two-Face. A concept which is the only intellectual subtext comparable to the rich depths of the films. Sadly, it quickly descends into something deeply unpleasant. The majority of the book comes across as a spiteful rant designed to appeal to the extreme Left-Wing proponents of the discredited propaganda known as "Critical Race Theory". It boils down to a ham-fisted (excuse the unintentional pun) diatribe of a divided society of two sides, the "noble Black community vs the evil White community" with Bruce Wayne being the sole noble White man desperate to atone for the cardinal Sin of being born White. It appears written to get multitudes of 'Likes' and reposts on the Twitter echo-chamber and get social media frothing rather than to entertain the reader or honour the legacy of the Burton films. Ignoring the heavy-handed lecture of the propaganda, it bizarrely comes across that Hamm hates these beloved versions of the characters and wants to tear them down and utterly bury them. Bruce Wayne is unpleasant to our beloved Michael Gough Alfred, completely at odds to the beautiful Keaton/Gough scenes we loved on screen. But it's Michelle Pfeiffer's iconic Catwoman who gets the worst treatment. I would love to know Hamm's intentions when he wrote this; but the overwhelming impression is that he wants to destroy the version of the character we saw on screen because it was a complete departure from the version he pitched to Burton and he resents this. Her character arc ends in a nonsensical way, contradicting plot points of the films and completely inconsistent with the psychology of the screen performance. There's no page development to bring us to this point, it just plot twists out of nowhere. It's an unhappy ending which doesn't make any sense, running in the opposite direction to everything we know and love about the character. At least the sombre ending of Returns was beautifully told and consistent with everything leading up to that point. Billy Dee William's Harvey Dent doesn't escape the disservice. He too is terribly written and disrespected. Unexpectedly, his plot arc feels like a retread of Aaron Eckhart's portrayal in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, with some Critical Race ...
Anthony
Such a great piece of cinematic history continued with this comic and how it actually would have played out ... Love the detail and imaging the characters to be played by the actors
Steven L. Ball, Jr.V
I enjoyed the nostalgia of the art/characters. I also really like the VHS tape design of the cover. But that's really where the enjoyment ended for me. I see folks on here claiming that this was based on the original script for what would have been Burton's 3rd Batman movie... and while I'm sure there are some elements loosely based on that original vision... There's just no way this would have been the movie we got back in the mid nineties. Other than the characters looking like the actors from the "Burtonverse" this didn't feel faithful to the vibe or story told in those movies at all. There was virtually zero attention paid to racial or economic politics in those movies, and that was basically all this comic was about. I really would've loved to have seen a true follow up to Batman/Returns, rather than a modern commentary on them... which is what this was. This was the woke, political commentary that a certain portion of the modern audience would love to see... But it's not what fans of the original movies want... and it's certainly not what would've been released back in the 90s... It just never would've occurred to anyone back then to tell this sort of story. The modern politics wouldn't've be so bad, if they were just an annoying, but small, part of an otherwise great story (that's virtually unavoidable these days)... but that just wasn't the case. All politics aside, the story was nothing if not underwhelming. Aside from the weakness of the story... I also felt this comic just wasn't very well written or drawn, there were a few scenes where I just flat out didn't understand what was supposed to be happening. One of the final scenes (spolier) features a dramatic moment with Bruce trying to hold Harvey up and keep him from falling to his death... and for such a pivotal moment in the story, it was very confusing to understand what was happening the way it was drawn and laid out... At one point you see a gun to Bruce's head, and you see a "blam" and him slumped over from behind... and you're like... Wooh... Did he just kill Batman? But then, he's fine in the next frame... and apparently there was no gun shot... and the art/layout is just super confusing. There are a few scenes like that throughout... and just as a disclaimer, I read a lot of comics, so it's not because I don't understand how comics are laid out, or how to follow the correct frame/image... It's just poorly done. I was VERY excited for this series... I pre-ordered it months ago... Batman '89/Returns, are 2 of my favorite movies of all-time, I've seen them each hundreds of times... and I was excited to see what could have been if that universe had been allowed to continue... but I suppose I'll have to keep wondering, because this was not it.
blackcatJef Girard
This isn’t that third Burton movie you’re looking for. (Sorry to say!) And I was pretty excited to finally read it- it’s got the right writers and history. But man, Batman is a chump in this. Not one scene does he have under control. In the 89 movie he could fight! And he could take down an insane clown posse in 92. But here he never gets anything going. And the action that exists is rather derivative. The first scene feels lifted from Batman Forever, minus the boiling acid (and even if it was that third movie which stole this plot point from this script, try to give us something new)! As a comic, this isn’t great either. They cram every page full of exposition and dialogue to rush the plot along so fast that it’s a far cry from my preferred Batman comics. I’m not saying everything need to be Serious House, but let these panels breathe! The artwork is OK. No real Burton inspiration though. They retread familiar sets like the kitchen and the TV room, and all new sets look under baked. Definitely not the off-kilter madhouse art deco from Burton’s mind. Catwomen gets barely any time and Two Face is not an impressive villain- again just wasting Billy Dee, who I had been so excited to see in the role before we got robbed. The Marlon Waynes Robin appears, similarly underwhelming. Each of those actors would have done far better with the roles than what we get here. The two Gothams subplot is pretty inspired at times, but it reads like a reflection of current politics (or even the 60s at times) instead of the 90s. The 90s were LA riots and Falling Down. It’s got some great ideas and seeing Wayne react to them actually works well, but it’s time out of joint. Like if Stranger Things had a character ask to “defund the police”. Or Ed Sheehan in Game of Thrones. Doesn’t quite belong. At best this is like reading a first draft for a script that will get a substantial rewrite. It doesn’t work and- worst of all- it’s somewhat boring. Sorry to say, but skip this one unless you’re really desperate for some of that 89 Batman goodness.
Landon Sirmans
This is just my opinion, and I’m sure some will agree. This graphic novel is the sequel to “Batman Returns” that we should’ve gotten back in the 90s had it not been for the stupid parents with the stick up their asses. They complained and said that the movie was too dark and gruesome, and parents are saying that literally 30 years later with the premiere of the new Batman movie. Of course it’s going to be dark and gruesome. It’s BATMAN! We may not have gotten this in movie form, but this was an amazing story. I really hope that they do a follow up to this. Because I would really like to see where the Tim Burton Batman would have gone had a continued.

Featured Video