Batman 89 - I loved loved as a kid and still do now. That was my second exposure to the character after the 66 TV show (which I hated the silliness of! I was a super serious child) so for me that was "Batman".

That makes me a bit of a civilian on these characters rather than a fanboy. I feel the later films of both have never got the characters aligned with the versions created above.. which was my standard (lacking the comic books.)

As a grown-up, perhaps Batman should be a bit more "animated series" then he is now. Superman can still match the seventies movie for me.

I first read The Dark Knight Returns in early 1989 -- loved it -- so the film came at the right time for me. One of the many elements I loved in Miller's tale was the idea that 'it only takes one bullet'. And then we have him being shot in the opening minutes and then rising up because he is bulletproof.

And the Joker killed his parents. Give me a break.

Roberto, all due credit for the explanation.  But if I got to work that hard to explain a movie, I'm out.  And I doubt that much thought went into it.  Likely a product of Lester taking over for Donner which led to the film being so uneven. 

A person without a single super-power who, somehow, almost supernaturally, cannot be killed... that's pretty damned scary!

- Commissioner Gordon's lack of importance: I agree with this. Tim Burton not reading comics as a child because "he didn't know what panel he should read next" was probably a main cause for it.

- Sleeping with Vicky Vale too fast: I agree with this. Batman is normally more cautious.

- Michael Keaton being too short and thin: I agree with this. A good actor that the director already knew, but I'm sure other choice would have been better. Christian Bale is an example of a better choice.

- The bulletproof thing: I kind of disagree. It's another version of Batman where he uses other techniques to avoid being killed. More realistic than avoiding all bullets, probably. Was not an issue for me as a child.

- Batman killing people: I agree that this is not OK, even if I didn't know about it in 1989.

- The Joker killing Bruce's parents: I disagree with this being an issue. The change made the story more interesting.

- The Joker being "a different character in each scene": I disagree with this being a problem. It's more fun this way, right?

- Bruce Wayne being too selfish: I probably disagree with this, assuming Bruce is only using that personality as a shield so that people think he doesn't care about crime and moral.

The Batman 89 2021 comic is weird not only because Michael Keaton's face is terribly drawn, but because it does things like introducing a new hero in issue #1. They should have made a Batman 70 (based in the comics) instead.

All outrageous coincidences are interesting. I find this unsatisfying when it's part of a fictional narrative.

A Batman who gets anywhere near the idea of a need for revenge isn't Batman - though it does seem to be a fairly common wish-list item for Batman fandom.  I lived in college with a guy who was a huge Bat-fan - his life-sized cardboard standee of Bat-Keaton stood in the corner of our TV room all of my Junior year.  The Batman short story he wrote that year ended with Batman deliberately beating the Joker to death.

Take a strength of the character (no ones knows who he used to be) and solve it! Nicely done.

What I hate the most about it is how "Hollywood" it is. That need to tie a knot that didn't need to be tied. It can seem to make sense at first, if you're thinking extremely short-term and for the sake of one movie, but it doesn't and never will.

1. Leaving out Joker being the Waynes' murderer.

2. A scene before going into the chemical vat where `Jack Napier' reveals his name is an alias. And that's it.