Batman (1989) (4K+2D Blu-ray SteelBook) (Titans of Cult Exclusive #9) [UK]

Added to Calendar: 03-22-21

Feb 10, 2020
827
Release date: March 22, 2021
Purchase links: Amazon UK - Zavvi - WB Shop - HMV - The Entertainment Store (eBay) (Pre-order live on February 15)
Price: £29.99 (Zavvi - WB Shop - HMV - eBay) - £30.00 (Amazon)

148526315_504232367640287_1286063053989270317_o.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 24, 2013
9,292
In truth this is what I'd term a blocultbuster.
As for the definition of cult: the term is not set in stone and IMO includes films that develop a cult following no matter how much or how little cash they generated originally at the box office and includes films that are now referred to as cult classics such as IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE or CASABLANCA etc.
 

Flloydo

Yo honey-dips, summertime, fine Jheri drippin'
Premium Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
22,807
The Moon
I googled “Cult Movie” and I got this result via Wikipedia:

“...obscure or unpopular with mainstream audiences, and often revolutionary or ironically enjoyed”

I don’t necessarily agree with the ironic enjoyment aspect of this quote, but being unpopular with mainstream audiences certainly rings true.

I dunno, I think ironically enjoyed is a good description for some of them. Cage is a good example for that description in general haha. A lot of the weird cage films that have a cult esque status are ironically enjoyed. And I love him but sometimes I love his films for the wrong reasons.

I also agree that they are usually unpopular films at their time with a group of strong fans who see the better side of that said film that then becomes more popular and appreciated with time but I also see bigger films (sometimes blockbusters) that were popular at the time and still big now and with a strong fan club still (maybe something like V for vendetta not that it was a huge blockbuster but it was still a huge film with a lot of marketing, made a lot of money).
they have a certain essence to them in the way they look blockbuster or not. I can’t explain it
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Punker76

Space Cadet

| Vampyr |
Premium Supporter
Nov 26, 2017
2,967
It's subjective of course, but I would count near enough every Tim Burton film as "obscure" in some way shape or form, regardless of how popular some have become. If anything I'd say they've become more popular in the last 10 years with certain demographics purely because of this. Batman 1989 included. It's dark, dry, gothic and downright zany and offbeat at points. Certainly not the type of flick middle America would pop on sunday afternoon..

You have to remember superhero films were not the norm in 1989, especially not dark and bruding ones. The idea of marketing a film like this at the time towards adults (due to the certificate) was a massive gamble by WB. One that many exec's were convinced was the wrong route to go. Luckily it paid off and became a success and spawned one true sequel.

Idk what anyone says, the other 2 legacy Batman films are separate stories as far as I'm concerned, Canon or not :rofl:

It certainly has a cult like following and is a product of its time. It's typically held as a favourite of those of a certain age and fans of the style and era, but wouldn't really be seen as directed at the mass market crowd of today. It's certainly no mcu or dcu style flick, regardless of how dark some of Snyder's flicks are.

As I said before, I do not agree that a film can be declassified as cult simply because it has made money, when it ticks many other areas that could be deemed as worthy of that status.

It does not matter who the director was/is.

It does not matter that in that time superhero were not "in and pop". "One true sequel" ... sequels are coming ...

Are Nolan's Batman's DCU films ?

Yes - I disagree with you. And ... it's late here will log off ... night !
 
Jul 22, 2020
458
It does not matter who the director was/is.

It does not matter that in that time superhero were not "in and pop". "One true sequel" ... sequels are coming ...

Are Nolan's Batman's DCU films ?

Yes - I disagree with you. And ... it's late here will log off ... night !
You're either being awkward or completely missed my overall point there...

1. I didn't say a film is definitely cult because it's a Burton film, although a large proportion of his films are imo.

2. Actually yes it does does matter that superhero films weren't "in and pop" in 1989. If the MCU hadn't of blown comic book films into the mainstream, superhero films would not be considered a popular genre anywhere near the extent as they are today.

That'd be the same as saying Blade Runner isn't a cult film because dystopian scifi epics become extremely popular and lucrative in more recent years... whereas there were tons in the 80s that would have been "cult" and made zero box office bank.

3. As of writing there is only one true sequel, not that having a sequel (or sequels) has any baring on whether films should be classified as cult or not. Films should be taken on their own individual merits, not that of their sequels.

Realise I'm using it twice, but Blade Runner runner proves that again here...

4. I didn't even mention the Nolan films.. they certainly aren't cult and are directed towards mass markets during a time where the superhero genre was much more popular. You can't tie all Batman films together simply because they're all based on the same source material.

So you're just pulling up a few single points there that have no real baring to my argument as a whole mate. So thats a bit of an irrelevant message lol

Anyway, it's a differ of opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hence why I said it's subjective... It may not be the BEST example of a cult film, but it's certainly not the worst.

ToC releases are rarely going to be what purists would definitively class as "cult films". They need to find a medium between cult and popular films (to actually sell the line), which sometimes works and sometimes does not.
 
Last edited:

C.C. 95

The Snarky Assassin
Moderator
Premium Supporter
Sep 10, 2014
16,647
The Land, OHIO - U.S.A.
It's subjective of course, but I would count near enough every Tim Burton film as "obscure" in some way shape or form, regardless of how popular some have become. If anything I'd say they've become more popular in the last 10 years with certain demographics purely because of this. Batman 1989 included. It's dark, dry, gothic and downright zany and offbeat at points. Certainly not the type of flick middle America would pop on sunday afternoon..

You have to remember superhero films were not the norm in 1989, especially not dark and bruding ones. The idea of marketing a film like this at the time towards adults (due to the certificate) was a massive gamble by WB. One that many exec's were convinced was the wrong route to go. Luckily it paid off and became a success and spawned one true sequel.

Idk what anyone says, the other 2 legacy Batman films are separate stories as far as I'm concerned, Canon or not :rofl:

It certainly has a cult like following and is a product of its time. It's typically held as a favourite of those of a certain age and fans of the style and era, but wouldn't really be seen as directed at the mass market crowd of today. It's certainly no mcu or dcu style flick, regardless of how dark some of Snyder's flicks are.

As I said before, I do not agree that a film can be declassified as cult simply because it has made money, when it ticks many other areas that could be deemed as worthy of that status.
Middle America spent $500 Million on the merchandise.

It was the most anticipated movie of the decade. I know. i was there. It was as big as any blockbuster from this era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willbar84

staplehead

Premium Supporter
May 28, 2016
86
Somebody posted on another thread a while ago some artwork where Batman had Joker's smile. It looked pretty cool. Not sure how well it would work as a steel with the combo of Bats with Joker but I remember it looking decent. Not sure if it was Mondo.


I think you are referring to HDZeta release. See pics below. They did all 4 in a box set. It came out maybe 6 months ago. Limited to 400.

Another company in Italy, Cinemuseum, released the first 2 as premiums, using existing steelbooks. Limited to 250 I think.

3.jpg 80246442_452236379060718_7436238374077202432_n_1024x1024.jpg 84234176_628826307867459_6118860424222867456_n_1024x1024.jpg
 
Feb 22, 2013
1,943
UK
I googled “Cult Movie” and I got this result via Wikipedia:

“...obscure or unpopular with mainstream audiences, and often revolutionary or ironically enjoyed”

I don’t necessarily agree with the ironic enjoyment aspect of this quote, but being unpopular with mainstream audiences certainly rings true.
And the Wikipedia entry for "Cult Following" says:

"There is not always a clear difference between cult and mainstream media. Works such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Fawlty Towers, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, The X-Files, Back to the Future, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Rocky Horror, Fight Club, and Mean Girls attract mass audiences but also have core groups of fanatical followers.".

I think the opening statement ("There is not always a clear difference between cult and mainstream media.") pretty much sums up the 'debate' on here! :)
 

St4rlord

Premium Supporter
Jul 7, 2016
4,191
Cosmos
I think you are referring to HDZeta release. See pics below. They did all 4 in a box set. It came out maybe 6 months ago. Limited to 400.

Another company in Italy, Cinemuseum, released the first 2 as premiums, using existing steelbooks. Limited to 250 I think.

View attachment 495783 View attachment 495784 View attachment 495785
No it wasn't that, it was actual poster art that somebody posted that showed batman but the person inside the suit was joker (or his smile at least). I doubt it will be used but looked really cool.
 

paulboland

Contributor Steels/Arrow
Contributor
Premium Supporter
Batman 1989 is a cult film and considered as such

A film that does well at the box office or don't do well at box office can end up been considered a cult film or not be
Cult film means a film that has acquired a cult following since it's release and does not matter if was a box office hit or considered a blockbuster at the time of release or if it was a failure at box office


Batman 1989 is definiftaly a film that falls into that category as it has a lot of cult following since it was released in both terms of the film itself and the merchandising products connected to the film
 
Jun 13, 2013
2,143
I dunno, I think ironically enjoyed is a good description for some of them. Cage is a good example for that description in general haha. A lot of the weird cage films that have a cult esque status are ironically enjoyed. And I love him but sometimes I love his films for the wrong reasons.

I also agree that they are usually unpopular films at their time with a group of strong fans who see the better side of that said film that then becomes more popular and appreciated with time but I also see bigger films (sometimes blockbusters) that were popular at the time and still big now and with a strong fan club still (maybe something like V for vendetta not that it was a huge blockbuster but it was still a huge film with a lot of marketing, made a lot of money).
they have a certain essence to them in the way they look blockbuster or not. I can’t explain it

Good points, well made.

“Cult” definitions aside, I must admit this is the 1st TOC release that’s really peaked my interest. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flloydo

Lollard2002

Premium Supporter
Sep 19, 2012
5,023
Belfast
To be honest I would love to see more classic Warner titles in 4k for this series like "Casablanca" "Them!" "Under Siege" and a few others I could think off.
For the Record Batman 1989 cost $35 million to make and with advertising that brought it up to $65 overall but it made $411,348,924 at the box office which was a fortune
in those days but nothing compared to what blockbusters make today. To be honest I haven't seen the film since it was released in the cinema but I do remember hating the follow
up films.