Hmm... is that a good thing?
Although I might be a bit turned off by the man-love, I can honestly say that I would enjoy that movie as long as it was well done in it's own right.
The particular scenario you describe sounds like horror/camp, which might be pretty cool.
To put it in perspective, an example of what I
do read would be anything by J.R.R. Tolkien. If I'm a book thumper it's for his books. When The Two Towers came out I was
revolted at first by the portrayal of Faramir. He is my favorite character in the books because of how resolutely he refuses the ring (and other reasons). But, in the movie he takes Frodo and Sam along with the ring to Osgiliath [???!!!]. My initial reaction to this helps me understand to a small extent how you must feel about Batman's behavior in Batman '89. However, the thing is, I couldn't stay mad at the film because the story works so well. When I ignore what I know from the books I can enjoy the version of the story that we see on screen. If I want to be reminded of the "real" Faramir I can just pick up the books. It's not like Peter Jackson burned all the books when he made the movies. Likewise, it's not like Tim Burton burned all the comics when he made his Batman movies.
Also, in my opinion, a comic book character is much more open to interpretation than one storyline like The Lord of the Rings. Super-hero stories get told again and again in many incarnations.
How do you feel about the
Elseworlds universe (btw, I'm only familiar with this due to the figures I have from the line). It takes characters you are familiar with and turns them on their head. Are they crap because the characters behave differently than you are used to? Shouldn't the stories stand on their own with no preconceived expectations?
I get that Batman '89 wasn't what you were hoping for at the time, but your expectations have nothing to do with the quality of the movie.
