WI: Tim Burton doesn't make Batman Returns

Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Tim Burton was close to not making Batman Returns. I think the reasoning was that he didn't know how he felt about doing a sequel. He ended up making it, the results of which were the film received a mixed reaction, with a consensus of it being much too dark for its rating. Since Batman was something people took their kids to, even though it wasn't a kid movie, and something there were toys and Happy Meals made out of, it didn't sit well with the studio. Tim Burton showed interest in making Batman 3, but the studio people hinted heavily that they didn't want Burton to make it given what Batman Returns had been, and he got the message and dropped it.

But what if Burton didn't make Batman 2? What if he decided he had indeed said all he wanted to with Batman in 1989, and let someone else do the Batman sequel?
 
unclepatrick

unclepatrick

Emperor Norton I said:
Tim Burton was close to not making Batman Returns. I think the reasoning was that he didn't know how he felt about doing a sequel. He ended up making it, the results of which were the film received a mixed reaction, with a consensus of it being much too dark for its rating. Since Batman was something people took their kids to, even though it wasn't a kid movie, and something there were toys and Happy Meals made out of, it didn't sit well with the studio. Tim Burton showed interest in making Batman 3, but the studio people hinted heavily that they didn't want Burton to make it given what Batman Returns had been, and he got the message and dropped it.

But what if Burton didn't make Batman 2? What if he decided he had indeed said all he wanted to with Batman in 1989, and let someone else do the Batman sequel?
Click to expand...

I would depend on who they got as Director. If they got Joel Schumacher as the Director, than the movies would go down hill sooner.
I know that the Producers of Batman consider consider Sam Raimi at one point but I think that was after 1990 and the release of Darkman. I don't know if he be consider in 1989. I suspect that Rami would have made Gotham a more realistic city than in the First one.
 

Glass Onion

A sequel is an inevitability, given the success of Batman in 1989. And there's a strong likelihood that it'd involve the Penguin, I've heard that the use of that character was something of a studio mandate, with the studio executives heavily hinting that they'd prefer his presence, same thing for Catwoman. So, both of those characters are likely to be present, with or without Tim Burton. Unfortunately, the movie that results won't be as interesting as Returns, since at the time the Penguin was a rather dull villain. The comics vision of the Penguin as mobster was still a few years away, he was still just an old, and fundamentally uninteresting gimmicky villain, and unlike, say, the Riddler, his behavior doesn't even really suggest a plot. So the director is either going to have to accept a bland and uninteresting antagonist, completely change the tone and make an Adam West sort of film before the studio was demanding such a departure from the Burton tone, or he's going to have to do what Burton did, he will have to in a fundamental sense, reinvent the character. Now, the difference here will be he's not Burton. So he's not going to go the "freak" route. But it is an open question what he does.

Another open question is whether Keaton would stay on.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Glass Onion said:
A sequel is an inevitability, given the success of Batman in 1989. And there's a strong likelihood that it'd involve the Penguin, I've heard that the use of that character was something of a studio mandate, with the studio executives heavily hinting that they'd prefer his presence, same thing for Catwoman. So, both of those characters are likely to be present, with or without Tim Burton. Unfortunately, the movie that results won't be as interesting as Returns, since at the time the Penguin was a rather dull villain. The comics vision of the Penguin as mobster was still a few years away, he was still just an old, and fundamentally uninteresting gimmicky villain, and unlike, say, the Riddler, his behavior doesn't even really suggest a plot. So the director is either going to have to accept a bland and uninteresting antagonist, completely change the tone and make an Adam West sort of film before the studio was demanding such a departure from the Burton tone, or he's going to have to do what Burton did, he will have to in a fundamental sense, reinvent the character. Now, the difference here will be he's not Burton. So he's not going to go the "freak" route. But it is an open question what he does.

Another open question is whether Keaton would stay on.
Click to expand...

I think Catwoman was what Burton and team wanted and added to the Penguin. So if that's true, without him, it'd just be the Penguin, or maybe the Penguin with someone else depending on who directs and writes.

On Keaton, he did seem interested in reprising his role, but I swear he said he wasn't going to return without Burton, so I think he'd be out.
 
Andrew T

Andrew T

unclepatrick said:
I would depend on who they got as Director. If they got Joel Schumacher as the Director, than the movies would go down hill sooner.
Click to expand...

Batman Returns

DIRECTED BY John Hughes

Starring:

Judd Nelson as Batman
Molly Ringwald as Catwoman
John Candy as the Penguin
Paul Gleason as Commissioner Gordon
and, uh, let's say Edie McClurg in heavy makeup as Alfred [1]

SYNOPSIS:

With the JOKER safely under lock and key in Arkham Asylum, Gotham City enters a new era of prosperity and peace. The streets are safe -- too safe? -- and so BATMAN heads to the new epicenter of violent street crime: Shermer, Illinois. There, he encounters the PENGUIN, a deformed madman abandoned by his Canadian parents. Vowing revenge, the Penguin decides to run for Mayor of Shermer for some reason.

NOTES:

[1] Have you noticed that there aren't a lot of old people in John Hughes movies?
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Andrew T said:
Batman Returns

DIRECTED BY John Hughes

Starring:

Judd Nelson as Batman
Molly Ringwald as Catwoman
John Candy as the Penguin
Paul Gleason as Commissioner Gordon
and, uh, let's say Edie McClurg in heavy makeup as Alfred [1]

SYNOPSIS:

With the JOKER safely under lock and key in Arkham Asylum, Gotham City enters a new era of prosperity and peace. The streets are safe -- too safe? -- and so BATMAN heads to the new epicenter of violent street crime: Shermer, Illinois. There, he encounters the PENGUIN, a deformed madman abandoned by his Canadian parents. Vowing revenge, the Penguin decides to run for Mayor of Shermer for some reason.

NOTES:

[1] Have you noticed that there aren't a lot of old people in John Hughes movies?
Click to expand...

"You see us as you want to see us. In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain...

and a boyscout,

and a fish nut,

a princess,

and a playboy vigilante.

Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Justice League."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jlHz0wF0Ig
 

Glass Onion

unclepatrick said:
I would depend on who they got as Director. If they got Joel Schumacher as the Director, than the movies would go down hill sooner.
I know that the Producers of Batman consider consider Sam Raimi at one point but I think that was after 1990 and the release of Darkman. I don't know if he be consider in 1989. I suspect that Rami would have made Gotham a more realistic city than in the First one.
Click to expand...

Aside from the homoeroticism a considerable amount if the faults people find in Shumacher are not really his responsibility. There was excessive studio intervention and to a great extent he was simply doing as he was told. It would be interesting to see what he could do without the Spectre of Returns blocking any and all attempts at seriousness. At the same time I think Burton's replacement may be someone else entirely, John McTiernan for example was offered the job in 1995 but could not take it because he was otherwise committed if he is offered the job early enough he might sign on.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Glass Onion said:
Aside from the homoeroticism a considerable amount if the faults people find in Shumacher are not really his responsibility. There was excessive studio intervention and to a great extent he was simply doing as he was told. It would be interesting to see what he could do without the Spectre of Returns blocking any and all attempts at seriousness. At the same time I think Burton's replacement may be someone else entirely, John McTiernan for example was offered the job in 1995 but could not take it because he was otherwise committed if he is offered the job early enough he might sign on.
Click to expand...

Schumacher really does deserve blame, regardless of studio intervention. He didn't treat it properly. When he was directing "Batman and Robin" what he would say to the actors was "Don't take it seriously. It's only a comic book movie". He treated it like it was childish and something to not be treated seriously, and treated it like it was the 60s show, and that's exactly what you saw on the screen. That movie was Schumacher's fault.
 

herricks

Emperor Norton I said:
Tim Burton was close to not making Batman Returns. I think the reasoning was that he didn't know how he felt about doing a sequel. He ended up making it, the results of which were the film received a mixed reaction, with a consensus of it being much too dark for its rating. Since Batman was something people took their kids to, even though it wasn't a kid movie, and something there were toys and Happy Meals made out of, it didn't sit well with the studio. Tim Burton showed interest in making Batman 3, but the studio people hinted heavily that they didn't want Burton to make it given what Batman Returns had been, and he got the message and dropped it.

But what if Burton didn't make Batman 2? What if he decided he had indeed said all he wanted to with Batman in 1989, and let someone else do the Batman sequel?
Click to expand...
of the 4 origionals Batman Returns is my favorite because it was so dark
 

ColeMercury

Without Burton returning to direct, they may have gone forward with Sam Hamm's script for Batman 2. It's a much more direct sequel to the original Batman, and has Vicki Vale returning. Penguin & Catwoman are still the villains, but there's no Max Schreck. And Dick Grayson is a character but he's never explicitly called Robin.

Emperor Norton I said:
Schumacher really does deserve blame, regardless of studio intervention. He didn't treat it properly. When he was directing "Batman and Robin" what he would say to the actors was "Don't take it seriously. It's only a comic book movie". He treated it like it was childish and something to not be treated seriously, and treated it like it was the 60s show, and that's exactly what you saw on the screen. That movie was Schumacher's fault.
Click to expand...
That's because those were his orders from on high. If Schumacher had complete free reign, he would've made a properly dark direct adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns". (Or was it "Year One"? I can't remember which one he wanted to do.) But because Warner Bros were so shit-scared by how dark and disturbing Burton made Batman Returns, they explicitly told Schumacher "We do not want it to be dark. We want to to be bright and flashy. We want it to be merchandise-driven. If there is any character development, we will remove it." And Schumacher's response was "Oh, that much money? Let's do it!"

Schumacher embraced his directives from Warner Bros., but he is actually a big fan of the Batman comics and particularly loves the dark and disturbing stuff. And if there was no Batman Returns, I actually think Schumacher would've had more leeway to do what he wanted and could have made some really good movies.
 

Glass Onion

By all accounts I have heard it was year one Shumacher wanted to make. Though the studio may still demand "a sequel not a prequel" regardless of circumstance. So rather than Year One we might get something like a darker Batman Forever.

And was the Sam Hamm script the one where the Penguin and Catwoman hunt for Gold in Wayne manor? Everything I have heard about it has suggested it was a terrible script in need of major revision.
 
oshron

oshron

Andrew T said:
Batman Returns

DIRECTED BY John Hughes

Starring:

Judd Nelson as Batman
Molly Ringwald as Catwoman
John Candy as the Penguin
Paul Gleason as Commissioner Gordon
and, uh, let's say Edie McClurg in heavy makeup as Alfred [1]

SYNOPSIS:

With the JOKER safely under lock and key in Arkham Asylum, Gotham City enters a new era of prosperity and peace. The streets are safe -- too safe? -- and so BATMAN heads to the new epicenter of violent street crime: Shermer, Illinois. There, he encounters the PENGUIN, a deformed madman abandoned by his Canadian parents. Vowing revenge, the Penguin decides to run for Mayor of Shermer for some reason.

NOTES:

[1] Have you noticed that there aren't a lot of old people in John Hughes movies?
Click to expand...
in point of fact, though, the Joker died at the end of Batman, unlike in alot of other Batman media
herricks said:
of the 4 origionals Batman Returns is my favorite because it was so dark
Click to expand...
personally, i like the first one most because it has a good balance of serious, dark, and humorous (particularly the Joker pulling out his ridiculously long sidearm :D)
 

herricks

oshron said:
personally, i like the first one most because it has a good balance of serious, dark, and humorous (particularly the Joker pulling out his ridiculously long sidearm :D)
Click to expand...
its better than the last two but i thought it was still pretty comic booky, granted i thought the same of Batman Returns but it was more like the darker comics
 

ColeMercury

Glass Onion said:
And was the Sam Hamm script the one where the Penguin and Catwoman hunt for Gold in Wayne manor? Everything I have heard about it has suggested it was a terrible script in need of major revision.
Click to expand...
I heard that too. But it was because of Burton they chucked the whole thing out and started over, rather than trying to fix the old script.
 
unclepatrick

unclepatrick

Glass Onion said:
Aside from the homoeroticism a considerable amount if the faults people find in Shumacher are not really his responsibility. There was excessive studio intervention and to a great extent he was simply doing as he was told. It would be interesting to see what he could do without the Spectre of Returns blocking any and all attempts at seriousness. At the same time I think Burton's replacement may be someone else entirely, John McTiernan for example was offered the job in 1995 but could not take it because he was otherwise committed if he is offered the job early enough he might sign on.
Click to expand...

In the Timeline I working on, Burton does movie 1 and 2 as per original Timeline, but Sam Rani direct movie three. It based on the script Simon Said, which is the script that became the basis of Die Hard Three. The Movie feature the Riddler, and take place on Saint Patrick Day, The Riddler outfit is a Saint Patrick day costume. At vfirst Commissioner Gordon is the officer being order about and Batman step in to save him so the Riddler keep him involved. Billy Dee William is still Dent and he get scared near the end of the film, So Two face will the villian in the fourth.
 

Zacoftheaxes

unclepatrick said:
I would depend on who they got as Director. If they got Joel Schumacher as the Director, than the movies would go down hill sooner.
I know that the Producers of Batman consider consider Sam Raimi at one point but I think that was after 1990 and the release of Darkman. I don't know if he be consider in 1989. I suspect that Rami would have made Gotham a more realistic city than in the First one.
Click to expand...

He was considered in 1989. He pretty much pleaded to make the movie but the studio like Burton better. Raimi then went on to see if he could make a movie about The Shadow. That was also a no. Raimi decided he'd make his own superhero and even then he barely got it made, but he did make Darkman. Darkman was a success, albeit a relatively minor one. The big thing about Darkman was that it was able to be dark but still be a fun movie. The main character has his face destroyed, loses his normal life, and becomes a dark vigilante who kills criminals. It's also a really fun movie at the same time, as he finds clever ways to take down his foes (being a master of disguise certainly helps).

I think Raimi might be picked if Returns never happens. one of the reason Schumacher got the job is because the studio wanted to get as far away from Batman Returns as possible. Raimi was still considered as director for Forever (I think he was even the second choice) but Schumacher at the time was at the time a more respected director.

I should note (to be an attention whore) that a timeline I am 1/3 of the writing force of (in my sig) takes a look at Sam Raimi's Batman. Though in this timeline he's on from the beginning.
 

Glass Onion

Zacoftheaxes said:
He was considered in 1989. He pretty much pleaded to make the movie but the studio like Burton better. Raimi then went on to see if he could make a movie about The Shadow. That was also a no. Raimi decided he'd make his own superhero and even then he barely got it made, but he did make Darkman. Darkman was a success, albeit a relatively minor one. The big thing about Darkman was that it was able to be dark but still be a fun movie. The main character has his face destroyed, loses his normal life, and becomes a dark vigilante who kills criminals. It's also a really fun movie at the same time, as he finds clever ways to take down his foes (being a master of disguise certainly helps).

I think Raimi might be picked if Returns never happens. one of the reason Schumacher got the job is because the studio wanted to get as far away from Batman Returns as possible. Raimi was still considered as director for Forever (I think he was even the second choice) but Schumacher at the time was at the time a more respected director.

I should note (to be an attention whore) that a timeline I am 1/3 of the writing force of (in my sig) takes a look at Sam Raimi's Batman. Though in this timeline he's on from the beginning.
Click to expand...
The Sam Raimi option is interesting. One wonders what plot his film would follow if he were brought on to do the sequel and if he would use the mandate villains or if he would go off in a different direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top