WI: Batman Forever, Neither Burton nor Schumacher

Joel Schumacher directed the actual Batman III, and alternate history, where it has talked about Batman Forever, talks about the possibility of Tim Burton as director, and we've had a few discussions on that. I want to take this a different route.

It's the early 90s, and Tim Burton has just directed two megalithic Batman films. However, Batman Returns has drawn massive criticism. It's tone and content is much darker, which turns off many viewers, potential or otherwise, turns off kids, turns off parents, leads McDonald's to pull it's tie-in Happy Meal, and leads Roger Ebert to call the PG-13 rating "a joke". Tim Burton, who had previously not wanted to do a second film, is now all too happy to do a third, but the studio does not want him due to what happened with "Batman Returns", and politely turns him away. The studio is all too happy to make another Batman film, but it will be defined by "Batman Returns" and how it avoids what befell that film.

So what if someone else, besides Joel Schumacher, had directed Batman III? Make no mistake how massive that film was at the time, and it's effects on culture in the 90s. Everything from Seal getting a massive hit to McDonald's glasses, which I still have Riddler somewhere, to how it affected people who saw it and careers to the franchise itself, and subsequently superhero movies in general. After all, it was Schumacher's Batman, and the collapse of the franchise therein, which lead to the death and resurgence of superhero films with X-Men and a studio attitude about superhero movies which, unlike the 90s, did not make them toy commercials or dumb films, and took great strides to please its comicbook audience. It also subsequently lead to the very realism based world of the Nolan Batman trilogy. So I would argue Batman and Robin is not the turning point; Batman Forever is because it lead to Batman and Robin.

By the way, what inspired this was watching a Batman Forever documentary. And everyone interviewed has a completely different psychology than people involved in comic book movies today. They just go on and on about how they don't have to worry about the real world and how they don't have to look into the finer points of the characters since they're comic book characters, and how its just a comic book, etc.

I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject but... I don't want this thread to die so I'm gonna throw some two cents in.

Batman Forever is to an extent, doomed by the studio. IIRC, Schumacher was somewhat of a Batman fan but was a loyal studio guy who did what he was told, and that lead to a lot of the problems. That doesn't mean we'll get the same film or crew, but I think we'll definitely be taking a turn for the cartoon-y "it's just a comic book vibe", but that also doesn't mean it'll have to be bad.

That said, I've no idea what other director they could choose, which is a big factor. A loyal company man, an up-and-comer, or a big name...

In initial form, and I'm not just talking about the script but also scenes that were cut as well, the film was lighter than Batman Returns (and Tim Burton's Batman series on the whole), but had it's own seriousness alongside the pop, comic book feel. The narrative included a whole psychological angle on Batman: you see this book throughout the film, and it's revealed that it's Thomas Wayne's diary, and that the last entry is that his parents wanted to stay in that night but Bruce wanted to go to a movie, and he suppressed that memory and he feels that he was responsible for their deaths. And it was a narrative thread based around that psychology, hence why the female lead is a psychologist. That was largely cut. And there are other scenes that were cut to, which make the film more serious, while serious in the style of Schumacher, which is not serious in the style of Burton.

There's a lot of issues that could have been amended without Schumacher, and that is not to cast all the blame onto Schumacher, because there was some stuff that may have worked on paper, but not in practice. I think Tommy Lee Jones was a serious mistake, because of those interviews, Tommy Lee Jones is really the one who most says and feels that it was just a comic book and he doesn't have to look for depth. And that does not work for the psychological character that is Two Face. I can't say anything about the script because I don't know if there were things that were cut, but the acting and narrative around him is what you'd expect of Two Face from the 60s show, had he appeared.
Jim Carrey you could criticize for playing the Riddler like the 60s character or the Joker (which the fact is every villain the the original Batman film franchise was the goddamn Joker with a different look). However, if you look at that narrative, it is actually a serious and interesting take on it.

And I think Val Kilmer works as Batman well.

Anyway, all that said, there was a lot of room to work with under the studio requirement for something lighter than Batman Returns. I think had those deleted elements been kept, the film would have worked all the same. And Two Face should have been done better, and been played by someone other than Tommy Lee Jones who would have explored the character more, even if exploring it in terms of comic book-ness, and not have taken the initiative to not worry "because it's a comic book".

The story Tommy Lee Jones gives is that he didn't want to do it, but his son begged him to, so he finally did it. That's an easy enough POD to change. And they only kinda asked him randomly to begin with.

Well I didn't find Tommy Lee Jones to be that bad, considering it's a more out and out unsympathetic version of Two-Face. If it's really that problematic, what are you thoughta on Bill Dee Williams as Two Face, or because it was from one of Burton's Batman films it would be considered toxic. Did in your opinion Returns set bad precedent with 2 villains which is practically seen in all Batman movies since?

BBadolato said:

Well I didn't find Tommy Lee Jones to be that bad, considering it's a more out and out unsympathetic version of Two-Face. If it's really that problematic, what are you thoughta on Bill Dee Williams as Two Face, or because it was from one of Burton's Batman films it would be considered toxic. Did in your opinion Returns set bad precedent with 2 villains which is practically seen in all Batman movies since?

Click to expand...

The problem is that Two Face is out and out unsympathetic. He shouldn't necessarily have to be sympathetic, and you can do even a bad job with it as this is not utopia, but some more character besides "I'm borderline the Joker" would have been nice.

I think the problem is not that Batman Returns had two villains; it's that either Schumacher or the studio decided they needed two villains, and by Batman & Robin, it was studio directive to have to have two villains. Albeit that was the last film.

Rewatching the film, which I hadn't seen probably since the late 90s, I didn't remember all the wacky sound effects. I also didn't remember all the wacky humor.

I don't believe that there was anyone else under consideration before Schumacher accepted the job, so you need something to butterfly away Schumacher's availability to do it.


Honestly, I'm not sure what the hell Schumacher was smoking when he started work on Batman Forever. He cast Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face because of their history working together on The Client. What I don't understand is in what way Two-Face/Harvey Dent is in any way similar to the character from The Client. Aside from both of them being District Attorneys, there is literally nothing that the two characters share. His decision to cast Jim Carey(and before him they were going to cast Marlon Wayans) also makes absolutely no sense, since this was mid-nineties Carey who had not done anything but goofball comedy. The Riddler was weird, but most certainly not a comic relief character. Val Kilmer was cast as a result of Schumacher seeing Tombstone, but how Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday(for all of its strengths) translates into the kind of portrayal one would want for Bruce Wayne/Batman is beyond me.

Likewise, I understand the desire to conform to the studio's wishes to make the film series more lighthearted, but he originally wanted to do an adaptation of Year One which the studio nixed. I don't know how that translates into the ridiculously cartoonish appearance of the film. If you sit down and watch Batman and Batman Returns back-to-back, it's easy to see that the sequel wasn't that much darker than the original, so I don't know what motivated such a gross overreaction to the Studio's wishes.

Emperor Norton I said:

The problem is that Two Face is out and out unsympathetic. He shouldn't necessarily have to be sympathetic, and you can do even a bad job with it as this is not utopia, but some more character besides "I'm borderline the Joker" would have been nice.

I think the problem is not that Batman Returns had two villains; it's that either Schumacher or the studio decided they needed two villains, and by Batman & Robin, it was studio directive to have to have two villains. Albeit that was the last film.

Click to expand...

The studio was already mandating villains by Batman Returns, that's the reason the Penguin is in that movie.

I suspect that the same situation may have held true for Batman Forever. That is, I suspect that the studio would have demanded the Riddler's inclusion. Burton had delayed Robin's inclusion for so long that he probably has to be included as well. I don't know if the studio made the same demand with Two-Face.

The film is going to be lighter and softer but other than that I don't think we can make predictions about the films plot if Schumacher isn't involved because without Schumacher, Akiva Goldsman won't be writing the script. Without the two of them, the plot of Batman III will be completely different aside from the influence of studio mandates.

Dan Reilly The Great said:

His decision to cast Jim Carey(and before him they were going to cast Marlon Wayans) also makes absolutely no sense, since this was mid-nineties Carey who had not done anything but goofball comedy. The Riddler was weird, but most certainly not a comic relief character.

Click to expand...

Casting Carey made a certain amount of sense if you are trying to recreate Frank Gorshin's Riddler, which is at least partially what they were going for.

If memory serves from the documentary, Akiva Goldsman didn't write the script from scratch; the script was written by another couple, but Schumacher had him make it more his style. I think the original script was more realism based.

I'm one of the rare people who genuinely enjoyed Batman forever it seems. Its not even in the same league as Batman and Robin.

As for ways to improve it:
1) As Norton pointed out, let Schumacher add the more serious stuff that he wanted to add.
2) Keep Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face.

But if you want a different director, I have one for you: Sam Raimi. He all but BEGGED for it in 1989, and again after the studio wanted to replace Burton. He may do for Batman what he did for Spiderman, and kickstart the comic book boom nearly a decade earlier, maybe even avoiding the late 90s slump.

Well if you really want to improve the original Batman Franchise, Batman Returns is the film to alter. Whatever you think of that film, and I realize that there are those who think highly of Burton's sequel, the reaction to that film by Warner Brothers is what arguably what ultimately doomed the series, because it led to the demand for an exaggerated turn towards "lighter and softer", and when camp proved successful, the studio tried to cash in with a rushed sequel as soon as possible.

I think a different director will have the same pressure after Batman Returns as Schumacher did. The next film will be lighter and softer-and campier, and probably is successful. The studio will react by demanding a hastily made sequel, and the franchise will die.

I'd be interested in seeing a Raimi directed Batman film, but if you look at his Spider-Man films, I don't think you can make the argument that he'd avoid the lighter and softer turn towards camp. Based on his Spider-Man movies, I think a post-Batman Returns film would be just as goofy at least as Batman Forever was. With Raimi as the director there'd be substantial differences in terms of the plot and how the characters are presented, but the studio pressure would still be there and the consequences of that would be similar. It may take longer than it did with Schumacher but Spider-Man III demonstrates that Raimi is more than capable of making a bad superhero film in the face of studio pressure.

In terms of Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face if I remember correctly there was a contractual issue holding that back, the studio had already paid a penalty for not including Williams in Batman Returns, and would have had to pay an additional penalty to rehire him for Batman III. Besides, the problem with Two-Face in Batman Forever isn't so much who played him as how he was written. While the film does and did play lip service to the idea of Dent being split into two different personalities (He has two girlfriends, his lair is split in two, etc) he's written as basically being monomaniacal, obsessed with murdering Batman. And when push comes to shove, he'll ignore the decision of the coin to achieve that goal. His biggest character description has nothing to do with all the Two-Face window dressing. He wants to kill Batman. That's it. Actually making him Two-Face. That is, at the least actually make him obey the decision of his coin and not either ignore it or flip it repeatedly to obtain the outcome he wants, would go further to fix the character than a recast would.

Thematically, I think Harvey Dent would have been a better fit for Batman Returns. Batman Returns' theme was duality, Batman Forever's was obsession. They could have put any Batman villain in Two-Faces' place in that film. All you would have to do is to create a background where said character blames Batman for some past injury or insult and thereafter is obsessed with killing him.

Or theoretically, you could combine the Riddler and Two-Face characters, and give the Riddler a reason to obsess with Batman and Bruce Wayne.

I do wonder, what would Batman Forever have looked like had Burton gone with one of his original plans for Batman Returns?

I haven't read the earliest Burton and Waters script for that film, if it's even available, but originally the film was supposed to include Harvey Dent. Dent's role was eventually written out and replaced by Christopher Walken's character.

Batman Returns could have featured Harvey Dent in a major role, and the plot could have featured his fall from grace pretty prominently. Now I don't know whether he would have become Two-Face until the end, but given what Walken does in the film, I think Burton would have gone down the he was already falling from grace by the time his face was split road.

Now Burton also intended to use Robin, but that would probably have been cut for time in any event.

Of course, the first major butterfly from including Dent in Batman Returns is that we lose the Two-Face origin from BTAS, and that show is slightly weaker for it, although that would likely be balanced by finding a way to make another character stronger.

But the next is that he almost certainly is not included in the sequel. Warner Bros wanted to run as far away as possible from Batman Returns, which means none of the villains in that film would make an appearance in Batman Forever. Either that means a Riddler only film, or it means that they would have to find another villain to take his place.

Likewise, I understand the desire to conform to the studio's wishes to make the film series more lighthearted, but he originally wanted to do an adaptation of Year One which the studio nixed. I don't know how that translates into the ridiculously cartoonish appearance of the film.

Click to expand...

They're a lot less of a thing today than in yesteryear, but there was a time when a lot of directors in Hollywood and elsewhere in the world were just eager to please the studio. It's also been suggested to me Schumacher's interest in Batman hearkened more back to the '66 TV series than the comic books, even if he did read them some later on.

If you sit down and watch Batman and Batman Returns back-to-back, it's easy to see that the sequel wasn't that much darker than the original, so I don't know what motivated such a gross overreaction to the Studio's wishes.

Click to expand...

IIRC, there were some parent complaints and backlash since it was marketed to children - aspects of the film like the Ice Princess, Catwoman's dominatrix theme, the blatant attempted murders, etc. probably didn't appeal to the sensibilities of Reagan/Bush-era America.

I saw the thread title and this wee thing popped into my head, I would be lying if I hadn't thought of this scenario several times before . . .

"From SFX #2: July 1995

Whilst it's a shame that Johnston's "The Rocketeer" never took flight and soared like it should have, he has luckily had a second crack at the superhero blockbuster.

"Batman Forever" is over all a lighter and pulpier affair than it's predecessor, eschewing the Germman Expressionism and claustrophobia for a sunnier and more upbeat Art Deco styling. This perfectly mirrors the dichotomoy of both Billy Dee Williams "Two Face", a tragic anti-hero in the mould of the great Greek tragedies, who struggles with both his dark and light sides; the clean up Gotham campaign as seen with the first act demolition of some of the buildings seen in it's peceeding film.

Johnston manages on the whole to strike a more audience friendly balance, with most of "darkness" provided by the descent of Dee Williams "Two Face" from district attorney, to crusading vigilante until his eventual fall into outright villiany.

However the real standouts of the film are provided by the pair of counterparts to the main characters; with Jim Carrey's manipulative and scheming Riddler, a sinister yet accessible character playing games with both Batman and Two Face. This plays well against the stuggle Dent goes under.

The other standout is Marlon Wayans as the cocky, street wise and smart Robin, riffing off Batman's seriousness to great effect.

Tonally the film is somewhat lighter than "Batman Returns" and even "Batman" with some of Riddler's more bizarre death traps being a more grounded version of the comic book death traps. Of note is the final sequence set in the Gotham Museum which not only brings to mind the Dick Sprang comics or yesteryear, but utilises Johnston's skill as an effects artist and carries more than a hint of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Aside from the set pieces the quieter and connecting moments of the film belie it's . . . . troubled, production history, with some plot threads being eitehr dropped completely or quickly resolved - the worrying aspect of Alfred's war service being a particularly clunky one. Some of the dialogue is a little clunky with the script definitely suffering from rewrite-itis.

Over all however it is a solid film, quite fun with some nice shout outs and intriguing call outs.

8.5/10

Cast
Michael Keaton - Batman/Bruce Wayne
Billy Dee Williams - Harvey Dent/Two Face
Marlon Wayans - Dick Grayson/Robin
Jim Carrey - Edward Nigma/The Riddler
David Strathairn - Commisioner Gordon
Michael Gough - Alfred Pennyworth
Robin Wright - Chase Meridian


For The Fans
Holy Batsuits! - The Batsuits seen in the Batcave when Dick confronts Bruce are the Batsuits from previous films, though intriguingly show a few not seen before . . .
Holy Batsuits! (2) - The New Batsuit worn in the film is actually two seperate suits as seen in the "suiting up" sequence - A set of body armour with a thick cloth covering bringing the suit more in line with the comics.


***spoiler warning***
Don't We know Her? When Bruce mentions "I know someone who can liberate things for me." "You mean a thief?" "No a cat burgular there's a difference" - This is a reference to Selina Kyle from the previous film. We also see her photo on the board of suspects behind Commissioner Gordon
I Know A Guy - The Mr Knight who sends Bruce the puzzle box is Jack Knight, star of the "Starman" comic and son of the Golden Age Starman
Network News - The TV report features reports from Central City and Star City, home of The Flash and Green Arrow.
The Old Guard - The first portion of the mueseum that The Riddler takes over is dedicated to the Justice Society, with the Riddler pontificating in front of a large portrait of them.
The Old Guard (2) - The costume Two Face torches is Mr Terrific's costume as identified by the "Fair Play" on the front.

Cast
Billy Campbell - Clark Kent
Jennifer Connelly - Lois Lane"

More details, a plot synopsis and a general outline of the rest of the film series can be given if you want . . .

Again, Williams may have been out after Batman Returns. Studio politics, not Schumacher's intentions, was what prevented his inclusion in Batman Forever if I remember correctly. Williams was contracted to appear in Batman Returns, but Burton cut him out. The studio had to pay Williams for breach of contract. For Williams to appear in Batman Forever Warner Brothers would have had to pay Williams a second time to put him under contract again. Casting Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent after Batman Returns, if I have my facts straight, may have been prohibitively expensive for the studio. A Billy Dee Williams Two-Face was in my opinion more likely to appear in an alternate version of Batman Returns than in an alternate Batman Forever.

Marlon Waynes had already been cast as Robin for Batman Returns, and I think W.B. had to pay him in order to cast someone else in the role once Burton left. Therefore, under a different director, I think there's some chance the studio would have kept him cast. But then again, Burton had a particular vision for what Marlon Waynes Robin would be like. He's something akin to Batman's mechanic, not the circus acrobat we saw in the film that was made. This is why he was dropped. I take it that in this version of Batman III they're keeping Burton's idea for who Robin is intact. But the issue with that is that the studio wanted to depart as much as possible from Burton due to the backlash against Batman Returns.

I'm not sure that Keaton would have done a third Batman film in any event. Even by Batman Returns he seemed to be growing bored with the role.

Billy Dee Williams had an option to reprise the role but Warners paid a fee as Joel Schumacher was dead on hiring Tommy Lee Jones.

I might revisit the synopsis and redo parts of what I have planned. Who knows it might end up as a TL here.

JVM said:

They're a lot less of a thing today than in yesteryear, but there was a time when a lot of directors in Hollywood and elsewhere in the world were just eager to please the studio. It's also been suggested to me Schumacher's interest in Batman hearkened more back to the '66 TV series than the comic books, even if he did read them some later on.


IIRC, there were some parent complaints and backlash since it was marketed to children - aspects of the film like the Ice Princess, Catwoman's dominatrix theme, the blatant attempted murders, etc. probably didn't appeal to the sensibilities of Reagan/Bush-era America.

Click to expand...

JVM, I'm curious. What aspects about the Ice Princess would Reagan/Bush-era America object to? Wouldn't they like a character like her?

DrEmilSchauffhausenIII said:

JVM, I'm curious. What aspects about the Ice Princess would Reagan/Bush-era America object to? Wouldn't they like a character like her?

Click to expand...

You could make the case that she is too overtly sexual a character. But she's so minor that I don't think she could have prompted a backlash without other elements in Batman Returns.