DBWI: No Dark Knight Returns movie in 1988?

So as we all know, the 1988 Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Returns" was baised on the 1986 graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller, who was brought on as a production consultant. The film is largely credited with bringing the 1980s "comic revolution" created by DKR and Watchmen (which would itself get a highly acclaimed movie in 1989 thanks to DKR the movie's success) into the pop culture "mainstream". Adam West won an academy award for his role as grizzled older Batman, and in the process completly deconstructed and overshadowed his earlier role of Batman as portrayed by the infamously campy 1960s TV show. Casting Christopher Reeve to play opposite him as Superman made the epic battle scene at the end of the film even more memorable, not to mention what a good Joker Mark Hamill was. So good he even did the voice of the Joker in the 1990s cartoon! Director Quentin Tarantino, who had his major studio debut with this film, would go on to change film forever in later decades. So what if this highly successful, highly acclaimed, and highly controvertial movie of the comic was never made? What if the studio had gone with it's original plan to use an original script, with Tim Burton directing, and Michael Keaton as Batman? Would such a radically different movie have been nearly as influential?
 
Last edited:
Almost definitely, the third Robin in the comics will be another boy. Tara Drake was made a girl purely because of the good reception Carrie Kelly got in TDKR.

(OOC: Quentin Tarantino? No. This predates Tarantino's career by four years. I'd like to point out that Tarantino's first film, Reservoir Dogs, was made by a no-name studio with a budget of only $1.2 million. Also, a Watchmen movie will take longer than just one year to make -- it wouldn't be released until 1990 at the very earliest. Longer, if the 1988 Writers' Strike still goes ahead in TTL.)
 
Maybe if this hadn't happened we wouldn't have gotten those god-awful rushed Marvel adaptions in the early '90's trying to cash in. I mean come on, those were terrible... I mean don't even get me started on Spider-Man '91... rushed to include as many villains as possible, and godawful character development... I practically cheered when they killed Gwen Stacey in that one, ugh.
 
Maybe if this hadn't happened we wouldn't have gotten those god-awful rushed Marvel adaptions in the early '90's trying to cash in. I mean come on, those were terrible... I mean don't even get me started on Spider-Man '91... rushed to include as many villains as possible, and godawful character development... I practically cheered when they killed Gwen Stacey in that one, ugh.
Yeah, that one sucked. I mean come on, why cast Pauly Shore as Spiderman? What the hell where they thinking? Maybe if that movie never came out, Marvel wouldn't have gone bankrupt in 1996 and then be bought out by DC. But then, they did loose most of their best writters to Infinity* and some of their best artists to Vision**, so once all the talent vanished, they where forced to put out shitty comics, which means the bankrupcy would've been inevitable by the point the Spider-man movie came out anyway.***

OOC:
*Infinity Comics, TTL's Valiant Comics.
**Vision Comics, TTL's Image Comics.
***All this happened in OTL too. The reason why the 90s is so poorly remembered in the realm of comics is because Marvel's quality fell quite a bit after loosing talent to Valiant and Image. In OTL Marvel also went Bankrupt in 1997, but was able to turn itself around. Not so in TTL. DC bought them out and Infinty and Vision are their main competitors now.
 
Last edited:
Top