How could the Batman Returns Backlash Have Been Avoided?

I apologize if it seems like I am flooding the board with this topic. But since I have been discussing this topic in another thread I thought it would make sense to make it its own topic and stop drifting that thread off topic.

In any event, the backlash over Tim Burton's Batman Returns is to a great extent what doomed the 1990's Batman franchise. Warner Brothers' reaction to the response to the sequel to Batman was to exert greater editorial control and to demand a lighter and softer tone, demands that lead almost inevitably to the failure of Batman and Robin. My question is to what extent could the public backlash against Burton's sequel have been avoided. Would that require Burton not directing the sequel in the first place? If so, who would Warner Brothers tap to take Burton's place? Or is there another option for avoiding the public reaction to the sequel, for example, having the studio mandate another villain in place of the Penguin?
 
Well, the reason the executives wanted to retain editorial control over Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the first place is because they ceded total control of Batman Returns to Tim Burton as a reward for doing so well with Batman - and the two films quite effectively demonstrate the difference between distilled, restrained Burton and full force Burton. It's hard to remember in this day and age of every Tim Burton film starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter and doing gangbusters at the box-office, but back then, exceptionally quirky Burton films didn't automatically always do very well (in addition to Batman Returns, we have Ed Wood, Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory didn't too terribly well compared to its budget). The best way to avoid the Batman Returns backlash is to have Batman not do as well as it did in 1989 - so that the executives will keep Burton on a leash. (Although, as the later films proved, the executives had even worse judgement than Burton did.)
 
Well, the reason the executives wanted to retain editorial control over Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the first place is because they ceded total control of Batman Returns to Tim Burton as a reward for doing so well with Batman - and the two films quite effectively demonstrate the difference between distilled, restrained Burton and full force Burton. It's hard to remember in this day and age of every Tim Burton film starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter and doing gangbusters at the box-office, but back then, exceptionally quirky Burton films didn't automatically always do very well (in addition to Batman Returns, we have Ed Wood, Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory didn't too terribly well compared to its budget). The best way to avoid the Batman Returns backlash is to have Batman not do as well as it did in 1989 - so that the executives will keep Burton on a leash. (Although, as the later films proved, the executives had even worse judgement than Burton did.)

If "full force Burton" means an inevitable backlash wouldn't having Burton decide against directing the sequel be an option? Initially at least by his account Burton was hesitant to direct the sequel. Granted that's likely to result in a generic action movie sequel which could cause problems for the franchise by itself. Warner Brothers could throw money at Burton to have him change his mind too. As I mentioned in another thread I think that the studio's demand for the Penguin will result in a weaker sequel in any event. He's just not that compelling of an antagonist.
 
If "full force Burton" means an inevitable backlash wouldn't having Burton decide against directing the sequel be an option? Initially at least by his account Burton was hesitant to direct the sequel. Granted that's likely to result in a generic action movie sequel which could cause problems for the franchise by itself. Warner Brothers could throw money at Burton to have him change his mind too.
Yes, Burton could very well leave. I do wonder what that means for Keaton - IIRC he wasn't satisfied with how much the second film focused on the villains and gave him fairly little to do, even in comparison with the first film. Maybe he could leverage for some additional creative control to keep him around if Burton leaves.

Glass Onion said:
As I mentioned in another thread I think that the studio's demand for the Penguin will result in a weaker sequel in any event. He's just not that compelling of an antagonist.
It's interesting that Burton tried making the Penguin serious at about the same time that Batman: The Animated Series attempted to do the same with Mr. Freeze. Both gimmicky villains defined by their appearances on the 1960s series - and of course, one "reimagining" was successful and the other was not. If we go with the same basic outline as the OTL film, I might suggest merging Penguin and Shreck into a patrician, non-freak-of-nature gentleman villain (with his weird bird fetish) similar to how he is in the comics.

That's similar to the TAS take on the Penguin, though they were forced to design him to make him look like he did in Returns, to their detriment.
 
Yes, Burton could very well leave. I do wonder what that means for Keaton - IIRC he wasn't satisfied with how much the second film focused on the villains and gave him fairly little to do, even in comparison with the first film. Maybe he could leverage for some additional creative control to keep him around if Burton leaves.

It's interesting that Burton tried making the Penguin serious at about the same time that Batman: The Animated Series attempted to do the same with Mr. Freeze. Both gimmicky villains defined by their appearances on the 1960s series - and of course, one "reimagining" was successful and the other was not. If we go with the same basic outline as the OTL film, I might suggest merging Penguin and Shreck into a patrician, non-freak-of-nature gentleman villain (with his weird bird fetish) similar to how he is in the comics.

That's similar to the TAS take on the Penguin, though they were forced to design him to make him look like he did in Returns, to their detriment.

I think Keaton could decide either way, though if Burton isn't there I think Warner Brothers will do everything in their power to keep him. I agree that the Penguin was a character that was in need of reinvention when Batman II was being made.

I think if Burton doesn't come back the new director may rely on Sam Hamm's Batman II script at first, which was an awful script by most accounts. It features a generic action movie villain version of the Penguin called "Mr. Boniface" who is in most respects still the same sort of gimmick villain. Now the Penguin is far from the worst part of that script, as the climax involves the Penguin and Catwoman searching for Gold underneath Bruce Wayne's mansion. And of course the new director could have his own story in mind. I can't see Danny Devito playing a more aristocratic sort of villain, which opens up the question as to who would play the Penguin if Burton didn't return. While this is usually a topic brought up for an alternate Batman III, according to an admittedly somewhat unreliable source, Billy Dee Williams' contract may have originally specified that he would play Dent and possibly Two-Face in the sequel to Batman, and Warner Brothers had to buy him out when Burton didn't use the character. If that's true, then a new director, on a tighter leash from the studio, may be unwilling to part with that sum, and Billy Dee William's Dent may play a part in Batman II.
 
Last edited:
If we are thinking of a different director who might Warner Brothers offer Batman II to? Who would have been available to accept the offer? Supposedly, the other name that came up when they were trying to replace Burton after Batman Returns was John McTiernan, who was unavailable. Would they have offered him the job a few years earlier? Granted, the source for that is questionable at best. I don't know if Warner Brothers had a plan B beyond Joel Schumacher.
 
Lessen Burton's "Burton-ness" on Returns, and keep it only as dark as Batman. It doesn't have to take much; it could just take the randomness of what story they go with. In the OTL, they went with the story they did in the way they did. They could go with something else.

The irony of the Batman franchise is Burton absolutely did not want to do a second film, but the studio coaxed him. He then got into doing Batman films and wanted to do a third, and the studio did not want him to. Keep Batman II something viable, and you get Burton for a third film at least. The tricky part is this argument: Burton was happy to do a third in the OTL because of the freedom he had on the second one, and Burton doing something not as dark as Batman Returns of the OTL would not be interested in the franchise thereafter. That's something to debate.

EDIT:

Honestly, and ideally, you should get the Batman film franchise to have the tone of the Animated Series; mature, but not ungodly grim and offputting.
 
Last edited:
Lessen Burton's "Burton-ness" on Returns, and keep it only as dark as Batman. It doesn't have to take much; it could just take the randomness of what story they go with. In the OTL, they went with the story they did in the way they did. They could go with something else.

The irony of the Batman franchise is Burton absolutely did not want to do a second film, but the studio coaxed him. He then got into doing Batman films and wanted to do a third, and the studio did not want him to. Keep Batman II something viable, and you get Burton for a third film at least. The tricky part is this argument: Burton was happy to do a third in the OTL because of the freedom he had on the second one, and Burton doing something not as dark as Batman Returns of the OTL would not be interested in the franchise thereafter. That's something to debate.

Well the question then is what element in Burton's Batman Returns solidified Burton's departure. I think the main problem is the Penguin. Without the Penguin Burton's Batman II probably would have received some complaints, but I think the reaction had a lot to do with how gross and vulgar Burton's Penguin was. Reading between the lines of what Burton has said, I do not think that he wanted to use the Penguin. He didn't know what to do with the character initially. But Warner Brothers "really wanted" the Penguin, and Burton did what he could. For all the talk about how the studio gave Burton too much leeway, to an extent they didn't give him enough, because if they hadn't more or less demanded the Penguin Batman Returns would have ended up a different and possibly more successful film.

If Tim Burton didn't have to use the Penguin, I think Batman Return's villains would have been Catwoman and Harvey Dent. I would love to see what Burton's taken on Harvey Dent would have been. Granted, that would have hobbled BTAS somewhat as they wouldn't have been allowed to create their own origin for their version of the character if Burton did his take, which means the show would lose some great episodes. However, that would probably be balanced with some good episodes on other characters.
 
To make Returns better you need to cut down the Villian's to just Catwoman and X - personally I think Dent over Penguin would have worked as it kept it more city/corp based where Catwoman tends to work.

A tighter script and perhaps a little more oversight of Burton and you have a hit, leading to Burton doing the third...
 
To make Returns better you need to cut down the Villian's to just Catwoman and X - personally I think Dent over Penguin would have worked as it kept it more city/corp based where Catwoman tends to work.

A tighter script and perhaps a little more oversight of Burton and you have a hit, leading to Burton doing the third...
Hmm... How about THIS Catwoman? :p
Batman.jpg
 
Top