WI: 80s Batman Comedy Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
It depends who oversees it. You could have a zany Zucker bros. Batman. The picture in my mind is of a comedy like Ghostbusters, or maybe Trading Places or Coming to America or Groundhogs Day or any of those other movies which are comedies but have a feeling of being a real world that's just funny. You could also perhaps have a dark comedy with someone like Joe Dante.
 
Well the overall reason it didn't work is that Joel Schumacher was handling Batman. And we've learned since you cannot allow that, as bad things happen.

I don't think it didn't work, to be honest, but something different should have been done in retrospect. And it was, because in the original cut the film was much more serious and darker. It was made lighter in tone via editing. The darker cut, closer to the Burton duology, has not yet been released. Not to say Jim Carry wasn't playing the giddy Riddler, but in the original cut, that was subverted because he was a nut job. In the jewlery store scene, for instance, where it cuts in the the film, the original cut had it where he and Two Face beat the man after (or whatever it was).
Another problem for all the films after the 1989 film was that they really wanted every villain to be the Joker. The Penguin gets a Joker's gang, Two Face and Riddler get Joker characteristics, etc. That did not work.

Regardless, this is a comedy film. A Frank Gorshin version of the Riddler could work.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here, I was totally disappointed in Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of Two Face. At the time I thought it a great bit of casting but no Schumacher and the scriptwriter ruined what could have been a great role and performance.
As for Carry I blamed the script again, he wasn't bad but he wasn't good either.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with you here, I was totally disappointed in Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of Two Face. At the time I thought it a great bit of casting but no Schumacher and the scriptwriter ruined what could have been a great role and performance.
As for Carry I blamed the script again, he wasn't bad but he wasn't good either.

Reportedly, things on the set weren't that great either. Val Kilmer was extremely egotistical and insufferable, which is why he wasn't asked back for the sequel (which turned out to be a blessing in disguise). Tommy Lee Jones got along terribly with Jim Carrey, calling him a clown and a monkey and viewing him as not fit to be an actor. They didn't go around one another except during their scenes together. And I have heard there was a physical altercation between Carrey and Jones.

But that's another topic.
 
Here's how I can see the film. Either as starting from square one where Bill Murray is Bruce Wayne and Eddie Murphy is Robin, and maybe make Eddie Murphy into the role as butler as well to give him more of a reason to be Robin, a comic relief potential of the downtrodden guy who has to follow his boss on his whacky stuff, and to play on 80s race discussion comedy. Or, to either have him be the son or nephew of Bruce Wayne, who has potentially died and left him this mansion or who could still be alive, and Murray discovers the Batman stuff and becomes Batman, and then Murray takes on the mantle of Batman with Eddie Murphy as his friend or butler or whatever becoming Robin. Murphy could be either a preexisting friend, or he could be like a criminial or an average guy who Murray takes under his wing and makes his friend. In that latter case, Murray could just play some schlub who either Bruce Wayne takes under his wing or who stumbles across Batman stuff or for whatever reason decides to become the Batman.

In whatever case, I would see Adam West and Burt Ward doing some cameo or cameo role with at least one "this looks familiar" moment. West could be Batman in a film that links up with the original series or is a separate thing but still decides to cast West as Batman, or he could play Commissioner Gordon, or he could just make a brief cameo.

In whatever case, I feel an 80s Batman comedy would be like Trading Places or Ghosbusters or any of those comedies similar to those in tone, rather than some whacky attempt at camp. There may be a brief homage moment to campiness, but I do not believe had this film happened, camp would have been the tone. On a similar note, I could see a number of homages to the 60s show laced throughout the film. I could also see that "f**k the original fans" trope of something from the 60s show or Batman in general being brought up which is true to either the Batman show or the comics, and then the characters being "oh, that's silly/stupid".
 
If it's successful it could have an impact on comics and bring back the silver age silliness.

I don't believe it would. The 60s show didn't bring campiness back in comics during its era. As I mentioned some time ago, the Batman TV show was a step backwards, as the Silver age Batman had already started to get serious by 1964 in direct response to the campiness of the 50s Batman leading the comic book to failure. The TV show hearkened back to that silliness, with added mockery of comic books for parody effect, and was a major success (for a time) as a result, which is very ironic given what happened to the comics.

The Batman comic, and comics in general, went on with a major chip on their shoulder of how the Batman show made the public perceive them. The 80s itself, leading up to the Batman film in 1989, was a hardcore run at making Batman badass and making comics in general very badass; perhaps too much so, as the 90s Dark Age attests to. The comics won't go back. DC would make sure to market the hell out of them to cash in with the film, but they wouldn't go back.
 
It is also important to discuss the reaction to this film. A large part we can presume from the reaction Michael Keaton's casting received in the OTL. It was very much feared that that meant it would be a comedy, and it received scorn from many places, and even was covered with disdain on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. It also lead to Bob Kane expressing his disappointment and boos from the crowds at comic book conventions.

Such would be the reaction to this alternate film were it to have happened. It would have sunk comic book fans' hearts and lead to them ridiculing the film and expressing disdain at it, it would have lead to some criticism in the press, and it would have disappointed Bob Kane*. I do think that were it a well done film, the general public would like it, the press and critics would like it (as they have no investment in comics), and I do think at least segments of the comic book fan community would soften to it when all was said and done, and I think any controversy would generate some increased interest in it which would help it at the box office. It would break comic fans' hearts, but I do think it could be a success.

If it were a success, I could see the studio calling for another sequel or multiple sequels. They would not go into the first film thinking of a franchise. During this era, that would only come after the fact. The difficulty with that is Bill Murray is a bit stodgy on sequels. As it was, it took him a bit of convincing to do Ghostbusters II, and when that film was only mediocre, he has yet in 20-some years to sign on for Ghostbusters III. He has high comedy standards. So Bill Murray may not sign on to do a sequel, or if the sequel is not well recieved, he may not sign on to do any subsequent films. I could certainly see some problems with a sequel from the word go, because the nerd community would be so hard on Bill Murray over this (first) film. Frankly, it could tarnish his nerd community legacy, because it would be Bill Murray was the icon in Ghostbusters "but he also did that Batman film". If Bill Murray receives enough of a beating over it, he may well turn down a chance to reprise the role. This whole thing could also turn Bill Murray off of the idea of Ghostbusters II, if the original as it was isn't butterflied away. If it doesn't, it coupled with Ghostbusters II (if it turns out like it did) could turn Bill Murray off of the idea of comedy sequels even more so than he has been in actuality.

*Being the thieving glory hound liar he was, it wouldn't break my heart for Bob Kane to be crushed.

EDIT:

One of the effects of an alternate Batman film, an any one period, would be an alternate default Bat logo. That one that you see of any merchandise or product associated with Batman was created for the 1989 Batman film. So that would be different, and a symbol associated with a comedy is one I do not believe would be used as the universal corporate Bat symbol. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the one used as the defacto universal symbol before the 1989 symbol was the Batman logo where his face was where the bat's face was.
 
Last edited:
Could it be a comedy & still be true to Bats? I think so.

Recall Rorschach. He's a maniac--but it's funny. (IDK how disturbed we should all be with ourselves that it is.:eek::eek:)

So consider Bats as Rorschach (who was, after all, "Batman without the excuses"): a very GA Bats with a very, very twisted sense of right & wrong. It could be screamingly funny,:cool: & very, very dark indeed.:eek:

I also invite you to recall Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol, which was mind-warpingly weird, but could also be very funny. And also Keith Giffen's JLI. And also "Soap".

They're proof it's possible to sneak serious social commentary in under the laughter.
 
Last edited:

Sycamore

Banned
Bumping this instead of starting my own thread, due to the revelation that Ivan Reitman was indeed approached by Warner Brothers as the first choice director for their Batman film IOTL. It's not just a rumor- it's been confirmed that it actually happened IOTL.

In the early '80s, before Tim Burton got involved in the franchise, Warner Bros. hired screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz to write a Batman film that would have been much lighter, closer in tone to Superman: The Movie or the Roger Moore 007 films (two of which Mankiewicz had also written). Bruce Wayne would have been a smooth-talking, womanizing playboy who drove an Aston Martin and had a giant Batcave just like in the comics, complete with a giant penny and mechanical dinosaur.

Since Reitman had just directed Ghostbusters successfully, which was a film that also included gadgets and high-concept, effects-driven action sequences, they offered the director's chair to him first. For this version, Warner Bros also drew up a casting list- Bill Murray, from Ghostbusters and Stripes, would have starred in the lead role of Bruce Wayne/Batman, with Eddie Murphy co-starring as a wisecracking Robin (yes, Robin would have been black in this version of Batman. And played by Eddie Murphy). David Niven would have played the role of Alfred, and David Bowie would have been the Joker.

Eventually, the studio changed its mind and took the movie in a different direction, resulting in the biggest box office phenomenon ever at that time (although they did still hire a comedian to play the Dark Knight). But what would have happened if they hadn't decided to change direction, and had gone ahead with their original plans?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top