WI: Batman Begins failed at the box-office?

[Kynan]

As in the title, big (John Carter like) flop financially and less praise critically. What would be the ramifications for this style POD? My thoughts are:

1- A Batman reboot sometime in the near future, probably in the early to mid 2010s.

2- No influx of darker comic book and action films in the late 2000s. If most goes OTL early on then there would be more 'Spiderman-like' films.

3- Superman Returns would be marketed much differently, pushing the film as 'lighter' and 'funner'. Probably messed with by studio to make it more in like with Spiderman.

Thoughts?

 

[The Uchronian]

As in the title, big (John Carter like) flop financially and less praise critically. What would be the ramifications for this style POD? My thoughts are:

1- A Batman reboot sometime in the near future, probably in the early to mid 2010s.

2- No influx of darker comic book and action films in the late 2000s. If most goes OTL early on then there would be more 'Spiderman-like' films.

3- Superman Returns would be marketed much differently, pushing the film as 'lighter' and 'funner'. Probably messed with by studio to make it more in like with Spiderman.

Thoughts?

Sounds plausible to me, TBH. Though, I'd like to ask: What If Watchmen still succeeds about as well as it did IOTL?

 

[Kynan]

Sounds plausible to me, TBH. Though, I'd like to ask: What If Watchmen still succeeds about as well as it did IOTL?

Well, if it comes together at all (it is quite possibly butterflied away) than it may lead to similar projects. But also, it may be affected in the script department. More comedic, less serious. If it isn't changed greatly, then it may be a game-changer without Batman Begins to hold that title. I haven't personally seen the film (I was 11 when it came out and quite obsessed with Harry Potter) it seems like, with a lighter general aesthetic to contrast with it, it may be a push for more serious action/superhero films.

 

[JVM]

As said, Superman Returns is affected. Dunno if that'd help or hurt that particular movie.

Spider-Man 3 might edge out slightly better, maybe the studio doesn't push Venom since h'es still the dominant hero character. Marvel mostly continues as usual.

I'd say Watchmen does better at the box office, maybe release it in the summer or try to cut it down to a PG-13 rating. The cry for dark sperhero movies still comes, but a bit later. We see a new Batman reboot in summer 2011 instead of Green Lantern, which is in development longer and fine-tuned more. Maybe the new Batman, GL and Man of Steel films come out in sequence in 2011-2014 and launch a proper JLA.

 

[MatthewZD]

What causes Batman Begins to flop? Different director/cast/story/combo of all three? I think that's the only way it flops.

After the misadventure with Bat nipples and Arnold on ice they would have to have really wanted to do bad to do worse.

 

[Magniac]

Isn't the X-Men series the original foundation of the dark & gritty (for PG-13) modern superhero genre?

Or maybe we've decided in 2014 that any X-Man film without Jim and Mike is totally naff.

 

[Admiral Ackbar]

Adjusted for inflation, Batman Begins had the lowest opening weekend of any of the modern live action Batman films. So that shows that the Schumacher films damaged the brand. But because BB had good reviews and great WOM, it had much better legs than Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin.

So the only way to do this is to have a disastrously bad film. Get a different director and script from the get go, have troubles on set with script changes and actors threatening to quit, maybe the director gets fired midway, and the film goes way over budget. If the trailer looks like crap you could have an even lower opening weekend, and if the word of mouth is bad then you have a chance to keep the final domestic take to less than $100 million.

Maybe have Aronofsky stay with the project until filming begins, and it goes into production a few years earlier than the Nolan version (filming starts the summer before 9/11). This means there isn't as much space between the awful Batman and Robin film and the reboot. Then have Aronofsky fighting with the studio and the actors over his vision of the film, with him wanting to go with a dark psychological thriller take on Bruce Wayne/Batman. Have him replaced midway by some hack who decides to camp it up worse than Schumacher because the studio is worried the public won't respond well to a dark film just as 9/11 happens. Then you get a crappy Batman film rushed to theaters to meet a summer 2002 deadline.

 

[ColeMercury]

Adjusted for inflation, Batman Begins had the lowest opening weekend of any of the modern live action Batman films. So that shows that the Schumacher films damaged the brand. But because BB had good reviews and great WOM, it had much better legs than Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin.

So the only way to do this is to have a disastrously bad film. Get a different director and script from the get go, have troubles on set with script changes and actors threatening to quit, maybe the director gets fired midway, and the film goes way over budget. If the trailer looks like crap you could have an even lower opening weekend, and if the word of mouth is bad then you have a chance to keep the final domestic take to less than $100 million.

Maybe have Aronofsky stay with the project until filming begins, and it goes into production a few years earlier than the Nolan version (filming starts the summer before 9/11). This means there isn't as much space between the awful Batman and Robin film and the reboot. Then have Aronofsky fighting with the studio and the actors over his vision of the film, with him wanting to go with a dark psychological thriller take on Bruce Wayne/Batman. Have him replaced midway by some hack who decides to camp it up worse than Schumacher because the studio is worried the public won't respond well to a dark film just as 9/11 happens. Then you get a crappy Batman film rushed to theaters to meet a summer 2002 deadline.

It can actually take very little to derail a movie.

Batman Forever is actually a perfect example. Despite the camp, the purple Two-Face, the Batsuit nipples, the antigravity Batmobile and all the rest of it, the original cut of Batman Forever could very well have been the best movie of the three. It was the first one that was actually about Batman. It explained and rectified Batman killing criminals in the first two movies. It set up its villains as dark reflections of Bruce. It delved into Bruce's past, uncovered the guilt that drove him to become Batman and then brought him to a place of inner peace where he could be Batman out of choice. It introduced Robin -- an integral character since the second year of the comic's existence-- and handled his story almost perfectly (my only issue being that he was clearly a man in his early twenties written like a teenager). And really, in terms of camp there was nothing there that was any worse than an army of remote-controlled bomb-toting penguins. So what happened to it? Basically, Warner Bros wanted to ensure it was as family-friendly as possible and hacked it to death in editing.

So I'm just saying, Batman Begins doesn't need to drastically change. It only needs to change just enough to be not good enough.

 

[black angel]

I'm so much happier because I never have to deal with people straight faced telling me that The Dark Knight is a great movie

 

[Orville_third]

Perhaps Heath Ledger is still with us. Perhaps Christian Bale is out of acting. (No fan of either of them.)
Perhaps the backlash from the film's failure washes back on DC, removing Dan DiDio from his position. Perhaps the New 52 and similar ideas are undone.
Perhaps the Aurora massacre never occurs- or, OTOH, perhaps the gunman decides to do more with explosives- and directly or indirectly blows up his apartment complex.

 

[JVM]

It can actually take very little to derail a movie.

Batman Forever is actually a perfect example. Despite the camp, the purple Two-Face, the Batsuit nipples, the antigravity Batmobile and all the rest of it, the original cut of Batman Forever could very well have been the best movie of the three. It was the first one that was actually about Batman. It explained and rectified Batman killing criminals in the first two movies. It set up its villains as dark reflections of Bruce. It delved into Bruce's past, uncovered the guilt that drove him to become Batman and then brought him to a place of inner peace where he could be Batman out of choice. It introduced Robin -- an integral character since the second year of the comic's existence-- and handled his story almost perfectly (my only issue being that he was clearly a man in his early twenties written like a teenager). And really, in terms of camp there was nothing there that was any worse than an army of remote-controlled bomb-toting penguins. So what happened to it? Basically, Warner Bros wanted to ensure it was as family-friendly as possible and hacked it to death in editing.

So I'm just saying, Batman Begins doesn't need to drastically change. It only needs to change just enough to be not good enough.

So much fuckin' this.

(Funnily enough, the first time I saw BF that was exactly what I thought - it felt like a good movie that'd been cut down into shit. Is there an extended cut available or something?)

 

[Devolved]

As in the title, big (John Carter like) flop financially and less praise critically. What would be the ramifications for this style POD? My thoughts are:

1- A Batman reboot sometime in the near future, probably in the early to mid 2010s.

2- No influx of darker comic book and action films in the late 2000s. If most goes OTL early on then there would be more 'Spiderman-like' films.

3- Superman Returns would be marketed much differently, pushing the film as 'lighter' and 'funner'. Probably messed with by studio to make it more in like with Spiderman.

Thoughts?

If Batman Begins flops then no one is touching Batman for another 5 years. It would convince many that Batman was unfilmable both as camp and as realistic.

Christopher Nolan goes back to low budget movies until he is given another chance. There's no Inception.

Superman Returns is viewed more favourably though it may not be enough to secure a sequel.

The Spiderman Trilogy (at least one and two) are still seen as the gold standard for comic book movies.

As someone else said the X-Men series had already introduced a darker grittier side.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

What causes Batman Begins to flop? Different director/cast/story/combo of all three? I think that's the only way it flops.

After the misadventure with Bat nipples and Arnold on ice they would have to have really wanted to do bad to do worse.

Given the poster above, have all the dialogue dubbed in French.... that would kill its success in the US.

 

[viewcode]

Christopher Nolan's "Dredd" (2010)

As in the title, big (John Carter like) flop financially and less praise critically. What would be the ramifications for this style POD? My thoughts are:

1- A Batman reboot sometime in the near future, probably in the early to mid 2010s.

2- No influx of darker comic book and action films in the late 2000s. If most goes OTL early on then there would be more 'Spiderman-like' films.

3- Superman Returns would be marketed much differently, pushing the film as 'lighter' and 'funner'. Probably messed with by studio to make it more in like with Spiderman.

Thoughts?

Batman Begins is mutilated by studio exec Random Furqwhit, and although still earning some praise, it does not do good box office. Nolan and his brother relocate to London temporarily to consider their career. Whilst there, they note the planned "Dredd" reboot and partner into it. Filming takes place in 2009, with Karl Urban coming straight off the "Star Trek" reboot and Lena Headey coming straight off "300" (IOTL she does Terminator:TSCC, which this butterflies away) and is released in 2010, a full year before "The Raid: Redemption". The plot is similar to IOTL Dredd but cost control is even better, and with tax breaks from the Isle of Man. The movie is a modest success and makes a small profit, rising to a bigger profit with DVD and TV sales. The sequel is greenlit in 2011 and will be released later this year.

 

[oshron]

Perhaps Heath Ledger is still with us. Perhaps Christian Bale is out of acting. (No fan of either of them.)

Ledger would definitely still be alive. him dying by overdose is probably misunderstood by alot of people, making them think he was a junkie, when that really wasn't the case: both he and Bale are method actors, so when Batman is fighting Joker at the end of TDK, Bale is actually physically beating the shit out of Ledger. those aren't stage punches, he is actually being pummeled to make the whole thing more convincing. that's why he was on the painkillers in the first place, leading to his overdose and death. (as an aside, i wonder how Bale himself feels about all that?)

going further, Bale probably wouldn't be as big a name without his role as Batman. assuming Terminator Salvation is still made, he may not play John Connor.

another one may be that the Arkham series of video games is butterflied. Batman will always be popular, and Arkham is based very much on both the comics and the animated series (even having Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprise their respective roles) but without the Nolan series, there may be less incentive to produce the game. even if it is made and is as good as it was IOTL, one thing would almost certainly come to pass: the Joker would look different, as he's a composite of pretty much all previous Jokers. in particular, he'd probably lack the glasgow smile that Ledger's Joker has, which in my opinion really works to truly portray the Joker as a psychotic clown. here's a picture of Hamill's Joker from the animated series:

he looks very much like a clown, but here's another pic of the same character:

while the Joker usually has a smile on his face, with this general getup (and even considering him having a physically modified face in some versions so that it's fixed in a grin (like Nicholson's Joker) the glasgow smile on Ledger's really sells him as a clown even though alot of times he's frowning (even considering that he, too, has a scarred face which technically means he's always smiling)

looking at Ledger's face here, you can see that he's frowning, but the makeup really makes him look more like the classic clown where, regardless of his actual expression, he appears to be smiling. for a bit more context, here's Pagliacci, also with a glasgow smile but very sad