Transition from Returns to Forever

[Pair of Jokers]

While technically it is a continuous series from B89 to B&R, there is an obvious change in the look, feel, and general mood from the B89 and Returns films to the Forever and B&R films.

This is due to three main factors:

1. Keaton vs Kilmer/Clooney
2. Burton's dark Gotham vs Schumacher's neon tinged Gotham
3. Villains who took thmeselves seriously vs cartoonish villains

Anybody who frequents this site knows all of the above.


My question is why and how this change from Returns to Forever came about.

Any information from anyone would be welcome, and this post can be very general.


Some things to get it started:

- Why was Keaton not Batman in the third installment? Most likely he declined, but why after the first two were so successful?

-Why did Burton stop directing and move to "producer"? His first two films were so beautiful and haunting, perfect for Batman.

- What happened to Catwoman? At the end of Returns, her appearance clearly sets up her being in the third movie, and yet her only mention in the movie is a quick (though clever) throwaway line by Nicole Kidman. This is very hard to imagine after watching Returns and how it ends. This is the equivalent of the Joker not being in the Begins sequel (after seeing Gordon's playing card).

-Why the change in Gotham city? Why the neon? The frist two films were highly successful, why change something that was working?

-Something I did find intereting was the scene with Keaton/Selena in the Mansion and Kilmer/Kidman in the Mansion. It seems to be in the exact same room because of the enormous fireplace in both scenes. In Returns, they are sitting in front of it, in Forever, they are on the side of it.

I can only imagine the greatness of Forever if it had been directed by Burton, starring Keaton, and populated by Catwoman and a realistic Joker and Two-Face.

What a shame.

[Two-Face]

I can answer some of the question you asked

"- Why was Keaton not Batman in the third installment? Most likely he declined, but why after the first two were so successful?"


Keaton read the script for Forever descide not the do it thought it was getting too campy and heard that Burton won't return as director he quit.

"-Why did Burton stop directing and move to "producer"? His first two films were so beautiful and haunting, perfect for Batman."

Well parents thought Batman Returns was too dark wanted nice friendy movie for their kids. Burton stopped as director so he recommed Schumacher to WB.

I may be wrong sdo don't hold me on that I hope this helps.

[newwaveboy87]

no no Schumacher called up Burton and got his blessing. and so in gradituted Schumacher put Burton's name down as a producer on Batman Forever, when in reality he didn't do anything for the movie.

although Schumacher also created the character of Dr. Burton in Arkham as a homage to Tim. the character has a similar hairstyle and glasses to Burton.

[Two-Face]

Thanks for correction.

[Detective Flass]

Wayne Enterprise and Arkham Asylum were introduced in the Shumacher films and not in the Burton films. I guess that's a plus...

[snwboarder88]

hows that a plus? it would have been awesome to see Burtons take on the Arkham Asylum!

[JLBats]

It was all because of Schumacher.

[Pair of Jokers]

Burton's taKe on Arkham - wow.

That would have been amazing.


It's a shame that WB sacrificed the art for the mass appeal.

It wasn't worth it.

[skruloos]

- Why was Keaton not Batman in the third installment? Most likely he declined, but why after the first two were so successful?
He didn't like the way the sequel was going. He wanted a prequel where his character would be able to shine more and get into the meat of why he IS Batman. He also didn't like that Burton wasn't doing it.


-Why did Burton stop directing and move to "producer"? His first two films were so beautiful and haunting, perfect for Batman.
Look at Burton's filmography. He's not a big fan of sequels. The only way he could do Returns was by thinking it was essentially a standalone movie. Plus, parents and the WB didn't like Batman Returns so the WB was going to exercise more control over the project.


- What happened to Catwoman? At the end of Returns, her appearance clearly sets up her being in the third movie, and yet her only mention in the movie is a quick (though clever) throwaway line by Nicole Kidman. This is very hard to imagine after watching Returns and how it ends. This is the equivalent of the Joker not being in the Begins sequel (after seeing Gordon's playing card).
She was intended to spin off into her own film. That later (much later) resulted in the craptastic CINO.


-Why the change in Gotham city? Why the neon? The frist two films were highly successful, why change something that was working?
Every director that tackles a franchise is going to do it their way. Otherwise, they're just cookie cutters with no style of their own. Keep an eye on Brett Ratner and we'll see what he keeps from Singer's original films. Chances are, he'll keep a lot of it the same. That's because he has no style of his own.

[The Chairman]

Burton I agree left out of anger toward WB who wanted him to make a family friendly version of The Dark Knight. Burton didn't want to do it so he left.

Keaton left because of Burton's departure and the script. He was actually signed on and had been fitted into the new Batsuit. But then he read the script and he just backed out.

As for everything else, blame Schm*ckmocker.

[DocLathropBrown]

Sorry Anthony, but Keaton didn't even get that far. He refused to sign on until he saw the script when he heard Tim was leaving and they weren't going in a direction he liked. He never went past the negotiatons stage. He met Joel and read the script and saw what they were going, and knew it was the wrong thing. So he left. Warners even tried to give him some outrageous amount of cash (for 1995) to return, but he still declined. It was like 35-50 million.... somewhere in there.

As for the films? I don't count the Schumacher films as part of the Burton continuity, myself. Joel took serious looking cities and tossed them out the window. Keaton's Batman wouldn't be caught dead with a partner or nipples, either.

[SeriousDuke]

I wish Burton would have made Batman Forever..... imagine his Arkham..... imagine his Two-Face..... his Riddler...... even his Robin. Then Burton could have made a FOURTH one on how Batman became Batman..... to fulfill Keaton's wish!

Then we wouldn't have had to even WORRY about Schu*****er! And then BB could have came out and made more money.... they wouldn't have had that bad, bad, bad taste in their mouth from B&R....

[snwboarder88]

i actually like B&R...ha, atleast better than Forever, only thing i like about that movie is how funny Riddler is and how hot Barrymore is.

[Two-Face]

i actually like B&R...ha, atleast better than Forever, only thing i like about that movie is how funny Riddler is and how hot Barrymore is.



Forever has Nicole Kidman in it! came on you don't like Kidman?

[skruloos]

I wish Burton would have made Batman Forever..... imagine his Arkham..... imagine his Two-Face..... his Riddler...... even his Robin. Then Burton could have made a FOURTH one on how Batman became Batman..... to fulfill Keaton's wish!

Then we wouldn't have had to even WORRY about Schu*****er! And then BB could have came out and made more money.... they wouldn't have had that bad, bad, bad taste in their mouth from B&R....
Probably not. The whole reason why the WB let Nolan go his way in such a serious manner and gave him full control was because of what happened with B&R. Without B&R, Begins might be totally different.

[SeriousDuke]

^^True. But would we even need BB if Batman 3 and 4 were like I said, extremely good Burton films starring Keaaton?

[skruloos]

^^True. But would we even need BB if Batman 3 and 4 were like I said, extremely good Burton films starring Keaaton?
Well...yes. I know I would. Burton never got it right for me. He made okay movies but it wasn't the vision of Batman I ever wanted to see. Nolan has come closer.

And let's take a look at some odds here.

Returns was much more a Tim Burton movie than the first Batman was. He pushed the character further into his Burton fantasy. It would only stand to reason that his follow up movie would have gone even further into Burton's style. That may be fine for fans of morbid, gothic fantasias but it's not fine for me.

Look at most sequel franchises. The first two movies are often the best in any series and then the franchise begins to lose steam. Look at Superman. Look at Alien. Maintaining the quality of a product over the course of a franchise is extremely difficult. And seeing Burton's spotty track record and the fact that he isn't really interested in sequels, I would lean towards the quality of the succeeding movies to diminish.

[Punisher RULES]

- What happened to Catwoman? At the end of Returns, her appearance clearly sets up her being in the third movie, and yet her only mention in the movie is a quick (though clever) throwaway line by Nicole Kidman. This is very hard to imagine after watching Returns and how it ends. This is the equivalent of the Joker not being in the Begins sequel (after seeing Gordon's playing card).



When did she mention Catwoman? :confused:

[cryptic name]

When did she mention Catwoman? :confused:

"you like strong women, i've done my homework. or do i need skin-tight vinyl and a whip?"

[Catman]

Pair of Jokers, I know you're new to the forum, but a simple search would have helped. These things have been discussed A MILLION times over the years. But...I'll give you a quick history:

To begin with Burton did not want to do a sequel. He was eventually talked into it after WB gave him 100% creative control, which he did not have in the original. With the death of Anton Furst a new production designer was brought in. His name is Bo Welch and Burton allowed him to do something different. The film was also moved from London (where B89 was shot) to Los Angeles cause shooting in London had become to expensive. Batman Returns upon its release was very controversial. Parents HATED the film, which is why he was fired from the third installment. He was added as Producer for advertisment purposes. He didn't really contribute anything to the film. Other than the first draft of the film. Schumacher was ordered by WB to make a more kid-friendly film. Which is why Keaton dropped out. He wanted the film to be even darker. Kilmer was brought in, and if you know anything about Kilmer he has the habit of signing up for projects without thinking about it. When he realized Forever was gonna be a camp-fest he protested throughout the whole film and eventually Schumacher decided not to bring back Kilmer. Now, with Burton and Kilmer out of the story, Schumacher made Batman & Robin. The rest as they say is...history.

[SHADOWBAT69]

the only reason that Kidman line was put in is so the general audience could have the connection to the previous 2 movies, as per WB. Schumacher didnt want a connection, he wanted his own new version.

[Catman]

What are you talking about? Batman Forever is VERY connected to Returns. Despite what many people say Tim Burton was involved in Batman Forever. After he completed Batman Returns he realized he didn't really explain certain things. Which is why HE WANTED to do a third film. Just go watch the Encore Director's Chair program. He spoke about this. After Returns was hated by parents WB didn't really want him back. They didn't exactly say "We don't want you!" but Burton said he could feel in the room when he would go to meetings that they didn't really want him back. Burton was able to somewhat work on the first draft of the script. Batman Forever is Bruce Wayne's redemption. In Returns Bruce Wayne questions being Batman. After killing the Joker he doesn't know if he should continue. More of this would is explained in Forever. Remember the whole Kilmer speech about fighting a new face every night? And remember when Robin says "Your parents weren't murdered by a madman" and Kilmer says "they were." He was referring to Joker. All this comes from Burton. It was Schumacher and Akiva Goldsman who tried to depart as much as possible. But still keep the general idea.

[newwaveboy87]

Tim Burton DID work an a rough outline for the three films. one being his coming to terms with being Batman and fighting his parents killer, the second one being about his confusion over whether or not to continue being Batman, and the third was going to be his retribution and his realizing he must be Batman FOREVER. hence the title.

but other then that, he didn't have much to do with the movie beyond that one tiny point. Producer-In-Name-Only.

[Catman]

I agree that Tim Burton was Producer-In-Name-Only. But, he was involved long enough for his presence to be felt. The following scenes are in Batman Forever BECAUSE of Tim Burton:

-The flashback scenes. Notice how they STAND OUT from the rest of the film.
-Arkham. Again...it STANDS OUT.
-Bruce Wayne repressed memories triggered by the death of the Dick's parents.
-Bruce Wayne's speech about a new face everynight and confirming to Dick that his parents were murdered by a madman.
-"I am Batman not because I have to be. But...because I choose to be!"

Also, notice how nothing like in the above is in Batman & Robin. A film which has no Burton in its credits. And, no Kilmer as well.

[Keyser Sushi]

Have a cigar, Catman. :up:

[newwaveboy87]

I agree that Tim Burton was Producer-In-Name-Only. But, he was involved long enough for his presence to be felt. The following scenes are in Batman Forever BECAUSE of Tim Burton:

-The flashback scenes. Notice how they STAND OUT from the rest of the film.
-Arkham. Again...it STANDS OUT.
-Bruce Wayne repressed memories triggered by the death of the Dick's parents.
-Bruce Wayne's speech about a new face everynight and confirming to Dick that his parents were murdered by a madman.
-"I am Batman not because I have to be. But...because I choose to be!"

Also, notice how nothing like in the above is in Batman & Robin. A film which has no Burton in its credits. And, no Kilmer as well.

lots of that stuff with Dick was supposed to be in either 89 or Returns cause he was in both scripts originally, and depenign on which one it was, either Joker or someone else killed his parents. also there was the OTHER people who wrote the script, their names escape me, but they helped keep some of the tone from the previous films. they helped to hold the reigns in from it going into overly campy territories.

and as i said before, lots of the story ideas were already worked out by Burton for his trilogy. which is why a lot of those scenes you just mentioned sstand out from the rest of the film.

check out timburtoncollective for a lot of the missing story, and what could've been. just go to the filmography and scroll down to the "Producers credits" part and there is a link for Forever. i believe it tells a lot of what could've been.

if the collective isn't working, i'm sorry. they're having problems with their host right now.

[Catman]

Robin was in early drafts of both `89 and Returns, but I doubt any of that survived into Forever. To begin with, he was actually a kid not a college student. Also, he was a mechanic in one of the drafts for Returns. We don't see that in Forever. And, that whole speech about a new face every night I don't recall in B89 and Returns script.

Lee Batchler and Janet Scott Batchler were the original writers when Burton was still attached. Schumacher brought in Akiva Goldsman to do re-writers. NOT the other way around.

[newwaveboy87]

i know he's really a kid. he was a runaway in one of the drafts in Returns. and Robin DID have mechanic skills in Forever. the scene in the garage where Bruce and Dick are talking and he says he could fix up one of his bikes and keep it as his own.

i know he brought in Akiva to do rewrites. but their script is one of the reasons why lots of things have stayed similar between the two films and why it wasnt a camptastic joke like B&R.

[Alias450]

I think that Forever was perfect....the Riddler is very colourful and flamboyant and crazy so I think the neon lights and glam was perfect, especially with his contraption that sucked people's brainwaves and such....turning the city glam, with the parties he hosted and such. The fourth one, however, has its good elements. It would have been okay to maybe leave the neon and glam for Ivy's lair, but otherwise, the rest of it was rediculous. Batgirl NEVER should have been in the movie, especially as Alfred's niece, the city should have returned to the Burton style, and the dialogue should have been WAY less campy.

[Alias450]

so what do you all think?...

[Mr.E.Nygma]

I think Batman Forever is a great movie and it's one of my favorites in the bat-films.
Perhaps one of the best to me, and I'm a Jim Carrey fan so it made me enjoy it more.
Just too bad the director's cut isnt coming yet, this would have probably brought more BF fans since the original cut is more dark and well-explained.

For B&R... well... cough*it sucks*cough... I could enjoy it when I was a kid, but now it's a tough challenge for my brain. And it's in general too much stupid and impossible. Not that i wanted something REAL, but something SERIOUS... BF pulled it off well by mixing humour AND serious, as B89 and BR did.

[DAN1987]

I was thinking of making a hour long feature, briging the gap between Returns and Forever, with elements of Burton's Batman III. Explaintion why Harvey didnt appear in Returns, where's Selina etc, but i got side tracked.

[Red Mask]

According to Tim Burton, Batman Returns wasn't a 'sequel'. He didn't establish a continuity with the last film because he wanted to do something different from the '89 film. In production value the Batman costume was better and Gotham City became more unique. I can believe this is the city where you can find giant typewriters and other novelties. The lighting and color scheme were handled better but that's the advantage of a studio set.

Batman Forever and B&R were just over the top in sets and costumes. They are more lighthearted than Burton's eerie work but please. It was very blatantly cartoonish. As time passed I guess the audience and fans wanted the movies to become more true to the material. But Schumacher messed it up and WB had to start from scratch. That's what Batman Begins really is.

[ab38416]

edit

[dude love]

They didn't like him because he was black :ninja:

[Kevin Roegele]

Well...yes. I know I would. Burton never got it right for me. He made okay movies but it wasn't the vision of Batman I ever wanted to see. Nolan has come closer.

And let's take a look at some odds here.

Returns was much more a Tim Burton movie than the first Batman was. He pushed the character further into his Burton fantasy. It would only stand to reason that his follow up movie would have gone even further into Burton's style. That may be fine for fans of morbid, gothic fantasias but it's not fine for me.

Morbid, gothic fantasy? Check out the veyr first Batman issues, with Batman fighting Mad Monks and vampires in castles and shadowy laboratories.

[Kevin Roegele]

Batman Forever and B&R were just over the top in sets and costumes. They are more lighthearted than Burton's eerie work but please. It was very blatantly cartoonish. As time passed I guess the audience and fans wanted the movies to become more true to the material. But Schumacher messed it up and WB had to start from scratch. That's what Batman Begins really is.

You mean fans wanted the movies closer to the dark material.

Schumacher's films are faithful to the comics - just not the comics most of our posters have read. Grab a copy of Showcase Presents Batman volume 1, and you'll see exactly where Batman & Robin came from.

[Kevin Roegele]

I think the reason Harvey Dent wasn't in "Batman Returns" was because WB didn't like Billy Dee Williams because he wasn't a big enough star. So they bought out Billy Dee's contract BEFORE "Batman Returns" and Tim Burton probably didn't want to recast the role so he replaced Dent with Shreck. So if Burton was going to use Two-Face in 3, BDW wouldn't have played him anyway. But I think Burton was only planning on using Riddler.

Daniel Waters said, in an interview with Total Film magazine, that he was planning to have Dent in a very short scene in Returns, where he flips a coin, it lands on the clear side, and he decides to do nothing for now.

I found the quote at batmanmovieonline.com:

"You had a lot of stories that didn't make it onto the screen - one was Harvey Dent becoming Two-Face. That was definitely something Sam Hamm had planned that never happened. I had flirted with, just in a very small subplot, having Harvey Dent start to come back and just have one scene of him where he flips a coin and it's the good side of the coin, and he decides not to do anything, so you had to wait for the next movie for him to actually do something. Tim Burton's main thing was he didn't want to have anything to do with the first film. He wanted this to be a completely different movie."

[fabman]

Catman's right!

[DocLathropBrown]

Morbid, gothic fantasy? Check out the veyr first Batman issues, with Batman fighting Mad Monks and vampires in castles and shadowy laboratories.

Exactly. People just don't ever get it... probably because they don't want to. It is well documented on the SE B89 DVD that Samm Hamm and Tim Burton went back to the original source material. That's the period of Batman Burton loved the best, and Hamm felt that it would be best to go there so they didn't "Take in any of the detours the character had taken" since 1939. It's a testament to Burton's skill as a director, but even larger, the people he works with, that the Batman he gave was representative of Frank Miller's Batman (Among other versions) when really, there isn't that big of a Miller influence. Keaton's performance evokes the Finger/Kane stories more than anything else.

People want the modern Batman on screen. And back in '89, no one had a problem with the film. Nobody. Fanboys here and other places will try and claim that they were "in a theater of people who hated it," but it's all a bunch of crap. I'm friends with several older fans who lived the summer of '89, and they told me the attitudes shown here are to the contrary of the truth. News material from '89 shows diehard fans (Dressed up as both Bats and the Joker), at the premier, glowing about the film on camera. Were there people that disliked it then at all, then? Probably, but they were the extreme minority.

But anyway, It is only because Burton made BR more personal that his films get a backlash now, because it got fanboys whining in their little circles. Burton's first misstep fired up the supposed fanboys who are as shallow as a puddle of water. Burton and Hamm had the best of intentions, and they didn't fail, either. I will submit that BR can be criticized, but only so far. I agree with what Hamm felt, that Batman's changes through the years have truly moved away from the way the character was originally. Going back to the Kane/Finger years was absolutely the right thing to do.

Seeing Begins only reinforces that. The comics are magnificent, but the modern version of Batman doesn't seem all that great on film. In a way, he's watered down. Combine that with the fact that Burton is all about the art and the subtext, and Begins can't even touch what Tim Burton throws up, in my opinion.

Hell, believe it or not, Burton's films even got things right that Nolan didn't. Just for one example.... did Bruce Wayne's parents die walking away from a movie theater, unrelated to anything Bruce did.... or did they leave an opera about bats (Of all the contrived things....), because Bruce was a crybaby?

[fabman]

no, i think tim burton and chris nolan both got it right... can't decide for one of the two directors... both made GREAT, GREAT movies...

[El Payaso]

Kebvoin Roegele - thanks for saving me so much of replying time.

DocLathropBrown - thanks for yuour posts.

[mister Lennon]

Not many things have changed in those forums. Some guys still think that those awful movies directed by tim burton and starring michael "everyman" keaton did more justice to the batman mithos than the excellent batman begins. Like i said sometime: "Imagine all the people, posting in his imaginary world, yuhuuuuuu"

[mister Lennon]

edited.

[El Payaso]

Not many things have changed in those forums. Some guys still think that those awful movies directed by tim burton and starring michael "everyman" keaton did more justice to the batman mithos than the excellent batman begins. Like i said sometime: "Imagine all the people, posting in his imaginary world, yuhuuuuuu"

Same trolls too, who never post and come back once in a while to make no point by repeating themselves to boredom.

[mister Lennon]

Same trolls too, who never post and come back once in a while to make no point by repeating themselves to boredom.

Mmmmmmm, sounds very familiar to me.

[DocLathropBrown]

Not many things have changed in those forums. Some guys still think that those awful movies directed by tim burton and starring michael "everyman" keaton did more justice to the batman mithos than the excellent batman begins. Like i said sometime: "Imagine all the people, posting in his imaginary world, yuhuuuuuu"

Riiight, and your opinion is more right than ours how? Do you get a kick out of being king of the *****?

If you don't like the previous films, stay out of the forum for them. It's that easy. You don't see me trolling and just trying to stir **** up in the BB forums, do you? If you actually added something intelligent to the discussions here, you'd be welcome.

Not only do you come here to ruffle feathers, but you type like a moron. It's almost funny when you butt into a thread saying we're all wrong and your opinion makes you right, like some kind of half-retarded ape.

No one even has any arguments here until you show up. All you do here is troll. Go stay in the BB forums, where you're wanted by the rest of the people bowing to Christopher Nolan.

[mister Lennon]

Riiight, and your opinion is more right than ours how? Do you get a kick out of being king of the *****?

If you don't like the previous films, stay out of the forum for them. It's that easy. You don't see me trolling and just trying to stir **** up in the BB forums, do you? If you actually added something intelligent to the discussions here, you'd be welcome.

Not only do you come here to ruffle feathers, but you type like a moron. It's almost funny when you butt into a thread saying we're all wrong and your opinion makes you right, like some kind of half-retarded ape.

No one even has any arguments here until you show up. All you do here is troll. Go stay in the BB forums, where you're wanted by the rest of the people bowing to Christopher Nolan.

First of all, relax dude. Its only a forum of opinion, not real life. Only for fun and talk about movies.

Second, i will go to the forum that i choose and i will post what i want. I have the same right to critize those movies that you talking about those movies. Here is a forum of discussion about those movies, positive and negative stuff, not only positive.

Third of all, in my last post, that one that you take so over the top, was clearly a joke, in a funny tone, nothing seriously. I respect all the opinions from everyone, althougt i desagree with some of them.

Enough clear for you? I hope so.

[DocLathropBrown]

First of all, relax dude. Its only a forum of opinion, not real life. Only for fun and talk about movies.

Second, i will go to the forum that i choose and i will post what i want. I have the same right to critize those movies that you talking about those movies. Here is a forum of discussion about those movies, positive and negative stuff, not only positive.

Third of all, in my last post, that one that you take so over the top, was clearly a joke, in a funny tone, nothing seriously. I respect all the opinions from everyone, althougt i desagree with some of them.

Enough clear for you? I hope so.

The thing is, you don't respect others' opinions. Or maybe, the only way you learned to express yours was to trounce others and act like you're someone superior. You don't just post your opinion, you go out of your way to be confrontational with someone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you.

And the day I believe you were joking is the day pigs fly. You know I got you dead-to-rights, so you change you story to claim it was supposed to be funny. I'll give you a hint: sarcastic humor doesn't translate to text.

It's one thing to dislike Burton's flicks. It's another to come here and insinuate that we're all a bunch of mindless sheep, that we're enjoying the wrong thing. Your opinion that BB is better is just that: an opinion.

[Kevin Roegele]

Not many things have changed in those forums. Some guys still think that those awful movies directed by tim burton and starring michael "everyman" keaton did more justice to the batman mithos than the excellent batman begins. Like i said sometime: "Imagine all the people, posting in his imaginary world, yuhuuuuuu"

There's no point just saying you prefer Begins, you need to say why you believe it's better than the previous films.

[DocLathropBrown]

There's no point just saying you prefer Begins, you need to say why you believe it's better than the previous films.

And, might I add, not resort to namecalling or pretending Michael Keaton was fat/out of shape/balding.... the usual stuff he says. It'll be hard for him.

[mister Lennon]

The thing is, you don't respect others' opinions. Or maybe, the only way you learned to express yours was to trounce others and act like you're someone superior. You don't just post your opinion, you go out of your way to be confrontational with someone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you.

And the day I believe you were joking is the day pigs fly. You know I got you dead-to-rights, so you change you story to claim it was supposed to be funny. I'll give you a hint: sarcastic humor doesn't translate to text.

It's one thing to dislike Burton's flicks. It's another to come here and insinuate that we're all a bunch of mindless sheep, that we're enjoying the wrong thing. Your opinion that BB is better is just that: an opinion.

Not , oviously you didnt get what i wanted to express. Dude,normally, i respect the other opinions EXCEPT when some ***ing ******* go and insult or post ofenses agaisnt me, acting like a child protecting his toy. Only show me when i atacked someone or their personal opinions without not provokations from the other part or when i wasnt joking.

And you are blind when you want, because i have seen many mind droids insulting people only for seeing burton sucks or keaton was wrong for batman. Only post that , and in less of three seconds, hello retarded insults. But for some strange reason, you only see those type of things in the side against your opinion.

And sarcastic humor doesnt translate well to text? dude, you need to read more books.

[mister Lennon]

There's no point just saying you prefer Begins, you need to say why you believe it's better than the previous films.

That post that you quoted was a joke, i dont know if it was a good one or a bad one, i guess that it was a bad one because anyone didnt understand it, but it was a joke. And i have explained a lot of times why i think that begins was better than the rest of the other movies.

[mister Lennon]

And, might I add, not resort to namecalling or pretending Michael Keaton was fat/out of shape/balding.... the usual stuff he says. It'll be hard for him.

First, i didnt call keaton fat. But yes out of sharpe , short and bald, because he was short, half bald and out of sharpe when he did the movie. If you didnt see it its your problem.

And are you a relative of michael keaton? we are talking here about actors,, dont take it so serioulsy.

[DocLathropBrown]

Not , oviously you didnt get what i wanted to express. Dude,normally, i respect the other opinions EXCEPT when some ***ing ******* go and insult or post ofenses agaisnt me, acting like a child protecting his toy. Only show me when i atacked someone or their personal opinions without not provokations from the other part or when i wasnt joking.

And you are blind when you want, because i have seen many mind droids insulting people only for seeing burton sucks or keaton was wrong for batman. Only post that , and in less of three seconds, hello retarded insults. But for some strange reason, you only see those type of things in the side against your opinion.

And sarcastic humor doesnt translate well to text? dude, you need to read more books.

Prime example: this discussion was going fine until you popped in and insinuated that "nothing ever changed" here and that Burton's stuff was "awful". You came into a thread that was going fine and posts "Burton sucks, Begins is better", only in more words. If that isn't trying to start *****, I don't know what is.

Wow, I seem to be getting on your nerves. Must be nice not to notice when you do something wrong, becuase this all happened because of your inflammatory comments toward Burton that came out of nowhere. You're the one with the selective memory.

You wouldn't hear a peep out of me if you had said why you disliked Burton's work instead of just saying "it sucks", which IS what you did.

[DocLathropBrown]

First, i didnt call keaton fat. But yes out of sharpe , short and bald, because he was short, half bald and out of sharpe when he did the movie. If you didnt see it its your problem.

And are you a relative of michael keaton? we are talking here about actors,, dont take it so serioulsy.

Out of shape generally insinuates fat. He was NOT out of shape, just not some sort of bodybuilder.

He wasn't short, but he was average height. I'll give you that one.

Half bald? No. That's just how he keeps his hair. Look at The Dream Team that came out the same year as B89. He has long hair.

I'm no relative of Keaton. Just a fan of his. But that doesn't matter, when somebody attacks him for things that aren't true, I set the record straight. If you were saying the same about Christian Bale, I'd pull this same act. Because it's incorrect.

[mister Lennon]

Out of shape generally insinuates fat. He was NOT out of shape, just not some sort of bodybuilder.

He wasn't short, but he was average height. I'll give you that one.

Half bald? No. That's just how he keeps his hair. Look at The Dream Team that came out the same year as B89. He has long hair.

I'm no relative of Keaton. Just a fan of his. But that doesn't matter, when somebody attacks him for things that aren't true, I set the record straight. If you were saying the same about Christian Bale, I'd pull this same act. Because it's incorrect.

When i said out of sharpe, i was trying to say not as batman is supposed to be, muscular and athletic.

Keaton is short, that is the real thing. See many of his movies and compares his height with many actors. shorter than jack nicholson, michael gough, kim bassinguer, christopher walken, robert whul, ect. For not talking about his another movies. Go and watch bettlejuise and see what he looks next to the another actors. Same with much about nothing movie.

He was wearing a wing in those movies. Go and watch clean and sorber and pafic heigths, half bald in those movies.

No problem with having heros and idols, i have mine too. But the problem is to go with it too far.

[DocLathropBrown]

When i said out of sharpe, i was trying to say not as batman is supposed to be, muscular and athletic.

Fair enough.

Keaton is short, that is the real thing. See many of his movies and compares his height with many actors. shorter than jack nicholson, michael gough, kim bassinguer, christopher walken, robert whul, ect. For not talking about his another movies. Go and watch bettlejuise and see what he looks next to the another actors. Same with much about nothing movie.

He's average height. Short is below average. 5'10" is average. Any taller, and he'd be considered well, tall. And you're wrong, he's not shorter than Nicholson or Basinger, they're all three the same height. Go and watch the film. I doubt he's shorter than the others you mentioned (with the exception being Christopher Walken), but I don't know off the top of my head to really argue about the rest of them.

He was wearing a wing in those movies. Go and watch clean and sorber and pafic heigths, half bald in those movies.

No, he wasn't. I've seen the two films you mention. I own all of his films. I am a Michael Keaton fan, I think I'd know. You obviously didn't like that I was right so you're going to claim that it had to have been a wig. The only film where we wears a wig is Beetlejuice. Hey smart guy, if he wore a wig in that movie.... why not in all of the others? And you wanna explain why in interviews at the time, he had the same hair from The Dream Team? So he was wearing the wig off-screen?

He's not bald, never has been. So quit trying to say he was. You're flat wrong on this one. Coupled with my more extensive knowledge of Keaton, my evidence and the fact that he's never shown a bald spot disprove your complaint.

[mister Lennon]

Fair enough.



He's average height. Short is below average. 5'10" is average. Any taller, and he'd be considered well, tall. And you're wrong, he's not shorter than Nicholson or Basinger, they're all three the same height. Go and watch the film. I doubt he's shorter than the others you mentioned (with the exception being Christopher Walken), but I don't know off the top of my head to really argue about the rest of them.



No, he wasn't. I've seen the two films you mention. I own all of his films. I am a Michael Keaton fan, I think I'd know. You obviously didn't like that I was right so you're going to claim that it had to have been a wig. The only film where we wears a wig is Beetlejuice. Hey smart guy, if he wore a wig in that movie.... why not in all of the others? And you wanna explain why in interviews at the time, he had the same hair from The Dream Team? So he was wearing the wig off-screen?

He's not bald, never has been. So quit trying to say he was. You're flat wrong on this one. Coupled with my more extensive knowledge of Keaton, my evidence and the fact that he's never shown a bald spot disprove your complaint.


Maybe you are righ about the hair issue. But in those movies that i said, and in movies like my life, he looks almost bald. Strange thing. But probably, you are right in this issue.

But in the heigt, no way that keaton is 5'10. Go and see batman, he is shorter than nicholson. he had three scenes with jack: chemical factory, vickie apartment and cathedral. In the three scenes , keaton was clearly shorter than nicholson, even in his batman suit. Looks what he looks near to kim bassinguer, same height or shorter than her. And see what he looks next to michael gough or robert whul, shorther than both. Walken was clearly taller than him, same with michael murphy who played the mayor in batman returns.

Now his other movies. He looked like a dwarf in bettlejuce next to alec baldwin and geena davies, and they arent 6'2. Now, much about nothing. He looked like a dwarf next to people like keneth branagh, enma thompson, denzel washington, robert sean leonard, richard bries, etc. Now clean and sorber, next to morgan freeman. Now pacific heigths , next to melanie grifith and mathew moddine. Now jackie brow, next to robert de niro and sam jackson. Now that movie next andy garcia. No way that he is 5'10. He is 5'7 or 5'8 as much.

[DocLathropBrown]

Maybe you are righ about the hair issue. But in those movies that i said, and in movies like my life, he looks almost bald. Strange thing. But probably, you are right in this issue.

Maybe? Wow. You just have no humility, do you?

But in the heigt, no way that keaton is 5'10. Go and see batman, he is shorter than nicholson. he had three scenes with jack: chemical factory, vickie apartment and cathedral. In the three scenes , keaton was clearly shorter than nicholson, even in his batman suit. Looks what he looks near to kim bassinguer, same height or shorter than her. And see what he looks next to michael gough or robert whul, shorther than both. Walken was clearly taller than him, same with michael murphy who played the mayor in batman returns.

Funny, I just looked at the film, and he, Nicholson (5'9.75") and Basinger (5'7") are about the same size. I don't say something unless I'm sure I know what I'm talking about, bud. He's much taller than Whul (5'7"), he's taller than Gough (5'9"). Walken (6') was taller, yes. And he never shared a scene with Michael Murphy (6'1").

Now his other movies. He looked like a dwarf in bettlejuce next to alec baldwin and geena davies, and they arent 6'2. Now, much about nothing. He looked like a dwarf next to people like keneth branagh, enma thompson, denzel washington, robert sean leonard, richard bries, etc. Now clean and sorber, next to morgan freeman. Now pacific heigths , next to melanie grifith and mathew moddine. Now jackie brow, next to robert de niro and sam jackson. Now that movie next andy garcia. No way that he is 5'10. He is 5'7 or 5'8 as much.

Sorry to break it to you, but news reports from 1989 report him at 5'10", just the same as every site on the internet. And yes, I have seen these news clips.

Half the people you listed there (I've already proven you wrong so I'm not going to go persion-to-person), he's the same height as, or taller. In Beetlejuice, he was intentionally hunching over, so you can't count that.

Once again, I've completely flattened your argument. But yes, I get it. He's short for Batman. I never denied that. But he isn't short, period. 5'10" is considered average height, ask anybody. Most men clock in about there. You just can't handle that he is 5'10", so you try to deny its validity.

But hey, I ain't trying to get you to accept Keaton. I don't care how you feel about him. Just realize the stuff you were saying about him was wrong.

[El Payaso]

Mmmmmmm, sounds very familiar to me.

See? Admision will bring relieve to your soul.

[mister Lennon]

See? Admision will bring relieve to your soul.

It said by the trollhunter himself, is something to realise.

[mister Lennon]

Maybe? Wow. You just have no humility, do you?



Funny, I just looked at the film, and he, Nicholson (5'9.75") and Basinger (5'7") are about the same size. I don't say something unless I'm sure I know what I'm talking about, bud. He's much taller than Whul (5'7"), he's taller than Gough (5'9"). Walken (6') was taller, yes. And he never shared a scene with Michael Murphy (6'1").



Sorry to break it to you, but news reports from 1989 report him at 5'10", just the same as every site on the internet. And yes, I have seen these news clips.

Half the people you listed there (I've already proven you wrong so I'm not going to go persion-to-person), he's the same height as, or taller. In Beetlejuice, he was intentionally hunching over, so you can't count that.

Once again, I've completely flattened your argument. But yes, I get it. He's short for Batman. I never denied that. But he isn't short, period. 5'10" is considered average height, ask anybody. Most men clock in about there. You just can't handle that he is 5'10", so you try to deny its validity.

But hey, I ain't trying to get you to accept Keaton. I don't care how you feel about him. Just realize the stuff you were saying about him was wrong.


First , stop that wildness,dude. You dont to post personal offenses to proove an argument. Dont be so over the top in this kind of discussion.

Second, those people are all taller than michael keaton. Michael keaton isnt 5'10, he is 5'8 as much. Lets se some pics:

Keaton in batman costume and jack nicholson:

http://www.dvdtown.com/functions/displayimage.php?id=3852

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman/_group_photos/jack_nicholson5-th.jpg

Sorry for the little last photo, but i didnt find something bigger. In those pics, Keaton is in batman costume, that supposedly, it add to him some extra height. If keaton is 5'10 as you claim, he should be 5'11 or 6 in that costume. And if you said that nicholson is 5'9, he should be clearly shorter than him specially with keaton in the suit, but still, surprise surprise, nicholson is still taller than keaton. So , you still believe in the 5'10 for keaton???

Some pics more of Keaton with some people:

Keaton and michael gough:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/batman_michael_keaton_alfred_the_bulter.jpg

Michael keaton and annette benning:
http://www.variety.com/graphics/photos/vpage2005/vaviator_bening.jpg

Keaton and katie holmes:
http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/2004_First_Daughter/Thumb/004FDT_Katie_Holmes_107.jpg

Keaton and bob kane:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/00/Batman_Kane.jpg/300px-Batman_Kane.jpg

Keaton and tim burton and michelle pfeiffer:

http://www.euronet.nl/users/mcbeijer/dan/burton/pix/batret2.jpg

This guy couldnt be 5'10 in anyway.

Sorry for the boring theme about the heigths.

[Kevin Roegele]

First , stop that wildness,dude. You dont to post personal offenses to proove an argument. Dont be so over the top in this kind of discussion.

Second, those people are all taller than michael keaton. Michael keaton isnt 5'10, he is 5'8 as much. Lets se some pics:

Keaton in batman costume and jack nicholson:

http://www.dvdtown.com/functions/displayimage.php?id=3852

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman/_group_photos/jack_nicholson5-th.jpg

Sorry for the little last photo, but i didnt find something bigger. In those pics, Keaton is in batman costume, that supposedly, it add to him some extra height. If keaton is 5'10 as you claim, he should be 5'11 or 6 in that costume. And if you said that nicholson is 5'9, he should be clearly shorter than him specially with keaton in the suit, but still, surprise surprise, nicholson is still taller than keaton. So , you still believe in the 5'10 for keaton???

Some pics more of Keaton with some people:

Keaton and michael gough:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/batman_michael_keaton_alfred_the_bulter.jpg

Michael keaton and annette benning:
http://www.variety.com/graphics/photos/vpage2005/vaviator_bening.jpg

Keaton and katie holmes:
http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/2004_First_Daughter/Thumb/004FDT_Katie_Holmes_107.jpg

Keaton and bob kane:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/00/Batman_Kane.jpg/300px-Batman_Kane.jpg

Keaton and tim burton and michelle pfeiffer:

http://www.euronet.nl/users/mcbeijer/dan/burton/pix/batret2.jpg

This guy couldnt be 5'10 in anyway.

Sorry for the boring theme about the heigths.



Don't you think that it's pretty much irrelevent? I've never come across a casual viewer (or indeed, anyone except a couple on these boards) who have said, "Keaton is too short for Batman."

It may not be exactly the same as in the comics, but does it actually have a detrimental effect in the movie? Are there any scenes that don't work because Keaton isn't tall enough? Does in actually make any difference whatsoever to the movie itself?

No, Of course it doesn't.

[mister Lennon]

Don't you think that it's pretty much irrelevent? I've never come across a casual viewer (or indeed, anyone except a couple on these boards) who have said, "Keaton is too short for Batman."

It may not be exactly the same as in the comics, but does it actually have a detrimental effect in the movie? Are there any scenes that don't work because Keaton isn't tall enough? Does in actually make any difference whatsoever to the movie itself?

No, Of course it doesn't.

The talk about the heigths its very boring and you are right, irrelevant. But i only want to clear that keaton isnt 5'10 as this guy claims, but whatever, its pretty irrelevant.

I have the opinion that if some people are making a movie about a certan knowed character, more if this character is an cultural icon as batman is, the person who plays the character should be the more similar possible to that character, it brings crediblity to the story and help the people to enter more in what the filmakers are telling us. Said that, that isnt the most imporant part or the definitive part, only one of them. If the guy looks the character buts acts wrong, it doesnt work. If the guy doesnts look the character and acts good , it doesnt work. I feel that keaton is more in the second group, but not at all. I mean, he doesnt look the character, i could forget that if his performance and take of the character would be amazing, but it wasnt for me.But most for Burton's concept of the character and the script that Keaton's fault.

[Kevin Roegele]

The talk about the heigths its very boring and you are right, irrelevant. But i only want to clear that keaton isnt 5'10 as this guy claims, but whatever, its pretty irrelevant.

Sorry, I just wanted to make that point, I know you weren't making an issue out of it.

I have the opinion that if some people are making a movie about a certan knowed character, more if this character is an cultural icon as batman is, the person who plays the character should be the more similar possible to that character, it brings crediblity to the story and help the people to enter more in what the filmakers are telling us. Said that, that isnt the most imporant part or the definitive part, only one of them. If the guy looks the character buts acts wrong, it doesnt work. If the guy doesnts look the character and acts good , it doesnt work. I feel that keaton is more in the second group, but not at all. I mean, he doesnt look the character, i could forget that if his performance and take of the character would be amazing, but it wasnt for me.But most for Burton's concept of the character and the script that Keaton's fault.

I find it very interesting that there is so much debate over how much Keaton resembles the Bruce Wayne of the comics - but never any about how different the Batsuit is. I mean, in 1988, the comic batsuit was the grey fabric with blue cape and mask. In the movie, all it's black body armour. There is a bigger visual difference between the movie suit and the comic suit, than between the movie Bruce and the comic Bruce.

[mister Lennon]

Well, also true. But sometimes in the comics, batman cape and mask and boots and gloves have been black. I remember the cult, for example. And what its curious, in some comics where batman was with his grey cape and mask, it was described by the character as "black".

True, the wayne from the first comics isnt as tall and muscular as he was after,but stil different from keaton. Maybe Alec Baldwin in his prime was the the actor who resembled more the more used version of Bruce Wayne in the comics.

[Kevin Roegele]

Well, also true. But sometimes in the comics, batman cape and mask and boots and gloves have been black. I remember the cult, for example. And what its curious, in some comics where batman was with his grey cape and mask, it was described by the character as "black".

Yeah, although it's still fabric stuff. The rigid bulletproof body armour was quite a departure. However, it works very well on film, and I think it's one of the very best ways to illustrate that comic and films are two different mediums, and each use different methods to achieve something.

True, the wayne from the first comics isnt as tall and muscular as he was after,but stil different from keaton. Maybe Alec Baldwin in his prime was the the actor who resembled more the more used version of Bruce Wayne in the comics.

I would love to have seen Baldwin play Bruce Wayne and Batman, and he came very close in The Shadow.

[El Payaso]

It said by the trollhunter himself, is something to realise.

I hunt trolls as opposite as being one of you. :meow:

[DocLathropBrown]

Lennon, I brought researched evidence. You're estimating. Give it up. If this is a fight, I won. I proved you wrong. Keaton's 5'10". Grow up and move on. As much as you want to be right, as much as you want to believe Keaton was some kind of midget, wishing won't make it so. You're not right on this. I could show equally as many images of Keaton that don't make him look short.

But I won't. Like I said, I said my piece. I researched my point, and you got a bunch of pictures that support your theory, so it looks like you researched, but you didn't. Some of those pictures, foreshortening makes him look shorter. For a true comparison, you'd need him back-to-back with a person, not one where Keaton's in the background and the other person is in the foreground. Lest I remind you that the people you showed might have been as tall as Keaton, not the other way around? I provided statistics. Pictures can help apply-to and support a bias. Statistics can't.

Continue this argument if you wish, but I flattened yours. So I have no reason to continue. Any more words from you will be a waste of breath.

[mister Lennon]

Lennon, I brought researched evidence. You're estimating. Give it up. If this is a fight, I won. I proved you wrong. Keaton's 5'10". Grow up and move on. As much as you want to be right, as much as you want to believe Keaton was some kind of midget, wishing won't make it so. You're not right on this. I could show equally as many images of Keaton that don't make him look short.

But I won't. Like I said, I said my piece. I researched my point, and you got a bunch of pictures that support your theory, so it looks like you researched, but you didn't. Some of those pictures, foreshortening makes him look shorter. For a true comparison, you'd need him back-to-back with a person, not one where Keaton's in the background and the other person is in the foreground. Lest I remind you that the people you showed might have been as tall as Keaton, not the other way around? I provided statistics. Pictures can help apply-to and support a bias. Statistics can't.

Continue this argument if you wish, but I flattened yours. So I have no reason to continue. Any more words from you will be a waste of breath.

Fair enough for me if you dont want to follow this discussion. But dont try to look like the clear winner if this discussion. I only say that i posted my opinion, heigth conclussions and pictures, you only posted your opinion. End of story. Now, the people could do their own conclussions.

[fabman]

I just want to say one thing: F***k the size, people. It's not important - at least to me. Michael Keaton is 5' 10" but even if he would've been shorter - I don't f'ing care. I care that he was a GREAT Bruce Wayne / Batman, just like Christian Bale is GREAT as our fav hero. And I can tell you that you went OOOOOFFTOPIC. So, stop this silly and unimportant discussion. I don't care and I think other users here don't care about what you two have to say 'bout Michael Keaton's height, too...

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I didn't want to sound harsh...

[DocLathropBrown]

So, stop this silly and unimportant discussion.

I already did, kid. Read closer next time.

[fabman]

i know doc..., relax... i read your last comment but you know it was to make sure it would def stop ^^

p.s.: be a little nicer next time, i haven't done anything to you...... kid ;):)

[Kevin Roegele]

You guys....you're arguing about Micheal Keaton's height. Come on.

[fabman]

english's not my native language ;)

[DocLathropBrown]

You guys....you're arguing about Micheal Keaton's height. Come on.

I finished arguing. I got my point across. Unlike most arguments that never get finished, this one did. If people would pay attention to the fact that this thing is over, we might be able to move on...

Getting back on topic: I've definitely got to pick up the BF novel. I've always appreciated the basic storyline of BF. Too bad Schumacher got ahold of the flick.

[Mr. Socko]

Actually, Keaton is shorter then Danny Devito. They just digitally made Keaton taller.

[El Payaso]

a) Whoa, is there anything CGI can't do
b) Haha?
c) I knew DeVito was big.

[Kevin Roegele]

I finished arguing. I got my point across. Unlike most arguments that never get finished, this one did. If people would pay attention to the fact that this thing is over, we might be able to move on...

:up: Excellent.

[dude love]

I'm still waiting for the Tim Burton TDKR, Band of Brothers style mini series that brings closure to the themes of Returns. :o It really would make sense to have it follow up on Returns. Think about it. He kills Joker, but he wakes up every morning looking for someone else to pwn, he gets his chance at redeeming himself by saving Selina, no good there. So he gives up being Batman but his life is one big empty void. Then he's Batman again and he does stuff to finally fill that void.

I hated how Batman went from a borderline psychopath to a borderline bisexual. Eleven years on and I'm still bitter at Schumacer. :cmad:

[Mr. Socko]

LOL! I agree with your first paragraph. Laughed at the second.

[DocLathropBrown]

Actually, Keaton is shorter then Danny Devito. They just digitally made Keaton taller.

LOL. :up:

[Kevin Roegele]

Actually, Keaton is shorter then Danny Devito. They just digitally made Keaton taller.

DeVito actually plays the Tattoed Strong Man, who Batman straps the dynamite to. That's how short Keaton really is, DeVito towers over him.

[Thespiralgoeson]

For everyone who hates Schumacher's guts for Batman Forever and B&R, I can't say I blame you. But let's at least be fair. Not all of the blame should lie with him. Schumacher has always claimed to be a devoted Batman fan, and in fact has publicly stated that he always wanted to an adaptation of Year One. The fact is, WB wanted the franchise to be kid friendly, marketable, and basically campy. If Schumacher had refused to go along with the studios wishes, he would've been fired. If he wouldn't make a campy Batman, WB would've found someone else who would have.

So, in that sense, it's really unfair to blame Schumacher for the franchise taking the turn that it did. Schumacher has always been an ambitious filmmaker, preferring risky projects. With Batman Forever, he was presented with an incredible challenge. He had to make a movie edgy enough to appeal to an adult audience, and childish enough to sell a lot of toys, and the movie had to be the biggest blockbuster of the year. While I'm not a fan of Batman Forever myself, I admire Schumacher's accomplishment in making an at least watchable film with many redeeming qualities in spite of WB insisting on doing absolutely EVERYTHING the wrong way.

Batman and Robin is a different story. With Batman Forever, I feel Schumacher tried to make a good film while obeying the studios wishes at the same time. It was a compromise, but still it was a Batman movie. The second time around, however, I think he just didn't even try to make a Batman movie (or even a real movie for that matter), and submitted to WB's every wish and demand to whore out the franchise for every dollar it was worth via action figures, happy meals, and other various forms of merchandise. B&R was practically a Batman parody. So B&R was a monumental failure, but again, I think the blame lies much more with WB than Schumacher, because I think if he hadn't made marketing and merchandising his top priority, he would've been replaced with someone who would have.

However, what we CAN blame Schumacher for is the nipples on the costumes, and the not so subtle homo-eroticism of the two films. I suppose we could also say that he sold out, basically sacrificing his artistic integrity by obeying WB's wishes to make a film all style and no substance. However, that again leads me back to the belief that we can't really blame Schumacher for the direction the franchise went, because WB wouldn't have it any other way.

[Kevin Roegele]

For everyone who hates Schumacher's guts for Batman Forever and B&R, I can't say I blame you. But let's at least be fair. Not all of the blame should lie with him. Schumacher has always claimed to be a devoted Batman fan, and in fact has publicly stated that he always wanted to an adaptation of Year One. The fact is, WB wanted the franchise to be kid friendly, marketable, and basically campy. If Schumacher had refused to go along with the studios wishes, he would've been fired. If he wouldn't make a campy Batman, WB would've found someone else who would have.

Kid friendly does not mean campy.

Warner Bros AT NO POINT asked for...

- Nipples
- A script full of nothing but puns
- Extremely 2D characters
- Blinding neon lights everywhere
- Ass shots
- Heavy homosexual subtext
- Looney Tunes sound effects
- Fight scenes where you can't see anyone getting hit
- General silliness

Yes, Warner Bros wanted Forever lighter than Returns. But they asked Schumacher for more of the same with Batman 4. It was Schumacher who decided not to take it seriously at all.


However, what we CAN blame Schumacher for is the nipples on the costumes, and the not so subtle homo-eroticism of the two films. I suppose we could also say that he sold out, basically sacrificing his artistic integrity by obeying WB's wishes to make a film all style and no substance. However, that again leads me back to the belief that we can't really blame Schumacher for the direction the franchise went, because WB wouldn't have it any other way.

I understand your point, and you are right that Schumacher was certainly restricted in what he could do, and had to keep toy companies and McDonalds happy. However, that is a burden many such blockbusters have to contend with, and does not preclude you from making a good film.

[dude love]

When WB said "Lighter than Returns", I've been under the impression for years now that they wanted the same tone as the original. Schumacer makes me sick, he gives a half assed apology and subtly tries to throw more blame on Warners than himself. That's how I see it anyway.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Kid friendly does not mean campy.

Warner Bros AT NO POINT asked for...

- Nipples
- A script full of nothing but puns
- Extremely 2D characters
- Blinding neon lights everywhere
- Ass shots
- Heavy homosexual subtext
- Looney Tunes sound effects
- Fight scenes where you can't see anyone getting hit
- General silliness

Yes, Warner Bros wanted Forever lighter than Returns. But they asked Schumacher for more of the same with Batman 4. It was Schumacher who decided not to take it seriously at all.


I agree and disagree with you. I agree that kid friendly doesn't mean campy, but I really think WB wanted the general campiness and pushed for it.


understand your point, and you are right that Schumacher was certainly restricted in what he could do, and had to keep toy companies and McDonalds happy. However, that is a burden many such blockbusters have to contend with, and does not preclude you from making a good film.

It doesn't in most cases, but I really think this was an exception. I really think WB was just bound and determined to have a silly, campy, happy meal film both times around. I'm not saying Schumacher isn't responsible for making two lousy movies (one bad with some good qualities, the other just plain horrible) All I'm saying is that I think the franchise was really doomed with or without Schumacher. For all its flaws, there were still a lot of things I liked about Forever, and I think Schumacher did a much better job than most filmmakers would have under the same circumstances. Could've done without the bat-nipples, but oh well, I could still enjoy the film to an extent. B&R however, I won't forgive him for. There's just no excuse for a man as talented and skilled as him to make a film that bad.

[ab38416]

bump

[Kevin Roegele]

I agree and disagree with you. I agree that kid friendly doesn't mean campy, but I really think WB wanted the general campiness and pushed for it.




It doesn't in most cases, but I really think this was an exception. I really think WB was just bound and determined to have a silly, campy, happy meal film both times around. I'm not saying Schumacher isn't responsible for making two lousy movies (one bad with some good qualities, the other just plain horrible) All I'm saying is that I think the franchise was really doomed with or without Schumacher. For all its flaws, there were still a lot of things I liked about Forever, and I think Schumacher did a much better job than most filmmakers would have under the same circumstances. Could've done without the bat-nipples, but oh well, I could still enjoy the film to an extent. B&R however, I won't forgive him for. There's just no excuse for a man as talented and skilled as him to make a film that bad.

Okay, well we're agreed to a certain extent really.

[Kevin Roegele]

''I didn't consider Billy Dee Williams for the role, because I think that he is a hero. I always see him like Clark Gable." - Schumacher on casting Two-Face

That's the point, Joel. Dent is a hero. The other half of him becomes a villain.

[ab38416]

edit

[Bat Attack]

I like to think they are all in the same continuity but the dramatic style changes between Batman Returns and Batman Forever are hard not to notice that they look like completely different films. Although this was kind of the same with the first one becuase Batman Returns took a bit of departures with its sets (redesigning gotham totally from the ground up, and the giant sculptures were placed prominatley around the set as well.

[batman strikes]

How much do we actually know about Tim Burton's Batman 3? Was the story in Batman Forever basically what Tim Burton had in mind, except he wasn't going to include Two-Face? Did Robin Williams and Micky Dolenz really do a screen test for The Riddler, because it dosen't seem unlikely that Tim Burton would go through the trouble if WB didn't want him to return. And finally did the Batchler's meet with Tim Burton before or after Schumacher was hired to direct the movie? These are just the few question I would love to know.

[Bat Attack]

There was basically no "Tim Burtons Batman 3". Most things you hear about it are either untrue or just old rumors.

[ab38416]

edit

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Well...yes. I know I would. Burton never got it right for me. He made okay movies but it wasn't the vision of Batman I ever wanted to see. Nolan has come closer.

And let's take a look at some odds here.

Returns was much more a Tim Burton movie than the first Batman was. He pushed the character further into his Burton fantasy. It would only stand to reason that his follow up movie would have gone even further into Burton's style. That may be fine for fans of morbid, gothic fantasias but it's not fine for me.

Look at most sequel franchises. The first two movies are often the best in any series and then the franchise begins to lose steam. Look at Superman. Look at Alien. Maintaining the quality of a product over the course of a franchise is extremely difficult. And seeing Burton's spotty track record and the fact that he isn't really interested in sequels, I would lean towards the quality of the succeeding movies to diminish.

That was part of the appeal of BR, for myself. Apparently soccer moms didn't warm up to it, though. :csad:

[mrhayzie]

- Heavy homosexual subtext

can you elaborate on this? i never really got that from watching this movie. i saw it in b&r though.

[batman strikes]

I believe Burton met with the Batchler's several times only to discuss how to properly resolve Bruce Wayne's character arc & tie up the loose ends from "Returns". He then met with Schumacher once & that was it. He had nothing to do with the main plot & the other characters.


So all the stuff about The Riddler having a green shaved question mark on his head was all rumors to?

[Bat Attack]

I believe Burton met with the Batchler's several times only to discuss how to properly resolve Bruce Wayne's character arc & tie up the loose ends from "Returns". He then met with Schumacher once & that was it. He had nothing to do with the main plot & the other characters.

Yep, thats basically all that happened.

[El Payaso]

''I didn't consider Billy Dee Williams for the role, because I think that he is a hero. I always see him like Clark Gable." - Schumacher on casting Two-Face

That's the point, Joel. Dent is a hero. The other half of him becomes a villain.

lol

exactly

[ab38416]

edit

[ab38416]

So all the stuff about The Riddler having a green shaved question mark on his head was all rumors to?

Yep.