Originally Posted by theShape
Did Burton really say that? If so, what a doucher.
Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure though, that's why I stated "might".
I think I saw it in the "Burton on Burton" book. It might not be complete disdain, but I know his views on it aren't exactly positive. Then again, there are a lot of artists that criticize their own work. Looking forward it the nature of the beast.
He seemed proud of it in the making of feature for the behind the scenes of the blu ray, so who knows. That was 2004 and 2005 though. We all have a tendency to contradict ourselves.
Originally Posted by Kane52630
I could see why, the first film was a more studio controlled film.
Yup. It's like Batman Begins or other studio films out there. He had to prove himself until WB let go of the reigns. Only problem with that is, sometimes a little restriction makes people more creative. By letting Burton or any other filmmaker/writer/etc. do they want, that can potentially kill it because it's too "them".
Batman Returns is definitely his baby whereas Batman 1989 felt like a true collaboration. While I don't think 100% studio movies or 100% independent is the way to go, I think a balance of both is a happy medium. Producers and studios shouldn't dictate everything, but there are some basics that could prove valuable. I think the upcoming Robocop remake is dealing with this situation now. It's a tough call with how much of anything is too much.
By the way, great pics. Do you know what scale that Batwing is? I know there are pics of the Gotham bigatures that are as tall or taller than the crew, but I was curious what scale it was.
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
The ironic thing about all this to me is that I think Milost has argued the point far more competently than I believe Burton himself would be able to. I legitimately question whether Burton would be able to even make any sort of coherent statement about that plot point if asked today, haha. That's not a knock of the film, more just on Burton for being a bit of a space cadet.
I agree. I personally think Burton is a hack (now) and a bit scatter brained. He's this weird, artsy fartsy guy and he knows it. He's a weirdo more interested in the visuals than the substance (which is why he took Batman on as a project, he identified with the iconography of all of it, especially the concept of "Batman vs. Joker"). I'm a huge fan of his early work, I love most of his films and dug his vision. Now, it seems same old, same old. Then again, I feel that way with all directors. That's not an insult to Burton, he's done fine in my book, but, I dunno. The same style gets old. I could say the same thing for Scorsese or any number of directors though.
But Batman 1989 isn't "his". I think that's the misconception with the role of a director where they're overvalued. They're more or less the guy that helps make sure the thing doesn't fall apart while also letting some (or most) of their vision spill into it. They're the general, but they shouldn't get all the credit.
There was a LOT of creative input with the first Batman. Studio had a say, Burton had a say, Nicholson had a say, Keaton was free to find his own character (his recent interview for Robocop, the persona of his Batman was all his from the movement to the voice), the writers were a mishmash. If it was all Sam Hamm, it might have been pretty bad (sure, his scripts were more comic accurate, but they were strange). If it was all Tim Burton, it would have been a straight freak show. If it was all the Studio, we'd have nothing but Prince (no way would they have let Elfman collaborate). Etc. etc.
Collaboration is good. Having second or third film crew units are good. Batman 1989 was like a marathon (I think one of the producers mention this), where it was like guerrilla shooting. There's no way Burton shot some of those great action sequences, or that Axis Chemicals shoot out. Like with Aliens and Star Wars, there was also this tension between the English and American crews. So you have everyone pouring their hearts into this thing.
It's like LOTR or Breaking Bad, which are great examples of collaboration. One of my favorite scenes in LOTR is the ending of the Fellowship with the Amon Hen battle and Boromir vs. the Uruk Hai. You know who filmed that whole thing? Who brought in his own personal touch? The New Line producer. He directed that while other crews were filming all over New Zealand. The only thing Jackson touched was the editing.
If you have one mind controlling all that, I'm not convinced it will be as good. That's why I feel Batman 1989, as studio controlled as it had been, has great moments that shine threw the "Prince music" or script decisions. With all those different things, it creates something that ends up being it's own thing. So with like, the Vicki stuff. I'm sure Burton couldn't come up with clear reasoning for it, but at the time, someone
involved did, or else those scenes wouldn't be in there.