Batman89 and Returns very different movies?

I think the original was going for the more realistic approach but with Returns Burton wanted to be a little more out there.

 

Returns was Darker and I'm glad it was different I hate when movies just copy the last one

 

Burton HATES sequels, and wanted to call "Batman Returns", when it went under the title "Batman 2" (the Sam Hamm script), to be changed to just BATMAN. Although he did agree to do a sequel, he wanted to make it seem like a totally different film, which is why he went with a mostly new crew and screenwriter who presented him with a totally new script.

The film still felt like a Burton Batman film, only because he has such a strong vision he could make Power Rangers and still make his vision shine through. The film WAS different, which is what Burton wanted.

I think he would have went with a different direction with BATMAN 3, since the first film was almost film noir, and the second fantasy, I think it would have been either a detective story or story between the characters, almost like a rediscovery for Bruce, who went cold after Catwoman left.

Ah, the possibilities...

 

Here is the difference: Batman was a risky movie, that no one thought would be as good or make as much as it did, and it's style, look and content are made by the teamwork of director, producer, writers and the stars. However, Batman Returns was going to be a success after Batman, Burton was let of his leashe and it became a proper Burton movie, with grotesque tragedies, dark settings, gothic architecture and candy canes!......

 

exactly! i'm glad Burton had more control...it's great seeing a director just use his talent and not be held back

 

Tim Burton doesn't hate sequels. He just doesn't like repeating himself which is why Batman Returns is completely different from the original. Actually you are correct, Batman 3 was going to be a rediscover film for Bruce Wayne. If you notice Schumacher added a little rediscovery subplot in Forever, but thats not what Burton was gonna do. The whole plot would have been a rediscovery film. One of the reasons Keaton didn't do Batman Forever was because in Batman 3 his character was finally gonna be the center of attention. The villians were not gonna overshadow Batman or anything like that. In Batman Forever the villains were the center of attention.

 

Don't get me excited...

Personally, I would have loved to finally see Bruce/Batman the center of attention. Make it a character driven plot with his relationship with Harvey and you got a winner.

Oh well, I guess we can only dream.

 

The movies are very different, Batman sucks and Batman Returns sucks even more.

 

Yes I agree. The movies are quite different. Batman was an amazing masterpiece and Batman Returns wasn't very good.

 

i watched Batman 89 and Batman Returns on Channel 5 (English TV) I'm glad it was different because Returns had more storyline and last longer then Batman 89 movie. I thought Batman 89 could had been longer. This sunday it's Batman Forever on Channel 5.

 

Yes, it was different. The darkness was amplified, there's three villains instead of one, two of the villains are tragic characters, and of course, the ending isn't really happy.

Not always. Movies like Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin, John Travolta's Battlefield Earth, and William Shatner's Star Trek 5 show that despite what many on this forum seem to believe, creative control can never be taken for granted.

 

Keaton didn't do Forever, because the script sucked and the direction was terrible.

If Burton was in charge, I'm sure he would've come back

 

Was Star Trek 5 the one where they went and found God? I liked it, but then again, I was 9 or 10 years old the last time I saw it. I think Shatner was just cursed. Only every other Star Trek movie is any good. Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, whatever the 6th one was called (Undiscovered Country or something like that), First Contact, and IMO Nemises were the only really good Star Trek movies. God, First Contact was freakin awesome.

And this all has to do with Batman in that.....

 

I was talking about how vanity projects are the negative side of creative control and how B&R was pretty much Joel's vanity project.

 

Danny DeVito gave hands-down the best performance of his career as "The Penguin" in this film. He was absolutely vile.

 

Yes Devito was good, I wasn't too impressed with Chris Walken though, I feel his part was too lightweight, could have had some better dialogue

 

Indeed.

 

Very different films. I love them both.