Imagine its late 1992, and your WB

[Rockbottom]

Without the knowledge of what Joel's films would of turn out like, you have soccer Moms and such on your back about Batman Returns being so dark. What would you have done in their position at the time?

Im interested because so many people seem to think WB were idiots for firing Burton but if you put your selfs in their shoes at that time, I wonder how many of you would of done the same...

 

[Kevin Roegele]

From a purely business point of view, replace Burton.

And hire James Cameron, who had just had the gigantic hit of Terminator 2.

James Cameron's Batman III, now that would be a hell of a movie.

 

[Caladbolg]

Jim was busy trying to do X-men around that time.

 

[El Payaso]

So I'm WB. Then I'd be saying "So yeah, Batman Returns is not for kids and was never intended for kids, but McDonald's is promoting it as if it was for kids. So instead of fixing the problem up and start promoting the movie properly I better fire the director and start ruin this franchise as soon as possible."

 

[El Payaso]

edit

 

[BigCityBoy]

If I was running WB at the time I would've kept Burton. Despite all the controversy, Batman Returns was successful and made alot of profit (although not the same profit as Batman 89 but it made profit none the less). If anything, maybe, just maybe, I would've told Burton to make the third movie similar to Batman 89 as far as the tone. The fact of the matter was Batman Returns was rated PG-13 for a reason. If the parents brought their young kids to see the movie without paying attention to the rating then that was their fault.

 

[ross2287]

WB: All right Tim, soccer moms didn't really like Batman Returns.
Burton: ...I didn't make it for soccer moms.
WB: We know. Look, we need to do something different with the next one.
Burton: I don't know if I can do another one...
WB: We'll give you full creative control again...there are just two things you have to do.
Burton: All right, what are they?
WB: Number 1, you can't ever work with Johnny Depp again and 2 if Michael Keaton's career ever starts to flounder or flat-out go down the toilet, you have to put him in all your movies.
Burton: **** you guys, I'm gonna go make Ed Wood.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

It's was WB's marketing that was the problem... they should have realized that this wasn't a happy meal movie.


They should have kept Burton... but just reined* (*y'know?) him in a little.


PS: Ed Wood is an amazing and unappreciated movie.

 

[ross2287]

I wasn't knocking it, I love it. Definitely an inspiring film.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

Yeah, I agree that the issue was one of a strange marketing campaign (the movie itself was not sold as a kids' movie, but then you have, say, McDonald's tie-ins), and of misperception as a result. Honestly, I definitely would have kept Burton around, but I just think he had a really unique, exciting take on the Batman universe, and Batman Returns did make a profit, even if it wasn't as significant as Batman's.

(Oh, and I too think Ed Wood is a brilliant, somewhat underappreciated movie. )

 

[DarkKnight245]

I think WB should have had more control over Returns and not give Burton the freedom to do what he wanted to do with Returns.

 

[baerrtt]

I think WB should have had more control over Returns and not give Burton the freedom to do what he wanted to do with Returns.

BATMAN RETURNS is my favourite of the first four Batman films yet I'll concede that the studio not monitoring the content (whilst it was being written/filmed) that caused them to eventually ditch Burton and make the films more juvenile is squarely their fault.

If you give a director carte blanche (particularly one whose other family films weren't exactly conventional even back then e.g PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE, BEETLEJUICE, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS) to make a summer blockbuster than you HAVE to know by now that the director will not turn out some bland, safe product.

WB is pretty much aware that THE DARK KNIGHT (by all accounts) isn't going to be conventional fun because they new that going in. 16 or so years ago they should've applied the same common sense.

Given the thread starter's question it is too easy to say 'I'd done this or that' given the potential backlash (they ARE a business after all) their then biggest franchise could have suffered in the wake. They wanted to make money and sad to say I (if I was in charge of WB) may have been FORCED by shareholders/the corporation that owns the studio (effectively my bosses) to do what they did.

 

[theMan-Bat]

If I was running WB at the time I would've kept Burton. Despite all the controversy, Batman Returns was successful and made alot of profit (although not the same profit as Batman 89 but it made profit none the less). If anything, maybe, just maybe, I would've told Burton to make the third movie similar to Batman 89 as far as the tone. The fact of the matter was Batman Returns was rated PG-13 for a reason. If the parents brought their young kids to see the movie without paying attention to the rating then that was their fault.

Ditto.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

From a purely business point of view, replace Burton.

And hire James Cameron, who had just had the gigantic hit of Terminator 2.

James Cameron's Batman III, now that would be a hell of a movie.

Man I wish they woulda done something like not, not that Im so sure Cameron would've been interested but I think that woulda been badass, imagine the possibilities!

 

[Batmania]

PS: Ed Wood is an amazing and unappreciated movie.

Agreed. It's one of Burton's best. And Depp's for that matter. It's a shame more people haven't seen it.

 

[El Payaso]

Agreed. It's one of Burton's best. And Depp's for that matter. It's a shame more people haven't seen it.

Same here. Depp is amazing in there. Plus it's a incredibly tragic comedy and one of the few (maybe the only one?) Hollywood biography that's not based on the artist's personal life scandals but only on his creative force. Relationship between Wood and Lugosi is gold.

 

[Batjosh]

"Hm. Seems that those guys doing the animated series know how to make a dark Batman that's kid friendly. Get those guys on the phone!"

 

[AnimatedFury]

"Hm. Seems that those guys doing the animated series know how to make a dark Batman that's kid friendly. Get those guys on the phone!"

They did, and that didn't work out for them. Although it did lead to the creation of by far the greatest Batman origin movie (SORRY).

 

[Batjosh]

I'm sure it would've worked out better (in terms of getting more money) if:

1) It were a live action.

and/or

2) It was advertised a lot better.

 

[AnimatedFury]

I'm sure it would've worked out better (in terms of getting more money) if:

1) It were a live action.

and/or

2) It was advertised a lot better.

Of course. I was a huge TAS fan and even I didn't go see it, but I did grab it I think as soon as it came out on VHS (including sweet free Mini-Comic).

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

They did, and that didn't work out for them. Although it did lead to the creation of by far the greatest Batman origin movie (SORRY).

What sorry for not knowing what your talking about, sure I accept your apology.

-DV

 

[Batjosh]

Of course. I was a huge TAS fan and even I didn't go see it, but I did grab it I think as soon as it came out on VHS (including sweet free Mini-Comic).

Same here. Cool part is that its the home video market that really determines the success of the movie and its cult favorite status has made it more than a success over time.

 

[DeGenerate10]

I don't know what I would've done but I would NOT have hired Shumacker's butt.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Without the knowledge of what Joel's films would of turn out like, you have soccer Moms and such on your back about Batman Returns being so dark. What would you have done in their position at the time?

Im interested because so many people seem to think WB were idiots for firing Burton but if you put your selfs in their shoes at that time, I wonder how many of you would of done the same...

It's really hard to pass judgment here, since I don't know how they might have been hurt financially from a merchandise POV, but I really can't imagine the crybaby soccer moms making THAT much of a financial impact. Having said that... if I were WB, then I would realize that the character I owned was meant to be a dark character, and that Burton was simply giving a dark interpretation worthy of that character. In other words, I would have kept him.

I think WB should have had more control over Returns and not give Burton the freedom to do what he wanted to do with Returns.

Actually, if I remember correctly from the special features on the Returns DVD, WB were willing to do ANYTHING to get Burton back to do another Batman film. And Burton basically told them that if he came back, he'd be doing this one his way, with no meddling. So they let him do it. And then after going so far to woo him into doing Returns, they gave him the brush off when it came to the third film. Bad form, WB. Bad form. At least it seems they've learned from their mistakes.

 

[DACrowe]

They made a smart and shrewd business decision. They were making Batman movies to make blockbusters, BR made significantly less than B'89 and alienated children and younger audiences (BR to date is the only Batman movie IMO made strictly for adults. BB still was made accessible for teenagers). It was creatively a knock out but you aren't trying to win awards when you make a Batman movie.

But as an artistic distinction it stinks and I have the right complain about it. They lacked courage to try and make something special, but hey BF was a much bigger hit than what Burton would've done. Of course it led to their 1997 bomb, but four movies in is rarely good, anyway. And at least Ed Wood got made out of this.