Keaton screwed up! A Batman Forever related thread.

[Catman]

Okay. So, in `94 Keaton turned down 30 million bucks to do BF because he disagreed with Schumacher. That's cool. HOWEVER, why didn't he go to WB and say, "30 million is a lot of money. I'm sure you would like to spend it on other things. So, I'll cut you guys some slack with the money IF you make me a producer and give me creative control."

Wouldn't that have worked better for everyone?

 

[CConn]

No, because (1) Keaton's not a Producer, (2) WB wouldn't give him the power, (3) Keaton's problem was with the script itself. It's one thing to force Schumacher not to put nipples on the suits, it's another to have the entire script rewritten...to a origin film, no less.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Okay. So, in `94 Keaton turned down 30 million bucks to do BF because he disagreed with Schumacher. That's cool. HOWEVER, why didn't he go to WB and say, "30 million is a lot of money. I'm sure you would like to spend it on other things. So, I'll cut you guys some slack with the money IF you make me a producer and give me creative control."

Wouldn't that have worked better for everyone?

No. Keaton wanted a darker film, Warner Bros wanted a lighter film. Keaton was sick of being upstaged by villains, Warner Bros wanted Robin Williams. And so on. It was never going to work.

 

[El Payaso]

Okay. So, in `94 Keaton turned down 30 million bucks to do BF because he disagreed with Schumacher. That's cool. HOWEVER, why didn't he go to WB and say, "30 million is a lot of money. I'm sure you would like to spend it on other things. So, I'll cut you guys some slack with the money IF you make me a producer and give me creative control."

Wouldn't that have worked better for everyone?

Then Keaton, 'or even better, you give me 30 millions and I just walk home.'

 

[dude stannis]

"Or even better then that, how about a graphic threesome with me, Michelle Pfeiffer and Nichole Kidman? Comeon guys this is box office gold!"

Too bad really, it's not like Returns was a failiure, they should've told Burton to lighten it up to B89 tone again.

Things where f**ked from the start IMO. When WB didn't want Billy Dee Williams to appear in Batman Returns.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Then Keaton, 'or even better, you give me 30 millions and I just walk home.'

Which is ironically what Burton and Nic Cage did for Superman Lives! - they signed pay-or-play deals, and so walked away with full pay even though they didn't shoot a single frame.

 

[Catman]

No, because (1) Keaton's not a Producer, (2) WB wouldn't give him the power, (3) Keaton's problem was with the script itself. It's one thing to force Schumacher not to put nipples on the suits, it's another to have the entire script rewritten...to a origin film, no less.

Hey, Batman Forever could have been his first producing gig. Look at Hugh Jackman for example. He just started a production company not that long ago and he's the producer on the Wolverine film. If Jackman can do it why couldn't Keaton back in `94.

No. Keaton wanted a darker film, Warner Bros wanted a lighter film.

They could have compromised. They could have made a film that wasn't as dark as Batman Returns and definitly not as light as Batman Forever. At the time everyone was happy with B89. They could have pulled off something like that.

Which is ironically what Burton and Nic Cage did for Superman Lives! - they signed pay-or-play deals, and so walked away with full pay even though they didn't shoot a single frame.

Yup.

Well, anyway, WB offered the man 30 million bucks. In 2007 30 million is nothing, but in `94 it was a ridiculous amount of money! Just the fact that they offered him that much meant that they REALLY wanted him back. So, why wouldn't they have considered giving the guy a producing position and some creative control?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Rumor has it that Keaton saw where the franchise was going, and his offer was, in fact: "Give me 30 million and I walk out of here without killing you all."

 

[dude stannis]

Even today 30 million is a big deal. It's not like Keaton is on the level of Brad Pitt and George Clooney interms of popularity and media appeal. Keaton could go streaking during the superbowl and the media wouldn't notice. Especially these days now that he's winding things down and mostly appearing in independant movies.

 

[Catman]

Even today 30 million is a big deal. It's not like Keaton is on the level of Brad Pitt and George Clooney interms of popularity and media appeal. Keaton could go streaking during the superbowl and the media wouldn't notice. Especially these days now that he's winding things down and mostly appearing in independant movies.

Exactly. WB must have REALLY wanted Keaton if they offered him that. I'm sure if Keaton would have said, "make me a producer and give me creative control instead of the 30 mil" they would have said yes.

 

[lujho]

Catman, you're assuming he'd WANT to do all this. Maybe being Batman just wasn't the most important thing to him. He was just an actor, I doubt he thought of himself as the custodian of the character who was obligated to guide the franchise in the right direction, and I doubt he was worried that 12 years later fans on the internet would be pining away for further Keaton Batfilms that were never made.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

They could have compromised. They could have made a film that wasn't as dark as Batman Returns and definitly not as light as Batman Forever. At the time everyone was happy with B89. They could have pulled off something like that.

Why would they want to compromise? Warner Bros didn't care about Keaton's opinions, they just wanted his name on the posters and a film that families would go to see (and then buy the action figures).

 

[Two-Face]

Why would Michael Keaton do this? He’s an actor not a producer I don't think he's not a fan like us. (I'm amusing)

 

[Bat Attack]

I wish we could all go back in time to 1994 and show the people at Warner Bros. what would eventually become of the Batman franchise (B&R).

 

[Rockbottom]

^That would mean no BB, also B&R did pretty much show WB that camp does not work in this day and age, I still actually think BF was a good movie, could of been great, but it wasnt, but i still dont regard it as a bad movie.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Why would Michael Keaton do this? He’s an actor not a producer I don't think he's not a fan like us. (I'm amusing)

You are very amusing.

 

[Two-Face]

Oh well I done it again

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I wish we could all go back in time to 1994 and show the people at Warner Bros. what would eventually become of the Batman franchise (B&R).

I think Batman & Robin was a painful but important lesson for the entire movie industry. We needed Batman & Robin to get where we are today.

 

[Rockbottom]

I agree, but still... Why did it have to be a Batman movie that taught the lesson

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I agree, but still... Why did it have to be a Batman movie that taught the lesson

Because Batman is (or was) subjected to the most camp over the years. It had to be Batman. Anyway, it worked out for the best. We now have a serious Batman again and a healthy film series.

 

[Catman]

I think Batman & Robin was a painful but important lesson for the entire movie industry. We needed Batman & Robin to get where we are today.

True, but it was an EXTREMELY painful experience.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

True, but it was an EXTREMELY painful experience.

Birth always is. Or rebirth. Or purification.

 

[Rockbottom]

Thing is, B&R will probably remain in the memorys of people for a long time, while a fantastic movie like MOTP wont...

 

[CConn]

Thing is, B&R will probably remain in the memorys of people for a long time, while a fantastic movie like MOTP wont...

That's cause no one went to see MOTP.

B&R's certainly no more memorable than B89 or BR.

 

[Rockbottom]

I know, its a big shame really considering how good it was, but 89 will always be remembered more than B&R.