The Official Batman Returns Thread - Part 2

[The Shape]

That and why is there a huge 89 discussion in the Batman Returns thread, did someone switch the threads?

 

[shauner111]

You're being willfully obtuse shauner. Vicki's delving into old Brucey throughout the entire film. She's a reporter for Christsake. Look, she's supposed to meet "Bruce" at the museum and gets rescued by Batman.
Then, Bruce comes to her to tell her about his "complex life" and she's assaulted by Joker, and Bruce magically escapes from the gunshot?
Finally, Knox shows her the old papers about Waynes parents being murdered. And Knox says, "What do you suppose something like that does to a kid?"...Duhhh, turns him into Batman perhaps? Let's not be boneheads here - Vicki knew by that point.

Sorry but i dont buy it. Never have. She arrives at Wayne Manor and doesn't even know what this billionaire looks like. Throughout the movie she has a hard time figuring out that his goddamn parents were murdered. To me, the character was a complete moron even though she's a journalist. It's like the classic depiction of Lois Lane when she can't see that Clark is Superman yet she's a top notch journalist?

Even if she knew, it happens off screen. Which to me is a bad choice. If she really finds out in that scene with Knox, then she didn't give that great of a performance when she's just figured out that Bruce is Batman.

 

[The Shape]

Sorry but i dont buy it. Never have. She arrives at Wayne Manor and doesn't even know what this billionaire looks like. Throughout the movie she has a hard time figuring out that his goddamn parents were murdered. To me, the character was a complete moron even though she's a journalist. It's like the classic depiction of Lois Lane when she can't see that Clark is Superman yet she's a top notch journalist?

Even if she knew, it happens off screen. Which to me is a bad choice. If she really finds out in that scene with Knox, then she didn't give that great of a performance when she's just figured out that Bruce is Batman.

Sorry, dude, but you're not making sense here.

This portrayal of Bruce Wayne is different than in the Nolan movies. As we saw in B89, not much is known about Bruce Wayne. He's the definition of a loner, wandering around his own party and not even introducing himself to Vicki when she asks him where Bruce Wayne is. This was a time before the Internet, and Vicki was visiting from out-of-town. If Bruce Wayne wasn't exactly a public figure and she had never been to Gotham before, how would you expect her to know anything about this weird billionaire? Even Knox knew little to nothing about him. Rumors and gossip, if anything.

She doesn't have a hard time figuring out he's Batman. It just takes a few random events for her to put the pieces together. She catches him in a lie and follows him to the alley where his parents were killed, not knowing the significance of it. She's taken to the cave and witnesses all of Batman's technology first-hand. She sees Bruce Wayne ingeniously protect himself from a bullet in her apartment and then disappear. Finally, she has Knox dig through the newspaper archives and she discovers what happened to Bruce's parents.

Any one of those things aren't really enough to put two and two together that Bruce is Batman, but by the end of the movie, it's clear that she's figured it out. It makes sense.

In terms of her not giving a good performance and not expressing out loud that she knew...well, one of the best things about B89 is that not everything is explicitly explained, but rather strongly inferred.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

^This sums it up perfectly!

 

[Kane52630]

Too bad they're $200...

http://www.icollector.com/Batman-Returns-Cobblepot-for-Mayor-Campaign-Buttons_i14358099

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I could technically just remake those myself, I have a friend that owns his own screen printing company and they do buttons too, maybe I should look into it.

 

[shauner111]

Sorry, dude, but you're not making sense here.

This portrayal of Bruce Wayne is different than in the Nolan movies. As we saw in B89, not much is known about Bruce Wayne. He's the definition of a loner, wandering around his own party and not even introducing himself to Vicki when she asks him where Bruce Wayne is. This was a time before the Internet, and Vicki was visiting from out-of-town. If Bruce Wayne wasn't exactly a public figure and she had never been to Gotham before, how would you expect her to know anything about this weird billionaire? Even Knox knew little to nothing about him. Rumors and gossip, if anything.

She doesn't have a hard time figuring out he's Batman. It just takes a few random events for her to put the pieces together. She catches him in a lie and follows him to the alley where his parents were killed, not knowing the significance of it. She's taken to the cave and witnesses all of Batman's technology first-hand. She sees Bruce Wayne ingeniously protect himself from a bullet in her apartment and then disappear. Finally, she has Knox dig through the newspaper archives and she discovers what happened to Bruce's parents.

Any one of those things aren't really enough to put two and two together that Bruce is Batman, but by the end of the movie, it's clear that she's figured it out. It makes sense.

In terms of her not giving a good performance and not expressing out loud that she knew...well, one of the best things about B89 is that not everything is explicitly explained, but rather strongly inferred.

How is not much known about a billionaire who has a mansion full of guests. And they dont know what he looks like? Or his history? To me that's not about being a different character it's just lazy writing. Knox doesn't even recognize this guy.

Well, whatever. I have my opinions. And i think what i said makes sense. Others don't have to agree.

I still enjoy those scenes because Keaton is very entertaining. But they dont make too much sense. It makes her look like a moron, which every comic book movie used to do back then. Lois, Vicki, they try to make them seem intelligent/sexy because of their job description but then they just make them out to be complete idiots as the story progresses.

 

[milost]

Sorry but i dont buy it. Never have. She arrives at Wayne Manor and doesn't even know what this billionaire looks like. Throughout the movie she has a hard time figuring out that his goddamn parents were murdered. To me, the character was a complete moron even though she's a journalist. It's like the classic depiction of Lois Lane when she can't see that Clark is Superman yet she's a top notch journalist?

Even if she knew, it happens off screen. Which to me is a bad choice. If she really finds out in that scene with Knox, then she didn't give that great of a performance when she's just figured out that Bruce is Batman.

How is not much known about a billionaire who has a mansion full of guests. And they dont know what he looks like? Or his history? To me that's not about being a different character it's just lazy writing. Knox doesn't even recognize this guy.

Well, whatever. I have my opinions. And i think what i said makes sense. Others don't have to agree.

I still enjoy those scenes because Keaton is very entertaining. But they dont make too much sense. It makes her look like a moron, which every comic book movie used to do back then. Lois, Vicki, they try to make them seem intelligent/sexy because of their job description but then they just make them out to be complete idiots as the story progresses.

This is just fantastic!

Ain't it always the way. Of course you'd be willing to forgive the lazy, horrible writing of John Blake "just knowing" that Bruce Wayne is Batman from a look on his face and a feeling in his bones (from his unseen, offscreen youth for goodness sake) without ANY visual depiction, BUT not buy into Vicki figuring it out that when her character is visually shown doing just that. Brilliant!

If I'm coming off as snarky, well, it's intentional. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that you don't buy it. If you can accept not only that John Blake just knows what he knows by forced exposition, as well as believing that his quote, "I remember that one just fine" is enough for the audience to infer that Blake witnessed his dad's death, you can BUY that right before the third act, Vicki has figured it out. Nobody is that close minded, nobody.

You never once answered my question as to why she doesn't know. Why doesn't she? What was that Gotham Globe office scene all about? Why does Vicki state "oh my god, his parents were murdered in that alley", look upset, then have a eureka moment and storm out of the office with Knox warning her to "not get personal". What do you suppose the audience is meant to take away from that scene Shauner? Did Burton and Co. just decide to throw that in there for the heck of it like you seem to think? No, it has meaning. She KNOWS.

I'm going to call a spade a spade here and say that you're either purposely being ignorant because, "hey, it's a Burton Batman film", or you're the type that needs the writers use of blatant exposition to hold your hand throughout the picture so you can understand what's going on. Considering you can buy into Blake's insane, moronic reasoning, I'm going to assume that you can buy Vicki's and you're just being stubborn. Let's have a look here,


You don't buy Vicki Vale knowing/figuring it out, a character that is,

- a photojournalist looking for a story
- curious about Bruce Wayne from the start
- finds it odd why he wouldn't say who he was when they first meet
- spends some time with him
- finds out that "Alfred is his only family"
- feels scorned and hurt when Wayne lies to her and tries to drop her out of his life
- follows/stalks Bruce Wayne like a crazy ex.
- follows him into Crime Alley, takes pictures, sees the flowers
- sees how visibly shaken he is at City Hall when the Joker mows down the mob
- looks for files on Bruce Wayne and is pissed when his records contain nothing
- makes SEVERAL attempts of looking at Batman's mug while in his presence
- is pissed when Bruce Wayne just disappears after being shot after thinking he was dead for sure
- FINDS the evidence that Bruce Wayne witnessed the death of his parents, is visibly shaken, and leaves to talk to Bruce



But you buy John Blake who is,

- a new cop who we've spent a total of 3-4 minutes on screen with before the reveal
- an orphan
- states that he just knew since he was a kid from an "orphan look" and an angry feeling in his bones



Really Shauner? You can't give the character of Vicki Vale, Kim Basinger, Tim Burton, Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren, and Co. the benefit of the doubt here? But Blake as a character, JGL, the Nolan's and Goyer get off scotch free? That seems hypocritical. Especially when film is a visual medium and the filmmakers from 1989 actually SHOW us what Vicki is doing and feeling while the latter just drop it on our laps arbitrarily with the reasoning that, "he knows because he was an orphan".

A funny thing is, TDKR sort of rips off of Batman in that regard with the whole "look thing". Vicki even says during that scene that, "look at that face, that's the same face he had at city hall". It's just like Blake. But you know what? We SEE all of that with Vicki and none of that with Blake! So you can't just sit there and honestly tell me that what was done in 1989 was stupid and that you don't buy it, when TDKR is a far worse offender of the same concept.

As for the whole "nobody knows much about Bruce Wayne", what's your point? The depiction of the Keaton Bruce Wayne is that he's an old money, blue blooded recluse. That whole eccentric Howard Hughes characterization that TDKR ripped off. He stays in his Mansion, seemingly doing nothing. He comes off as aloof and doesn't know how to act in front of his guests, (doesn't come out and say he's Bruce Wayne), and blends into the crowd of his own charity ball! Nobody knows or cares about him because that's the characterization. Vicki of ALL people wouldn't know because she just came to Gotham!

Knox? He has nothing but utter disdain for the guy. After insulting and mocking Wayne left and right, he straight up says, "who cares about Bruce Wayne, I want the Batman". That's intentional irony.

It completely flies. The only argument you can make is that, "well, why wouldn't all of Gotham remember what happened to the Wayne family"? But even then, in the context of the story, why would that matter? Bruce Wayne in 1989 isn't a reckless, playboy that makes himself known to the public. He hides away, Citizen Kane style and nobody really cares about him as much as they do his $$$ and name. Gotham has crimes like this all the time. The film OPENS UP with a similar crime, a mugging, with parents and a young boy. There are hookers in the streets trying to solicit 12 year old boys. There are weird, homeless thugs all across the city. The city itself is too focused on an anniversary festival to care about the problems and high crime rate. Who cares about Bruce Wayne?

This isn't the Nolan or Schumacher movies where he's this "Prince of Gotham". He's not a celebrity, or a recognizable face. There aren't Gotham Tonight specials on his life or Time magazines with his face plastered all over them. He doesn't even have a "Wayne Enterprises". To the city, he's simply the wealthy guy that lives up on the hill. The guy people don't give much thought to.

If you can buy in the Nolan films that Wayne is so reclusive and "Hughesque" with stories about facial scars, pissing into jars, etc. You can buy that guy above that doesn't attend public functions while hosting lavish charity balls. A guy that blends into the public like above because he purposely stays away from those outlets. A guy that isn't cheerful and stays in his mansion all brooding and cynical during Christmas festivals.


As far as the Wayne murders are concerned, Bruce Wayne clearly confiscated all of his files and anything on him in records. HE even HAS the police records that he swiped from the city.

This Bruce Wayne was never like Kilmer, Clooney or Bale. There wasn't a "Wayne Enterprises", there was no playboy facade (instead, an aloof rich, 'Bruce Vain' facade), there was no extensive media coverage. He wasn't a personality, he was just as mysterious as his other persona, Batman.

Sure, there were probably people in the city that knew about the murders. Of course there would be, it made the papers. But why would they care when Bruce was none of the above and Gotham was so seedy, nasty and depressing that these kind of things happened all the time?

They wouldn't. As a doctor, Thomas Wayne was more important that Bruce Wayne, but he certainly wasn't the "EVERYONE IN THE CITY KNOWS HIM, HE'S A HUGE PHILANTHROPIST AND CREATED WAYNE ENTERPRISES, AND MADE OUR MONORAIL SYSTEM" from Begins.




The "bad writing" of Batman 1989 comes at the end with the Cathedral where, like Lobster pointed out, was where the writer's strike that "hurt" the film. There was also some typical studio meddling that cut out/added a lot with committee suggestions. Originally Vicki wasn't even up there with Batman and the Joker fell to his death from . . . sonar device bats. None of that makes sense or what was originally intended, from random thugs up on the Cathedral to going up there in the first place. But then again, most comic films suffer from third act problems. Batman certainly isn't the only Batman film to have that problem, is it.

People think that TDKR has archived footage, deleted scenes, concepts out the wazoo, Batman 1989 is chalk full of them. There were whole subplots with Knox knowing, some of which that were filmed that never saw the light of day.

 

[regwec]

I'm rather glad it isn't incumbent on me to rebut that post.

Well done, my friend.

 

[shauner111]

First of all, stop constantly bringing up nolan's movies to win arguments. This has nothing to do with those movies. Im only focusing on these ones that Burton made. What i feel about certain scenes from Nolan is irrelevant. Some people relate to characters or scenes in ways that you may not.

Maybe i have to watch the movie again because i dont remember the reactions Vale had when she's talking with Knox. Ive seen this movie many times, but i dont really look at the Burton movies as anything with substance. I never have. It's good fun, entertainment, with a ton of campiness thrown in. That's how i view the movies and so movies like this don't have the same effect on me, where i can remember every detail. Ill watch those scenes over again and maybe you're right. Because i dont remember her storming out of the office.

OK maybe Bruce is just some millionaire who nobody knows. Fine i can accept that now. But it's not "my" Bruce Wayne. But for arguments sake, k he's not well-known. There's no Wayne Enterprises. It's one or the other for me. I would rather have seen Alfred not let her into the cave, or have Vale look shocked about what she's seeing. Whether that takes place inside the cave or beforehand, i dont care. But that's my preference.

I refuse to talk about Nolan's Batman in here. It's not the place because the discussion becomes endlessly about that.

I relate to what i relate to, and what i find to be good writing versus bad writing is my opinion. If you dont share those views, then that's not my problem. Move on.

To me, having Knox at least (who has been in Gotham for a while) not recognize Bruce Wayne in his own house. That's just stupid.

Am i purposely being ignorant? No. I grew up with these movies and i like them. But i have problems with them. Are you when you go to the Nolan topics and others like this to keep bashing TDKR over and over until you're blue in the face, constantly saying that you hate everything about it? I would say yes you are. But am i coming off ignorant despite what im trying to say? Probably. But it's not done on purpose, so if i come off ignorant to you then so be it. I really dont care.

I wouldn't normally give Tim Burton, Kim Basinger, etc the benefit of the doubt...no...because i think they're hacks most of the time.

I wouldnt put it past Burton to just **** up by having Vale have no reaction instead of doing it because it was all a part of the plan. I wouldnt put it past him at all. Just like how he hears that fans thought it was stupid that Alfred let her in the cave, so in batman returns he does a scene where he pokes fun at that writing decision. Because he obviously knows it was a poor writing decision that didnt have much thought put into it otherwise he would have ignored the fans and said "who cares what you think, we wrote that in there for a reason so shut up and put up with it".

 

[shauner111]

I'm rather glad it isn't incumbent on me to rebut that post.

Well done, my friend.

Im glad it wasn't either. Oh nevermind, you have me on blocked. Yeah, talk about ignorance.

 

[antsman41]

That B&W photo of Batman is sick...

 

[Kane52630]

Sometimes buttons are easily pushed.

 

[The Shape]

How is not much known about a billionaire who has a mansion full of guests. And they dont know what he looks like? Or his history? To me that's not about being a different character it's just lazy writing. Knox doesn't even recognize this guy.

Well, whatever. I have my opinions. And i think what i said makes sense. Others don't have to agree.

I still enjoy those scenes because Keaton is very entertaining. But they dont make too much sense. It makes her look like a moron, which every comic book movie used to do back then. Lois, Vicki, they try to make them seem intelligent/sexy because of their job description but then they just make them out to be complete idiots as the story progresses.

Yeah, milost's post above in response to you pretty much sums up why you're wrong and not making sense here.

Rather than use TDKR-bashing to justify what goes on in B89, Shauner, I'm just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that maybe you just haven't sat down and watched B89 all the way through recently? It doesn't seem like you know enough about the Burton films to make informed opinions.

 

[regwec]

Im glad it wasn't either. Oh nevermind, you have me on blocked. Yeah, talk about ignorance.

No, I never bear a grudge, and I am sorry I overreacted in that way.

I'm not really sure how being impressed with Milost's detailed and cogent post equates to ignorance, however.

 

[The Shape]

Ive seen this movie many times, but i dont really look at the Burton movies as anything with substance. I never have. It's good fun, entertainment, with a ton of campiness thrown in.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, milost's post above in response to you pretty much sums up why you're wrong and not making sense here.

Rather than use TDKR-bashing to justify what goes on in B89, Shauner, I'm just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that maybe you just haven't sat down and watched B89 all the way through recently? It doesn't seem like you know enough about the Burton films to make informed opinions.

Thank you for being 100 times more level-headed. You're one of the posters here that i respect the most.

I watched it a few months back believe it or not. But when i watch Batman 89 or Batman Returns there's usually a massive gap between the viewings. But like i said, as much as i enjoy the movies (depending on my mood), i always view them as dark but comedic action movies. Like a popcorn movie. I have a great memory but when it comes to movies with that much style, i tend to have A.D.D and end up not remembering every detail from every scene. I don't get sucked in as much so i pop it in, then pause it, do something, then get back to it. Unfortunately.

So yeah i should probably put on those scenes that we're talking about and actually sit with it. I know some people think the movies have substance but they're more hidden. Fair enough. But i just dont view them that way only because i feel like Burton is incapable. Im really not a fan of the guys work, other than watching Edward Scissorhands every now and then for pure entertainment (like his batman movies).

No, I never bear a grudge, and I am sorry I overreacted in that way.

I'm not really sure how being impressed with Milost's detailed and cogent post equates to ignorance, however.

Apology accepted man. Ill STOP (LOL that's an edit, u probably read START and went WTF?) calling you out on stuff now. What i meant about ignorance is the fact that you said a few months back that you had my posts on block or whatever. I just find that to be a stupid thing to do around here. I could easily put milost or a few others (like Travesty: but he's funny, or Phantasm) on block when they just seem to be on here to troll and post gifs. But i dont even do that. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt even when im annoyed. And id like to think that i dont just go around bashing everything so i can look like some Nolan-ite. I like plenty of things about Burton's movies.

 

[shauner111]

Great Gosling moment! But yes, it's how i view the movies. That won't change. It hasn't since i was a little kid. I see them as creepy but campy popcorn movies. I see Returns as comedic film just as much as Forever. Only darker in look.

 

[Ponyboy]

Sorry but i dont buy it. Never have.

Again you're willfully ignoring the fact that she does piece it together. You're just not satisfied with the way it was portrayed onscreen.

She arrives at Wayne Manor and doesn't even know what this billionaire looks like.

Seems to me that nobody at the party knew what Bruce looked like. Not even Knox.

To me, the character was a complete moron even though she's a journalist.

Erm, photojournalist.

Even if she knew, it happens off screen. Which to me is a bad choice. If she really finds out in that scene with Knox, then she didn't give that great of a performance when she's just figured out that Bruce is Batman.

It's right there on the screen, it just doesn't happen verbally. She stormed out of the Gotham Globe real quick and headed straight over to Bruce's it seems...

 

[shauner111]

Is a photojournalist not a journalist?

 

[milost]

First of all, stop constantly bringing up nolan's movies to win arguments. This has nothing to do with those movies. Im only focusing on these ones that Burton made. What i feel about certain scenes from Nolan is irrelevant. Some people relate to characters or scenes in ways that you may not.

Why not? It's a great example.

We have two characters here (Blake and Vicki) that both figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Both versions of Bruce Wayne are reclusive, mysterious types at that point and time. Both characters that figure it out go by "looks" at some point in the films.

It's not irrelevant either. We've discussed the whole Blake issues in the TDKR section. You've defended it. Well, here, we have a similar situation and instead of being in favor with it when it gives much better examples of the character knowing/deducing, you write it off as "bad writing" and a lame attempt that doesn't work for you. It's a completely apt. comparison, and judging by how you perceive it, could make you look hypocritical.

My argument stands.

Maybe i have to watch the movie again because i dont remember the reactions Vale had when she's talking with Knox. Ive seen this movie many times, but i dont really look at the Burton movies as anything with substance. I never have. It's good fun, entertainment, with a ton of campiness thrown in. That's how i view the movies and so movies like this don't have the same effect on me, where i can remember every detail. Ill watch those scenes over again and maybe you're right. Because i dont remember her storming out of the office.

Fair enough. I have no problem with that. I even assumed as much in my post above. I'm not even mad or upset with you about it. I know you feel it has no substance, I even stated, "oh it's Burton Batman" to you in my post. Like I said, I KNOW that's how you feel. You've made it clear that it's just a mindless romp to you, and I guess that's fine. Your call.

Still, it's clearly a misunderstanding on your part so it would behoove you not to discuss the things you care little about. I mean, you can't throw in "that's terrible", "bad writing", etc. when it's all there, presented in the film and you don't know about it. That's not really fair. I've certainly never done that with TDKR.

OK maybe Bruce is just some millionaire who nobody knows. Fine i can accept that now. But it's not "my" Bruce Wayne. But for arguments sake, k he's not well-known. There's no Wayne Enterprises. It's one or the other for me. I would rather have seen Alfred not let her into the cave, or have Vale look shocked about what she's seeing. Whether that takes place inside the cave or beforehand, i dont care. But that's my preference.

Keaton Bruce Wayne isn't really "my" Bruce Wayne perse either. I've made it clear that BTAS Batman is THE characterization for me. Doesn't mean the take of Keaton Bruce Wayne is invalid or wrong, or even bad.

I kinda dig that he's the only one (out of live action) that is mysterious and uncomfortable with his "Bruce Wayne" persona. It's interesting that he actually prefers being down there in the cave or being in the suit compared to the other, almost, Shakespearean Bruce Waynes that just can't accept the dual identities. I don't think any of them get as dark and depressed as the Keaton Batman. I assume that's what most people want with their Batman, but then again, maybe it needs to be done in doses.

Are you when you go to the Nolan topics and others like this to keep bashing TDKR over and over until you're blue in the face, constantly saying that you hate everything about it?

Kinda different.

I know what you know in terms of TDKR. The difference is, I don't like it. You just stated how you might have to see Batman 1989 and that you view it as substance less. You probably gloss over all the things I mentioned because, like I said, it's simply "that Tim Burton Batman movie" from your youth. Well, I know TDKR by heart. I understand it's intentions and what it was trying to pursue, the difference for me is, because of those reasons, it doesn't work for me.

It's not really hypocritical or ignorant because you're saying things like, "Vicki didn't know" when it's presented that she does.

Likewise, you can't really sit there and say that the Blake thing works for you, but not because of exposition, when that is EXACTLY what it's doing. Like I said, you call a spade a spade or you don't. I guess you have every right to do that, but it shouldn't come off as a surprise when you're called out for it as evident in this thread.

I wouldnt put it past Burton to just **** up by having Vale have no reaction instead of doing it because it was all a part of the plan. I wouldnt put it past him at all. Just like how he hears that fans thought it was stupid that Alfred let her in the cave, so in batman returns he does a scene where he pokes fun at that writing decision. Because he obviously knows it was a poor writing decision that didnt have much thought put into it otherwise he would have ignored the fans and said "who cares what you think, we wrote that in there for a reason so shut up and put up with it".

False.

Burton to this day said he doesn't understand the backlash against that scene and even gives reasons as to why it works. Again, you don't know what you're talking about (respectively of course). I listed an article up there by the other writer, Warren Skaaren, where he defends it as well.

The scene in Returns isn't really poking fun at the writing decision as much as it is the poking of fun at the situation and backlash itself. Bruce Wayne doesn't say, "you let Vicki into the Batcave, who didn't know I was Batman", he straight up says, "I'm trying to work and you let her in you bastard". It was a jab at Alfred, the guy that spent most of his time in Batman 1989 trying to have Bruce live a normal life. So no, Burton and Co. intent isn't "up, we fudged it". It's just acknowledging the backlash with a little wink.

Besides, you and Burton might have a lot in common. It's been stated that he doesn't really like the first Batman and if he does, he views it as substanceless. Looking at his recent films, I can see why. He ain't the same dude he was back in the 80s. Still doesn't change Batman 1989 as a film, no matter what he might have forgotten.

 

[The Shape]

Besides, you and Burton might have a lot in common. It's been stated that he doesn't really like the first Batman and if he does, he views it as substanceless. Looking at his recent films, I can see why. He ain't the same dude he was back in the 80s. Still doesn't change Batman 1989 as a film, no matter what he might have forgotten.

Did Burton really say that? If so, what a *****er.

 

[Kane52630]

I could see why, the first film was a more studio controlled film.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I could see why, the first film was a more studio controlled film.

Despite their interference, Burton still produced a great film.

Of course, they still wouldn't give him money to make Edward Scissorhands.