The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 147

[Chrisbarnes182]

Wouldn't say that's the same. Forever was way more of a sequel to Returns than a reboot.

Yeah I was figured Batman(89), Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were from the same universe.

Which they started again with Nolan s films.

 

[milost]

It was a reboot. Back in 1995, the idea of a "reboot" (the term and the idea) wasn't even known by fans for comic book movies at that point.


There are loose references to Batman and Batman Returns, sure, (skin tight vinyl and a whip, madman murdered my parents) and two actors returned to portray their characters, but it was a reboot. It's even further contradictory when you have Kilmer Bruce state that, "I've never been in love before".


Schumacher and Co. refer to Forever as "the first", their first. Warner Bros. brought him in to give the movie a new life with a new look, something studios do now that are labeled "reboots". They changed everything up and "refreshed" the character and franchise. The suit, the car, the city, the characters, even Batman himself changed.




There's the Burton Batman film series, the Schumacher Batman film series, and the Nolan Batman film series. The Burton and Schumacher ones are only tied together for DVD/Blu-Ray marketing reasons. The two are both creatively different. Unless people want to think that the brooding, angry, safeguarding Keaton Batman that stayed hidden in the shadows so a photojournalist couldn't see him would suddenly devolve into a happy Batman that attends public affairs such as charities for diamonds and totes around a Bat-Credit card and drives a neon glow vehicle instead of the sleek, dark, machinery that he had before. It's not the same "universe".




In 1995, after Batman Returns, Warner Bros. REBOOTED the franchise just as they had done after 1997 with Batman Begins. New look, new series of films by a different filmmaker.

 

[shauner111]

To me theyre in the same universe. I consider it a reinvention of the look and characters, etc. But I don't call it a "reboot". That word is very direct to me. You're not just reinventing aspects of what came before, in a "reboot" you're literally wiping the slate clean of EVERYTHING and starting over from scratch. A reboot doesn't have to mean an automatic origin story, but that's just how I interpret it in the movie world. I mean, you can say both words mean the same with this stuff but I like to separate the two terms.

Forever wasn't a reboot because we had the same Alfred and Gordon with subtle references to the Burton films. The fact that Batman: Triumphant (the sequel to Batman & Robin that never happened) was going to have Harley Quinn and Scarecrow, with flashbacks to Nicholson's Joker...that tells me that Shumacher did NOT reboot the franchise.

Bruce actually wasn't in love with Vikki Vale or Selina Kyle. Even if Vikki was with Bruce. So there's no contradiction to Kilmer's line.

 

[BatLobster]

Forever was a reboot for all intents and purposes, but there is a difference between going for a "light" reboot that places the previous films in a "vague history" (ala Superman Returns) and attempts to sell it as a continuation of a story despite all the cosmetic changes.

Then there's the "pretend there never were any previous movies" reboot approach, ala Begins and TASM. There is something of a difference, for instance if it was announced that Batman/Superman was only a "light" reboot of Batman and the Nolan films were going to be a vague part of the history...that'd be pretty big news.

But yes, once again I do agree milost that Forever is essentially a reboot.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah ill settle with "soft reboot" but it can also be in "loose continuity".

It was kind of like the Bond franchise. I mean, even the 2 Burton films felt a bit like a loose continuation or a reinvention within itself. Returns was like a completely different universe. A parallel Gotham City. And I felt the same between Forever and Robin...it went even crazier with the camp. You can isolate Batman & Robin as just the Clooney take that was trying to pay homage to Adam West.

 

[milost]

To me theyre in the same universe. I consider it a reinvention of the look and characters, etc. But I don't call it a "reboot". That word is very direct to me. You're not just reinventing aspects of what came before, in a "reboot" you're literally wiping the slate clean of EVERYTHING and starting over from scratch. A reboot doesn't have to mean an automatic origin story, but that's just how I interpret it in the movie world. I mean, you can say both words mean the same with this stuff but I like to separate the two terms.

The studio brought Joel in to revamp it, to change it up. This is taken directly from the horses mouth from the special features and commentary. In those making of features, it's never referred to as "the third" or the "fourth", it's referred to as the first and the second. Schumacher says it, O' Donnel says it, the producers said it.

You say it's a reinvention, right? Why then, do they take place in the same universe? Because of the two threads of Alfred and Gordon? Because a few "witty" references to previous characters? The latest James Bond films did this, we have Judi Dench's M reprising her character and tons of references to the previous films . . . yet it's considered a reboot to the franchise, isn't it?

It's the same deal here. If this all takes place in the "same universe", how then does Bruce Wayne/Batman not only look different, but act different as well? He's no longer a dark, brooding, lonely individual, who isn't really known throughout the city. No, he attends circus functions as Bruce, diamond functions as Batman and has an Enterprises and is plastered all over magazines such as TIME (Batman too!). That's a STARK difference. So, Bruce/Batman is different in look, tone and characterization. The city is different. Harvey Dent is different. The storytelling is different. The Batmobile is different. The visuals and directing is completely different. How is that not a reboot?


WB didn't dig how dark Batman Returns was even though it was a critical and financial success. They wanted Batman '89 numbers and wanted parent communities off their backs. What did they do? They hired a new VISION, Joel Schumacher. Schumacher had radically different ideas on what he wanted to portray and put together a completely new team. A new Batman, a new suit, a new Batmobile, a new city, a new aesthetic, a new story, etc. etc.


Whenever a studio comes in wanting a fresh start and a new take, I consider that a reboot.

The fact that Batman: Triumphant (the sequel to Batman & Robin that never happened) was going to have Harley Quinn and Scarecrow, with flashbacks to Nicholson's Joker...that tells me that Shumacher did NOT reboot the franchise.

Who knows if that's even true. It might have been legit, it might have been a throw away idea. Schumacher also claimed he wanted to make a darker, origin film and was obsessed with a "Frank Miller, Batman: Year One" story for a couple of years. The point is, they never came into fruition.


We get too caught up in what is "canon" and sequential. In reality, these studios, directors and filmmakers are making ONE film at a time, canon be damned.


- In the 80s, Warner Bros. and Uslan were looking to make a Batman film, especially after the success of their #1 entity, Superman. They hired Tim Burton and sought to make a Batman film that embodied the spirit of the early versions of the character and make people forget about the camp and reintroduce him in a darker, more serious, fashion.

They succeeded, big time.


- Early 90s, of course WB wanted to repeat this success with profits in mind. Burton didn't want to come on originally but was convinced when it would be HIS baby and vision 100%. He had no interest in "making a sequel" and went to work on his creative Batman fairy tale centering on the tragic, monstrous villains while mirroring the title character.

While it was a success financially and critically, it didn't meet Warner Bros. expectations and the negative buzz about it not being kid or family friendly and more adult made them rethink the direction they were going in. So . . .


- WB hires Schumacher. He has a completely new vision of what the character should be. He's no longer dark and depressing, nor is the world he inhabits, now it's "bringing the comic to life" with flash and bang. His producer described it as "Saturday Night live with acid" which is the most fitting way to explain it. He made a "new, sexier Batman" (his words). Put nips and large codpieces on the suit. Started from the ground up and completely re-imagined Batman's arsenal and world. He brought in a new writer (three of them) to "lighten" and "sex" up Batman. He wanted to make a "comic book Batman", not bring him back to his roots, not put out a personal, twisted story tale, but his own spin on the character.

It worked and was even more of a success. Warner Bros. was so excited that they wanted him to pump out another in just under a year. Warner Bros. hires the new kid on the block


- Batman and Robin. It's not even Schumacher's baby anymore, even though it's his vision to the max. It's a toy commercial powered by Hollywood and media monguls. They thought the formula they had in 1995 worked, so they did it again with more pizazz (go lighter, hire the top names of the "sexiest" actors and hope for the best).

It failed.


- Warner Bros. shelves the character. Years later, they look back and see that serious, dark, and edgy could be profitable again. After dozens of ideas and scripts for a new film they settled on an origin story. They hire a new director, Nolan who has a completely new vision of what the character should be. He hires a writer and they go to work making an origin story to revitalize the character.

It succeeds. From humble beginnings, Batman Begins is a humble success. It isn't massively huge and loud, but it's enough to make waves. A quiet achievement that proves that the property still has feet.


- With the success, Warner Bros. gives Nolan and Co. free reign to push their vision of the character. We get the highly successful Dark Knight films as well as their sequel. Nolan decides he wants to explore other things and get out while the goings good so Warner Bros. goes to what they do the best, their financial gut.

- Enter Batman vs. Superman (or whatever it's called)





That's the franchise in a nutshell. There are 7 Batman films under Warner Bros. name, soon to be 8. What started out as an odyssey to just get the character on the big screen in the 80s turned out to be a roller coaster of a ride. Dark films, successful films, hyped films, campy films, serious films, you name it.

There aren't 2 Batman movies here, or three movies there, or a trilogy here. There are only 7 films and 3 directorial visions and other involvement. None of this is canon, they're making movie. Even within their own series of films, the directors have different "visions" of what they show that don't rely on canon.


Batman '89, Batman Forever and Batman Begins are the perfect mix of studio involvement + directors for what audiences want and crave.

Batman Returns and The Dark Knight Rises are the directors putting their personal stamp on the character with their unique creativity and vision. It's their nods to what they love about film.

The Dark Knight is a film full of integrity and media blitz gone right. Batman and Robin is a movie full of "yes men" and media blitz gone horribly wrong.






That's it. It's simply a studio and the directors they hire making films. Not an actual universe where logic and sequential canon come into play. The choices that are made and the liberties that are taken are done one film at a time.

Bruce actually wasn't in love with Vikki Vale or Selina Kyle. Even if Vikki was with Bruce. So there's no contradiction to Kilmer's line.

Vale definitely. He had no interest in her, it shows. Kyle? He definitely loved her. She was a mirror image of him that he was instantly attracted to. He wanted to save her.

If there's any romance and love in these Batman films, it's Batman Returns.

Batman is essentially a one-night stand, Batman is too preoccupied with crime. Forever is a weird relationship with no love or connection whatsoever other than the psych doctor being in heat. Batman and Robin has no love interest worth mentioning. Batman Begins the relationship is superficial. The Dark Knight is used to get the character killed and move the story forward. TDKR the "love" is a plot driven device to end the story.

In fact, it makes me question what any of these characters in these movies think love is.

 

[DyeLorean]

I always thought Batman & Robin was an attempt -a terrible, terrible attempt- at bringing something colorful, looks and portrayals, from the old Adam West's Batman show. The balance in Forever worked -for me, at least- but B&R was just... ugh.

 

[Shikamaru]

Forever was a soft reboot/in loose continuity with the previous 2 films.

 

[DyeLorean]

It was still produced by Tim Burton, right?

 

[The Joker]

There was some verbal references to the previous movies in Forever, like Chase's line to Batman "You like strong women. I've done my homework. Or do I need skin tight vinyl and a whip?".

Blatant reference to Catwoman.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Batman Forever seemed like more than a soft reboot.

 

[JackWhite]

Batman Forever seemed like more than a soft reboot.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

I always read comments about how TDKR is the weakest of the trilogy. But when it comes to polls it always beats BB. Is this because they have similar reception? Most trilogies have an obvious "weak link" but I feel like with this trilogy it is unclear.

 

[DyeLorean]

For me TDKR is easily the weakest of the trilogy.

 

[Brain Damage]

Same. The filmmaking is A-grade in all three, but the script is just nowhere near as tight as the other two.

 

[BatMatt]

It was still produced by Tim Burton, right?

Had a producer credit but didn't really have any creative input

 

[ChrisB]

Leaked photo of Joey King after being called into Nolan's office after he read this interview:

Joey King reveals her 'The Dark Knight Rises' character

Spoiler

 

[Snow Queen]

Same. The filmmaking is A-grade in all three, but the script is just nowhere near as tight as the other two.

I say this, except I say it in regards to Batman Begins.

 

[The Batman]

Eh, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are sequels to Burtons movies, as far as I'm concerned. IMO, people are just being revisionist in light of the current reboot culture. But the original franchise operated just like the Bond films, with a very loose, yet still connected continuity.

 

[BatLobster]

Unrelated to all this, just something I wanted to throw out there.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the Batman vs. Superman film and I've been wrestling with all of them for the past few days. One thing has dawned on me though.

The DC fanbase is heading towards completely new territory. Look how many subforums we have to discuss the movie right now: The MOS boards, Future Batman Films boards, and the new "Batman & Superman" boards (and yet here I am discussing it on the TDKR boards ). The Man of Steel sequel and the Batman reboot have become one and the same. I'm still having a hard time getting my head around that one. What I'm getting at here is that as much cognitive dissonance and mixed reactions we saw in the aftermath of films like TDKR, Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel...that's nothing compared to what's coming. There's no longer only "one" fanbase to please. True, there are plenty of overall 'DCU' fans, but there are also "Superman only" and "Batman only" fans, and each have their own strong set of expectations (not to mention tons of internal differences and disagreements). Right now it's hard to gauge what the overall consensus is about this project going forward, and I have a feeling that might continue with each decision that gets made and probably through after the film's release.

I guess what prompted me to say this was the comment about how it's hard to tell what the general consensus about what the weakest of TDKT is. I think that's very much true, but right now I feel like with this new movie we're heading towards a clusterf*** of opposing opinions the likes of which we've never seen.

And the genius part of it? It's going to get us talking. It's no longer just a matter of being a good Batman film or a good Superman film. We're all going to be part of a larger conversation now whether we like it or not.

These are just my observations and thoughts. It's not my wish to condemn or praise the movie with this post. Right now polarizing films seem to be the trend, and this film seems poised to be just that...heck, the two characters are meant to be polar opposites. But in some twisted way I think that might work to the film's advantage. We'll see.

 

[Brain Damage]

Eh, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are sequels to Burtons movies, as far as I'm concerned. IMO, people are just being revisionist in light of the current reboot culture. But the original franchise operated just like the Bond films, with a very loose, yet still connected continuity.

This guy gets it

 

[milost]

But the original franchise operated just like the Bond films, with a very loose, yet still connected continuity.

For me, there are 7 films in the Warner Bros. franchise, soon to be 8.


- Batman
- Batman Returns
- Batman Forever
- Batman and Robin
- Batman Begins
- The Dark Knight
- TDKR

- MOS 2: Batman vs. Superman (and future Batman flicks)


That franchise contains 3 series,


- Burton's vision (Batman and Batman Returns)

- Schumacher's vision (BF and B&R)

- Nolan's vision (Begins, Dark Knight, etc.)




There's a clear distinction between the three.

- Burton's series starts out with a gloomy setting that sets the tone of the film, has the audience go through caverns of some sort (the Batman symbol or the sewers below Gotham) and ends with a pan up Gotham's city scape to reveal a character looking out at the signal in the sky.

The corresponding logo is that sleek, sharp bat symbol (from the iconic June 23rd advance sheet poster) decked out in black and gold or black and white, covered with snow.

- Schumacher's series starts out with a WB logo that morphs into a "laserized" bat, then has swooshing cast member names flying past the screen in character coordinated colors. Then it ends with, I guess, Batman and friends running in front of a bat light in slow motion, 60's style, in a studio.

The corresponding logo is that fat, stretched out bat symbol with the laser etched contours with either Riddler's question mark or the weird Robin symbol.

- Nolan's films start out with a bat symbol theme that sets up the tone of the film (and a prologue that sets up the villain, with Begins being the odd man out), and ends with a batsignal (unveiling, destruction, resurrection) and a flash forward montage in the last two.

The corresponding logo is that sharp, edged batarang bat symbol obscured with the theme of the film (beaten bronzed, obscured bats, chaotic explosion, jagged and broken).








Forever and Batman and Robin don't have enough elements for them to be true sequels in the narrative of the first two. They're just too far removed. Are there references? Sure. But it's waaaaaaay too drastic a change with an extremely loose non-chronological story. The Dark Knight references "not being able to turn his head" (even though the Begins suit actually had a little more movement than previous suits), and "should do fine against cats", does that make it a sequel to Batman Returns?




You guys really want to believe that the Keaton Batman becomes the Val Clooney Batman which would completely negate the characterization and narrative of the first two? That the inspired opening credits showing the sharp and sleek logo slowly emerging and a villain's birth become crappy 90s typography effects literally "fwoooshing" past the screen? The Keaton Batman starts wearing nipples and huge codpieces on his uniform? Let's people take photos of him? Goes to public events as Batman? Carries a bat-credit card? Spews a one-liner every chance he gets? Comes into contact, face to face in the light with the people he interacts with?


Well, okay.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

The studio wanted Keaton for Batman Forever, didn't they... And maybe he would have come back if the talks went better than they did in regards to the tone of the direction.

 

[Marvolo]

The studio wanted Keaton for Batman Forever, didn't they... And maybe he would have come back if the talks went better than they did in regards to the tone of the direction.

Keaton has said he doesn't like to play the same character twice, and getting him back for Batman Returns was like pulling teeth. I don't think there was ever a snowball's chance in hell of getting him to come back a third time.

 

[BatLobster]

milost, I think you're confusing what people want to think with people's assessments of what was intended with the films. Obviously no fan of Keaton-Bats in their right mind wants to think he went on to wield the Bat-card (except maybe Grant Morrison).

I just think they're bad sequels. But honestly, the first three films do form a loose trilogy of sorts, wherein Bruce deals with his demons in the third film and reconciles his two identities while also trying to steer Grayson away from the murderous, vengeful path that consumed him.

When I watch Batman Forever, I don't think of it as a continuation of Returns (nor do I think of Returns as a continuation of B'89), but you can see the attempt was there in some places to add some connective tissue. I think that's all people mean. I highly doubt anyone here sits and watches Batman & Robin willfully pretending that it's the same world as Batman 89.