The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - Part 153

[The Joker]

I think when he says "We’ve got a chance here to fix whatever we kind of maybe went off", he's referring specifically to Batman Returns, which is a movie that I don't think he was thrilled with. Keaton on Returns:

“We got to be back home [filming in Burbank] so that made me happy. It was quite the cast with Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny DeVito and everyone. It wasn’t as satisfying to me when I saw it, but maybe that’s because the bar was set so high on the first one. I think I only watched it one time."

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movi...s-of-batman-and-shining-love-for-beetlejuice/

I know he's lukewarm on Returns, but his quote is in direct follow up to him talking about the want to show Batman's origin. Not lets get back to telling a good basic Batman story. That would imply he was talking about his unsatisfactory feelings for Returns.

I'd wager that his desire to do an origin story for the third was more a matter of "let's get back to basics and away from all of this weird ****" than it was a matter of "we've got to do an origin now because we ****ed up by not doing one first". I'm not sure where or why you're getting the impression that Keaton was "so unsatisfied" by B89 not having a full-on origin story.

That doesn't make sense because why would an origin story of all things fix all the weird stuff they did in Returns? A regular good Batman story could have done that. It didn't have to be an origin movie for Batman.

No he specifically says "I said you want to see how this guy started. We’ve got a chance here to fix whatever we kind of maybe went off.". He says there's a want to show Batman's origin and then says that will fix where they went off. Meaning they made a mistake not showing Batman's origin and basically showing how this character is who he is. Giving the character some proper exposure and development.

 

[georgec]

Late to this, but Batman '89 didn't really need to be an origin story. It would have been fine that way, but the limited flashbacks worked just as well. B89 mainly needed to just get Batman out there and show him in his prime.

Begins' situation was different. After B&R, movie character Batman was kind of a laughingstock for some people (movie-going audiences who didn't follow BTAS, read the comics, etc.). Doing an origin story made sense because the character as presented in film needed to be deconstructed and put back together. Audiences needed a new introduction to Batman, and Begins provided that foundation on which the character as presented in film could move forward.

Both movies came along at different times and for different reasons. They both work well in terms of their overarching purpose ('get Batman out there' vs 'reestablish movie Batman's roots') and their respective director's visions.

A third film as an origin story with Keaton could have been pretty cool, though.

 

[The Joker]

There was no limited flashbacks. There was one flashback. Thrown into the script last minute during the writer's strike (against Sam Hamm's wishes). Only because it was tied to the Joker.

 

[BatLobster]

To be honest I think it's probably assuming too much to read a lot into Keaton's comments one way or the other. This is the same guy who's praised Nolan's Batman movies and then said he's only seen little bits of them in the same breath. Not that I'm saying he's a liar or anything, but just his opinions on this Bat-stuff are a little sketchy sometimes.

He does still seem to very proud of Batman 89 though, especially recently. I could understand him wanting to do an origin movie though, as he really never truly got to be THE star of either of his Batman movies. I'm sure he would've relished the opportunity to have more screentime as Bruce Wayne and less time confined in the suit.

 

[The Joker]

Unless you've got something that contradicts what he said there, then there's no reason not to take him at his word. He's very clear and specific in what he's saying he wanted for the third movie. I don't see why there should be any doubt as to what he means.

It's a harsh truth. Nobody's saying he's not proud of being in Batman, but even he's not blind to the flaws of the movies. He's big enough to say so publicly. I respect that.

 

[BatLobster]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying he didn't want to do an origin for the third movie. That much is clear enough. I'm just saying it could be for reasons beyond what is being discussed. Saying it's "only" because he wasn't pleased with Returns or "only" because he wasn't satisfied with 89 are kind of narrow ways of looking at it when it can easily be a combination of things. He could have very well just thought it was a story that was ripe to be told and a good way to keep the franchise fresh (which ultimately proved to be entirely true with BB).

That's not the same as thing as him feeling like Batman 89 should've been an entirely different movie, which I've never heard him say.

I still maintain what I said about the previous page about Burton not being the director best suited to tell Batman's origin story, anyway. So it all worked out.

 

[The Joker]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying he didn't want to do an origin for the third movie. Clearly he did. I'm just saying it could be any number of reasons. Saying it's "only" because he wasn't pleased with Returns or "only" because he wasn't satisfied with 89 are kind of narrow ways of looking at it when it can easily be a combination of things. He could have very well just thought it was a story that was ripe to be told and a good way to keep the franchise fresh (which ultimately proved to be entirely true with BB).

That's not the same as thing as him feeling like Batman 89 should've been an entirely different movie, which I've never heard him say.

His comment of the want to see Batman's origin, followed by saying it can fix where they went wrong before torpedoes that theory. He's talking specifically about the want of audiences to see Batman's origin, and then says it can fix where they went wrong. Obviously meaning that they made a mistake not showing it before. He's not talking generalities here. He's talking specifics.

The story was ripe to be told from movie 1, when audiences were first introduced to the character. Like in Donner's Superman. It's just common sense that's where you do a superhero origin. The first movie. Not three movies into the franchise (who ever heard of that?), unless you're correcting an error of not doing it before, like they did here.

 

[The Shape]

That doesn't make sense because why would an origin story of all things fix all the weird stuff they did in Returns? A regular good Batman story could have done that. It didn't have to be an origin movie for Batman.

Well, off the top of my head, an origin story would likely have returned the franchise to the grim urban landscape of economic downfall plagued with crime that Batman 89 presented. Bruce Wayne's story and the birth of Batman likely wouldn't have included the kinds of weird, fantastical elements that came with Batman Returns. It would have been less about adding more over-the-top villains and more about bringing it "back to the basics", as I said.

No he specifically says "I said you want to see how this guy started. We’ve got a chance here to fix whatever we kind of maybe went off.". He says there's a want to show Batman's origin and then says that will fix where they went off. Meaning they made a mistake not showing Batman's origin and basically showing how this character is who he is. Giving the character some proper exposure and development.

How does what he said mean what you are asserting it does? You are drawing imaginary conclusions and making a hard assumption based on a vague quote that was in reference to his desired plans for a third film.

Logically, wouldn't the suggestion that "we've got a chance here to fix wherever we kind of maybe went off" make more sense for him to be referencing the second film (which was quite different, way more "out there" than B89, less successful, less popular and acclaimed by moviegoers at the time), rather than the first? Why would he suggest or indicate that they "went off" or made a mistake with the first film, B89, which he explicitly states as having "set the bar so high" for subsequent films in the franchise?

Unless you've got something that contradicts what he said there, then there's no reason not to take him at his word. He's very clear and specific in what he's saying he wanted for the third movie. I don't see why there should be any doubt as to what he means.

It's a harsh truth.

He's clear in saying what he wanted for a third movie, not clear in saying that they made a mistake with anything related to Batman 89's story or execution, which is what you are asserting. Nothing harsh about it, unless you choose to accept that he may have been suggesting that Returns (a film you love) is where they "went off".

 

[The Shape]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying he didn't want to do an origin for the third movie. That much is clear enough. I'm just saying it could be for reasons beyond what is being discussed. Saying it's "only" because he wasn't pleased with Returns or "only" because he wasn't satisfied with 89 are kind of narrow ways of looking at it when it can easily be a combination of things. He could have very well just thought it was a story that was ripe to be told and a good way to keep the franchise fresh (which ultimately proved to be entirely true with BB).

That's not the same as thing as him feeling like Batman 89 should've been an entirely different movie, which I've never heard him say.

Correct.

 

[BatLobster]

His comment of the want to see Batman's origin, followed by saying it can fix where they went wrong before torpedoes that theory. He's talking specifically about the want of audiences to see Batman's origin, and then says it can fix where they went wrong. Obviously meaning that they made a mistake not showing it before. He's not talking generalities here. He's talking specifics.

The story was ripe to be told from movie 1, when audiences were first introduced to the character. Like in Donner's Superman. It's just common sense that's where you do a superhero origin. The first movie. Not three movies into the franchise (who ever heard of that?), unless you're correcting an error of not doing it before, like they did here.

Okay, fair enough. It's been a while since I've looked at all the exact quotes, but I'll take your word for it and I'm not looking to get into a semantics debate here. Assuming you are right then, I just simply disagree with him. I actually think a prequel would've worked quite well in the case of his Batman and actually been more effective AFTER he was successfully reintroduced to the public via Batman 89. It's not like prequels were a foreign concept back then. Godfather 2, Temple of Doom, etc.

I think it would've been rad as hell if the third Burton movie was kind of a Godfather 2-esque prequel that told a story in the current timeline and split that with extended flashbacks of the origin story and then converged the two somehow.

So to sum it up what I'm saying- a third Keaton film with an origin story, potentially great idea. Wishing Batman 89 had been an origin story instead of what it is...not me, personally. For many reasons.

 

[The Joker]

Well, off the top of my head, an origin story would likely have returned the franchise to the grim urban landscape of economic downfall plagued with crime that Batman 89 presented. Bruce Wayne's story and the birth of Batman likely wouldn't have included the kinds of weird, fantastical elements that came with Batman Returns. It would have been less about adding more over-the-top villains and more about bringing it "back to the basics", as I said.

Any regular Batman story can cover the landscape of economic downfall ad take it back to basics. Crime can rise again and have the exact same effect. It doesn't have to be an origin story to cover that. Again you're ignoring that he specifically says the WANT to see the origin. Not the want to see a good old fashioned back to basics Batman story like in B'89, if you can call it that. He's not talking generalities about a good Batman story to bring the franchise on track. No. He's talking origin. The want to see where Batman came from, and how that can fix where they went off.

And where do they do hero origin stories? The first movie.

How does what he said mean what you are asserting it does? You are drawing imaginary conclusions and making a hard assumption based on a vague quote that was in reference to his desired plans for a third film.

Because it plain common sense spelled out in fifty foot high letters. He says there is a want to see Batman origin (now I wonder where he got that idea from), and then he follows up said comment by saying it can fix where they went wrong. Meaning the neglect of skipping it in movie 1 where it should have been done.

It's very easy to see what he's saying there plain as day.

Logically, wouldn't the suggestion that "we've got a chance here to fix wherever we kind of maybe went off" make more sense for him to be referencing the second film (which was quite different, way more "out there" than B89, less successful, less popular and acclaimed by moviegoers at the time), rather than the first? Why would he suggest or indicate that they "went off" or made a mistake with the first film, B89, which he explicitly states as having "set the bar so high" for subsequent films in the franchise?

Of course not because if he was talking about the second movie he wouldn't be talking about audiences want to see Batman's origin, something that is first movie ground to cover, not second or third movie.

Most people see Returns as a step down from B'89, and it's certainly easy to see why Keaton would since his character has even less focus in it than he did in B'89. Then there's the backlash it got for the violence, and sexual innuendo, and all that. Which is why the franchise went camp.

Explain how the want to see Batman's origin relates to that.

He's clear in saying what he wanted for a third movie, not clear in saying that they made a mistake with anything related to Batman 89's story or execution, which is what you are asserting. Nothing harsh about it, unless you choose to accept that he may have been suggesting that Returns (a film you love) is where they "went off".

Unless you're living in a world where superhero origins are usually done in second movies, then yes he's totally talking about Returns there. Yes I totally accept Returns was also a mis-step in the franchise in some ways (overly violent and graphic sometimes, and less focus on Batman). But that's not what Michael is talking about specifically here. Michael wasn't concerned about the darkness or violence of the movies, and hated that they tried to brighten it up.

'“I knew we were in trouble in talks for the third one when certain people started the conversation with ‘Why does it have to be so dark?’ ‘Why does he have to be so depressed?’ ‘Shouldn’t there be more color in this thing?’ I knew I was headed for trouble and that it wasn’t a road I was going to go down.”'

http://collider.com/batman-3-michael-keaton-origin-story-christopher-nolan/

 

[The Joker]

Okay, fair enough. It's been a while since I've looked at all the exact quotes, but I'll take your word for it and I'm not looking to get into a semantics debate here. Assuming you are right then, I just simply disagree with him. I actually think a prequel would've worked quite well in the case of his Batman and actually been more effective AFTER he was successfully reintroduced to the public via Batman 89. It's not like prequels were a foreign concept back then. Godfather 2, Temple of Doom, etc.

I think it would've been rad as hell if the third Burton movie was kind of a Godfather 2-esque prequel that told a story in the current timeline and split that with extended flashbacks of the origin story and then converged the two somehow.

I love The Godfather 2, but it wasn't really a prequel. It was a sequel with flashbacks of how Brando's character as a young man came to be the Godfather. Michael Corleone as The Godfather was still the driving narrative of the movie set in present day.

Temple of Doom was done technically as a prequel strictly on the basis that Lucas didn't want another movie with the Nazis as villains again. I think Spielberg doesn't care for Doom much does he?

Batman '89 couldn't really have been done in that vein since it clearly states Batman's only been a recent sighting in the city over the last month. He pretty much is trying to establish himself in the city as a feared presence, hence why he's telling that mugger to tell all his friends about him. He's brand new, and just an urban legend at this point that nobody really believe exists except Knox. So that really is his starting point as Batman.

So unless a prequel is willing to spend the bulk of the movie just with Bruce Wayne, and Batman showing up at the end, it's the only way it would work unless they were willing to mess with the continuity. I can't see a Batman-less movie selling to audiences.

Begins didn't have that trap because it did what all superhero origins do, it told the origin from movie 1, and got to bring the hero in mid point in the movie.

 

[BatLobster]

To be fair, the whole thing with the Burton Batman films is they weren't terribly concerned with "honoring tradition" when it comes to what people would expect from a superhero movie. After the freakshow of Batman Returns, doing a bit of backwards storytelling and fleshing out the origin would hardly be the strangest of directions to take the franchise. I could easily see the marketing campaign selling it as the never-before-told story and playing up the mystery of how he became the Batman. I think story-wise it could've worked just fine as a sequel/prequel. I just don't think Burton would've necessarily done that material justice.

Even Batman Forever expounds on more elements of the origin. At the very least it gives us a reason behind the bat motif beyond "they're great survivors". I think if you took a movie with more emphasis on that, and more consistent flashbacks throughout you could essentially fill in a lot of those cracks in a pretty satisfactory way that would actually enrich Batman 89 rather than "fix" it.

But again, I'm glad everything played out as it did. If they had gone the "classic route" from Day 1, again... Batman Begins would not exist.

 

[The Joker]

To be fair, the whole thing with the Burton Batman films is they weren't terribly concerned with "honoring tradition" when it comes to what people would expect from a superhero movie. After the freakshow of Batman Returns, doing a bit of backwards storytelling and fleshing out the origin would hardly be the strangest of directions to take the franchise. I could easily see the marketing campaign selling it as the never-before-told story and playing up the mystery of how he became the Batman. I think story-wise it could've worked just fine as a sequel/prequel. I just don't think Burton would've necessarily done that material justice.

Oh yeah I'm not saying they couldn't have done the origin in movie three (it would take some continuity tinkering), I'm talking about the reason why Keaton wanted it, and it wasn't because he wanted a back to basics traditional Batman tale.

I hear even Schumacher had plans for doing a Batman Year One type story, too.

Even Batman Forever expounds on more elements of the origin. At the very least it gives us a reason behind the bat motif beyond "they're great survivors".

I always thought that was a funny and sad irony. Out of the old Batman franchise, narratively Forever of all movies shows the most interest in the leading character.

 

[shauner111]

It sounds more like Keaton wanted the third movie to be a reboot with him in it. Even without him playing the role, it seemed like he wanted that origin for the next film in the mid-90's.

You cant do a third film, make it a origin story, without completely tossing away Batman 89. To fix the mistake? Is he talking about Returns not being a good enough sequel with the wrong type of story? Or is he talking about the mistake they made in the first, of not doing a proper origin? Either way, what would the origin be? They already showed young Bruce in the alley, with his parents murdered by a 20 year old Joker. Would we see a 45 year old Michael Keaton with some makeup, trying to look like he's in his 20's or early 30's....training with Ducard....and making his first appearances around Gotham? They already did the urban legend thing in 89'. What is there to do? Reboot or "soft reboot" with Michael in the role: it would be too confusing and it was the right move to make to add a new director and especially a new, younger actor, to do that origin.

 

[The Joker]

It sounds more like Keaton wanted the third movie to be a reboot with him in it. Even without him playing the role, it seemed like he wanted that origin for the next film in the mid-90's.

You cant do a third film, make it a origin story, without completely tossing away Batman 89. To fix the mistake? Is he talking about Returns not being a good enough sequel with the wrong type of story? Or is he talking about the mistake they made in the first, of not doing a proper origin? Either way, what would the origin be? They already showed young Bruce in the alley, with his parents murdered by a 20 year old Joker. Would we see a 45 year old Michael Keaton with some makeup, trying to look like he's in his 20's or early 30's....training with Ducard....and making his first appearances around Gotham? They already did the urban legend thing in 89'. What is there to do? Reboot or "soft reboot" with Michael in the role: it would be too confusing and it was the right move to make to add a new director and especially a new, younger actor, to do that origin.

I never even thought of that. How would they credibly make Keaton look like a young man in his 20's. They didn't have the CGI trickery back then that they have now either.

Not that I'm advocating a CGI-ed younger Bruce.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It's a relatively small story wrinkle in Begins but I always thought it was a genius move to have Bruce almost revenge murder Joe Chill and then get thwarted by Falcone as the figurehead of the systemic corruption and crime in the city. It was almost as though Gotham itself denied Bruce his vengeance even as it had took his parents originally and it, among other things, positioned his mission as Batman as a much more city-wide crusade. He was going after criminality itself, something larger and more noble than any kind of revenge-driven missive. I've always disliked the version of the origin where the impetus was revenge. And I am including Batman 89 with that. Never liked the Joker being the murderer of the Waynes.

Furthermore, I loved the fact that this Batman saw the big picture. Hamfisted as it was, he learned early on that random crimes like Joe Chill's murder of his parents were but a symptom of a larger problem. On his very first night out, he almost solved this problem. Compare this to comic book batman who had a much narrower vision. His first night consisted of brutally punishing three youngsters trying to steal a television.

 

[The Shape]

You cant do a third film, make it a origin story, without completely tossing away Batman 89.

What? Of course you can. BatLobsterRises brought up The Godfather Part II which is a perfect example of this and one of the greatest films of all time. It was simultaneously a sequel and prequel, with two linear stories being told.

Why would anyone think that a third Batman movie couldn't accomplish something similar in terms of storytelling using flashbacks, or that it would have to be a reboot? Main story could be set in present day with an introspective Batman grappling with the path he had chosen, flashbacks could have been interwoven into the film to chronicle Bruce's journey after his parents death using a child actor, teen actor, and then Keaton, skipping around to key moments in his life pre-Batman and leading to the decision to ultimately put on the cape and cowl.

Even Batman Begins, whilst telling its present day story, featured flashbacks of Bruce as a boy and then Bale as a college-aged Bruce. Keaton's age would not have made this impossible, as Hollywood had been playing around with the ages of actors/characters for decades. Different hairstyles, makeup, clothing, mannerisms, etc.

 

[The Joker]

http://news.yahoo.com/superhero-movies-ruining-cinema-says-exorcist-director-055308344.html

Anyone else getting sick of seeing directors complaining about the superhero genre?

 

[The Shape]

http://news.yahoo.com/superhero-movies-ruining-cinema-says-exorcist-director-055308344.html

Anyone else getting sick of seeing directors complaining about the superhero genre?

Interesting criticism from a guy who has maybe directed one well-received movie since 1985.

 

[BatLobster]

It doesn't really bother me to be honest. Superhero movies are among the most prominent forms of populist entertainment we have going right now. Of course you're going to get some snobbier types snubbing their noses at them. I can even understand why an older director like Friedkin might feel that way. He's coming from a totally different era. Just like I have older relatives who are completely baffled by the whole superhero thing and always say they have no interest in seeing anything with "people flying all over the place".

I think Nolan said it best when he said they'll stay popular for as long as audiences want to continue going on that ride.

 

[shauner111]

http://news.yahoo.com/superhero-movies-ruining-cinema-says-exorcist-director-055308344.html

Anyone else getting sick of seeing directors complaining about the superhero genre?

He's bitter and i love how he describes his own films as being stories about good people who have dark sides and vice versa....yet, that's what these superhero films are about most of the time.

 

[Snow Queen]

http://news.yahoo.com/superhero-movies-ruining-cinema-says-exorcist-director-055308344.html

Anyone else getting sick of seeing directors complaining about the superhero genre?

"Most of my films are about the thin line between good and evil that exists in everyone," he said.

"I believe that within all of us, there is a good side and a dark side. And it's a constant struggle to have your good side triumph over the dark side. And sometimes people don't and lose control of themselves."

Congratulations, you have described the first act of Batman Begins.

"Films used to be rooted in gravity. They were about real people doing real things," the acclaimed 79-year-old filmmaker told AFP as he attended the Champs-Elysees Film Festival in Paris.

Today, he said, "cinema is all about 'Batman', 'Superman', 'Iron Man', 'Avengers', 'Hunger Games' in America: all kinds of stuff that I have no interest in seeing at all."

Real people doing real things like exorcising demons, right?

Other people like films I don't like=/=those films are ruining cinema.

 

[shauner111]

Ill leave this here. It's in another thread but we were talking about Begins so...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/06/15/batman-begins-perfected-the-reboot-and-saved-the-comic-book-movie-10-years-ago/

I can’t help but think that in today’s environment a small-scale success like Batman Begins would have ended up being revamped into a Batman/Superman team-up picture which in turn would operate as a backdoor Justice League pilot. Oh wait…

 

[JackWhite]

The more I read those articles about BB, the more I'm grateful of the three films we got. One complete story - beginning, middle, end. Especially with all these spin off films, expanded universes and countless of reboots (Fantastic Four I'm looking at you).