• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

Transition from Returns to Forever

P

Pair of Jokers

Guest
While technically it is a continuous series from B89 to B&R, there is an obvious change in the look, feel, and general mood from the B89 and Returns films to the Forever and B&R films.

This is due to three main factors:

1. Keaton vs Kilmer/Clooney
2. Burton's dark Gotham vs Schumacher's neon tinged Gotham
3. Villains who took thmeselves seriously vs cartoonish villains

Anybody who frequents this site knows all of the above.


My question is why and how this change from Returns to Forever came about.

Any information from anyone would be welcome, and this post can be very general.


Some things to get it started:

- Why was Keaton not Batman in the third installment? Most likely he declined, but why after the first two were so successful?

-Why did Burton stop directing and move to "producer"? His first two films were so beautiful and haunting, perfect for Batman.

- What happened to Catwoman? At the end of Returns, her appearance clearly sets up her being in the third movie, and yet her only mention in the movie is a quick (though clever) throwaway line by Nicole Kidman. This is very hard to imagine after watching Returns and how it ends. This is the equivalent of the Joker not being in the Begins sequel (after seeing Gordon's playing card).

-Why the change in Gotham city? Why the neon? The frist two films were highly successful, why change something that was working?

-Something I did find intereting was the scene with Keaton/Selena in the Mansion and Kilmer/Kidman in the Mansion. It seems to be in the exact same room because of the enormous fireplace in both scenes. In Returns, they are sitting in front of it, in Forever, they are on the side of it.

I can only imagine the greatness of Forever if it had been directed by Burton, starring Keaton, and populated by Catwoman and a realistic Joker and Two-Face.

What a shame.
 
I can answer some of the question you asked

"- Why was Keaton not Batman in the third installment? Most likely he declined, but why after the first two were so successful?"


Keaton read the script for Forever descide not the do it thought it was getting too campy and heard that Burton won't return as director he quit.

"-Why did Burton stop directing and move to "producer"? His first two films were so beautiful and haunting, perfect for Batman."

Well parents thought Batman Returns was too dark wanted nice friendy movie for their kids. Burton stopped as director so he recommed Schumacher to WB.

I may be wrong sdo don't hold me on that I hope this helps.
 
no no Schumacher called up Burton and got his blessing. and so in gradituted Schumacher put Burton's name down as a producer on Batman Forever, when in reality he didn't do anything for the movie.

although Schumacher also created the character of Dr. Burton in Arkham as a homage to Tim. the character has a similar hairstyle and glasses to Burton.
 
Wayne Enterprise and Arkham Asylum were introduced in the Shumacher films and not in the Burton films. I guess that's a plus...
 
hows that a plus? it would have been awesome to see Burtons take on the Arkham Asylum!
 
It was all because of Schumacher.
 
Burton's taKe on Arkham - wow.

That would have been amazing.


It's a shame that WB sacrificed the art for the mass appeal.

It wasn't worth it.
 
Pair of Jokers said:
- Why was Keaton not Batman in the third installment? Most likely he declined, but why after the first two were so successful?
He didn't like the way the sequel was going. He wanted a prequel where his character would be able to shine more and get into the meat of why he IS Batman. He also didn't like that Burton wasn't doing it.

Pair of Jokers said:
-Why did Burton stop directing and move to "producer"? His first two films were so beautiful and haunting, perfect for Batman.
Look at Burton's filmography. He's not a big fan of sequels. The only way he could do Returns was by thinking it was essentially a standalone movie. Plus, parents and the WB didn't like Batman Returns so the WB was going to exercise more control over the project.

Pair of Jokers said:
- What happened to Catwoman? At the end of Returns, her appearance clearly sets up her being in the third movie, and yet her only mention in the movie is a quick (though clever) throwaway line by Nicole Kidman. This is very hard to imagine after watching Returns and how it ends. This is the equivalent of the Joker not being in the Begins sequel (after seeing Gordon's playing card).
She was intended to spin off into her own film. That later (much later) resulted in the craptastic CINO.

Pair of Jokers said:
-Why the change in Gotham city? Why the neon? The frist two films were highly successful, why change something that was working?
Every director that tackles a franchise is going to do it their way. Otherwise, they're just cookie cutters with no style of their own. Keep an eye on Brett Ratner and we'll see what he keeps from Singer's original films. Chances are, he'll keep a lot of it the same. That's because he has no style of his own.
 
Burton I agree left out of anger toward WB who wanted him to make a family friendly version of The Dark Knight. Burton didn't want to do it so he left.

Keaton left because of Burton's departure and the script. He was actually signed on and had been fitted into the new Batsuit. But then he read the script and he just backed out.

As for everything else, blame Schm*ckmocker.
 
Sorry Anthony, but Keaton didn't even get that far. He refused to sign on until he saw the script when he heard Tim was leaving and they weren't going in a direction he liked. He never went past the negotiatons stage. He met Joel and read the script and saw what they were going, and knew it was the wrong thing. So he left. Warners even tried to give him some outrageous amount of cash (for 1995) to return, but he still declined. It was like 35-50 million.... somewhere in there.

As for the films? I don't count the Schumacher films as part of the Burton continuity, myself. Joel took serious looking cities and tossed them out the window. Keaton's Batman wouldn't be caught dead with a partner or nipples, either.
 
I wish Burton would have made Batman Forever..... imagine his Arkham..... imagine his Two-Face..... his Riddler...... even his Robin. Then Burton could have made a FOURTH one on how Batman became Batman..... to fulfill Keaton's wish!

Then we wouldn't have had to even WORRY about Schu*****er! And then BB could have came out and made more money.... they wouldn't have had that bad, bad, bad taste in their mouth from B&R....
 
i actually like B&R...ha, atleast better than Forever, only thing i like about that movie is how funny Riddler is and how hot Barrymore is.
 
snwboarder88 said:
i actually like B&R...ha, atleast better than Forever, only thing i like about that movie is how funny Riddler is and how hot Barrymore is.



Forever has Nicole Kidman in it! came on you don't like Kidman?
 
SeriousDuke said:
I wish Burton would have made Batman Forever..... imagine his Arkham..... imagine his Two-Face..... his Riddler...... even his Robin. Then Burton could have made a FOURTH one on how Batman became Batman..... to fulfill Keaton's wish!

Then we wouldn't have had to even WORRY about Schu*****er! And then BB could have came out and made more money.... they wouldn't have had that bad, bad, bad taste in their mouth from B&R....
Probably not. The whole reason why the WB let Nolan go his way in such a serious manner and gave him full control was because of what happened with B&R. Without B&R, Begins might be totally different.
 
^^True. But would we even need BB if Batman 3 and 4 were like I said, extremely good Burton films starring Keaaton?
 
SeriousDuke said:
^^True. But would we even need BB if Batman 3 and 4 were like I said, extremely good Burton films starring Keaaton?
Well...yes. I know I would. Burton never got it right for me. He made okay movies but it wasn't the vision of Batman I ever wanted to see. Nolan has come closer.

And let's take a look at some odds here.

Returns was much more a Tim Burton movie than the first Batman was. He pushed the character further into his Burton fantasy. It would only stand to reason that his follow up movie would have gone even further into Burton's style. That may be fine for fans of morbid, gothic fantasias but it's not fine for me.

Look at most sequel franchises. The first two movies are often the best in any series and then the franchise begins to lose steam. Look at Superman. Look at Alien. Maintaining the quality of a product over the course of a franchise is extremely difficult. And seeing Burton's spotty track record and the fact that he isn't really interested in sequels, I would lean towards the quality of the succeeding movies to diminish.
 
Pair of Jokers said:
- What happened to Catwoman? At the end of Returns, her appearance clearly sets up her being in the third movie, and yet her only mention in the movie is a quick (though clever) throwaway line by Nicole Kidman. This is very hard to imagine after watching Returns and how it ends. This is the equivalent of the Joker not being in the Begins sequel (after seeing Gordon's playing card).

When did she mention Catwoman? :confused:
 
Punisher RULES said:
When did she mention Catwoman? :confused:

"you like strong women, i've done my homework. or do i need skin-tight vinyl and a whip?"
 
Pair of Jokers, I know you're new to the forum, but a simple search would have helped. These things have been discussed A MILLION times over the years. But...I'll give you a quick history:

To begin with Burton did not want to do a sequel. He was eventually talked into it after WB gave him 100% creative control, which he did not have in the original. With the death of Anton Furst a new production designer was brought in. His name is Bo Welch and Burton allowed him to do something different. The film was also moved from London (where B89 was shot) to Los Angeles cause shooting in London had become to expensive. Batman Returns upon its release was very controversial. Parents HATED the film, which is why he was fired from the third installment. He was added as Producer for advertisment purposes. He didn't really contribute anything to the film. Other than the first draft of the film. Schumacher was ordered by WB to make a more kid-friendly film. Which is why Keaton dropped out. He wanted the film to be even darker. Kilmer was brought in, and if you know anything about Kilmer he has the habit of signing up for projects without thinking about it. When he realized Forever was gonna be a camp-fest he protested throughout the whole film and eventually Schumacher decided not to bring back Kilmer. Now, with Burton and Kilmer out of the story, Schumacher made Batman & Robin. The rest as they say is...history.
 
the only reason that Kidman line was put in is so the general audience could have the connection to the previous 2 movies, as per WB. Schumacher didnt want a connection, he wanted his own new version.
 
What are you talking about? Batman Forever is VERY connected to Returns. Despite what many people say Tim Burton was involved in Batman Forever. After he completed Batman Returns he realized he didn't really explain certain things. Which is why HE WANTED to do a third film. Just go watch the Encore Director's Chair program. He spoke about this. After Returns was hated by parents WB didn't really want him back. They didn't exactly say "We don't want you!" but Burton said he could feel in the room when he would go to meetings that they didn't really want him back. Burton was able to somewhat work on the first draft of the script. Batman Forever is Bruce Wayne's redemption. In Returns Bruce Wayne questions being Batman. After killing the Joker he doesn't know if he should continue. More of this would is explained in Forever. Remember the whole Kilmer speech about fighting a new face every night? And remember when Robin says "Your parents weren't murdered by a madman" and Kilmer says "they were." He was referring to Joker. All this comes from Burton. It was Schumacher and Akiva Goldsman who tried to depart as much as possible. But still keep the general idea.
 
Tim Burton DID work an a rough outline for the three films. one being his coming to terms with being Batman and fighting his parents killer, the second one being about his confusion over whether or not to continue being Batman, and the third was going to be his retribution and his realizing he must be Batman FOREVER. hence the title.

but other then that, he didn't have much to do with the movie beyond that one tiny point. Producer-In-Name-Only.
 
I agree that Tim Burton was Producer-In-Name-Only. But, he was involved long enough for his presence to be felt. The following scenes are in Batman Forever BECAUSE of Tim Burton:

-The flashback scenes. Notice how they STAND OUT from the rest of the film.
-Arkham. Again...it STANDS OUT.
-Bruce Wayne repressed memories triggered by the death of the Dick's parents.
-Bruce Wayne's speech about a new face everynight and confirming to Dick that his parents were murdered by a madman.
-"I am Batman not because I have to be. But...because I choose to be!"

Also, notice how nothing like in the above is in Batman & Robin. A film which has no Burton in its credits. And, no Kilmer as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"