What if Tim Burton Continued with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin

[Fudgie]

I agree with Joker (poster) side of the argument. I love Burton movies but I think some people like to be in denial in the sense that they don't want to believe Schumacher did some things right, it seems they already made up their mind as if Burton is "God" and Scumacher is "The devil". Sorry but thats not true, Just as Burton had his many triumphs in his movies he had missfires also, and I don't think Bruce dilema was "badly done" in Forever, it was actually alluring that after not being touched upon since the first movie they somehow went back to it for the third one and went a little deeper, Thats something that I never understood when posters dissed Kilmer as being "wooden", I thought his performance was very in line with what was happening to Bruce at that point. And being totaly honest, Forever has very good screenplay IMO, I mean if you actually read it, its surprising how much things, like tone and context can be changed when transitioned to the screen.

Batman Forever is the best Batman flick out of the old franchise because of those reasons. Schumacher got Batman more right there than Burton did in both of his flicks. Too bad he screwed it all to hell with the crappy B&R

 

[returntovoid]

Schumacher got Batman more right

He got the 50's Batman right with elements of the 60's comics in Batman Forever.

With Batman & Robin, he got 60's TV show and Batman Forever on steroids.

there than Burton did in both of his flicks.

Burton got the original 1939-1940 mysterious Batman that killed when necessary, was not so uber-heroic, non-existent Gordan that was not fully developed and was very Gothic.

How is this wrong to that period of the comics???

 

[Fudgie]

I'm talking about Batman as a character, not the tone of the eras of the comics. Burton made Batman like a version of the character that only last one year out of Batman's 50+ year history. Killer Batman too, the worst version of the character the DC dumped. He might as well of had a skull on his chest and called himself the Punisher.

Schumacher got Batman's character more right. He incorporated more of Batman's stable and infamous elements into his character. He had a better understanding of the character.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I'm talking about Batman as a character, not the tone of the eras of the comics. Burton made Batman like a version of the character that only last one year out of Batman's 50+ year history. Killer Batman too, the worst version of the character the DC dumped. He might as well of had a skull on his chest and called himself the Punisher.

Schumacher got Batman's character more right. He incorporated more of Batman's stable and infamous elements into his character. He had a better understanding of the character.

The version of Batman that was there the longest was the version from the TV series? How is portraying a version based on measuring time how long it was out there better than going back to roots and presenting the dark character as it was created and forced to change? And killing was dropped ONLY to appeal to kiddies

Burton did a perfect recreation of Kane's Batman which Kane liked the most naturally. Then for over 3 decades we got the smiling happy Batman running around with robin solving silly crimes and fighting UFOs and dinosaurs. The more known Batman appeared in mid 70s

I will never underatand why focusing on Batman is such a do or die. I personally prefer Batman to be shown as a dark avenger, a creepy and shadowy phantom who we never get to know well and see much. Just like I prefer not to see the monster in Alien movies, only the glimpses of him, and just like I prefer not to see what Phantom of the Opera is doing, but rather see the story and glimpses of him and his story through other characters, like Burton presented in his movies, rather than the old, normal , conventional superhero portrayal and placing Batman predictably as main character, taking out all mystery and Gothickness out of him.

People keep ignoring the fact that Burton didnt push aside Batman cause he didnt lie him or forgot about him, but because his movies lean more towards opera and gothic stories. And in gothic stories the characters ARE like vampires or phantoms and we see them only through the eyes of other, normal people. Im surprised that some dont want to see Batman as this phantom guy and prefer the normal approach. Oh well, maybe because I m into art that I prefer Gothic stories

And no, Kane's Batman, THE Batman as created, was not like Punisher at all. Punisher was an angry guy with guns killing criminals. Kane/Burton Batman is much more interesting psychologically. He has split personality almost like Norman Bates and we dont know whats going on in his head and by Kane's admission, hes as psycho as Joker

Kane: When Bruce Wayne was 10 years old, his mother and dad were murdered coming out of the theater. This dramatic shock motivated him to become a vigilante. became, in his own way, as psychotic as the Joker, except the Joker fights against justice and for evil. They're mirror images of each other.

And hes a mystery. He sleeps upside down, sits alone in the dark and stays away from people living in a castle. Hes a perfect Gothic character. Hes in some ways similar to and almost as interesting as Stoker's Dracula


And whats with that Burton bashing lately? This place used to be so much fun and I even praised it for being very objective and pleasure to have debates on, yet lately I can barely catch up with defending Burton's movies

 

[RustyCage]

^ Awesome post, james. I'm with you in your defense of Burton. The operatic phantom thing is so thrilling to me - it's the reason I fell in love with Batman as a kid, in fact! (Here's hoping that Batman will be even more phantom-like in TDKR, considering he's on the run.)

But I do have to wonder why you're saying that Schumacher's Batman is like the one from the 60's TV series. While there are a couple of cartoony fight scenes, and some of the cornier lines reflect that series, Schumacher's overall vision and, specifically, his portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman were a lot more serious and psychologically in depth. Especially in Forever.

 

[Spoonman]

^I never saw Batman Forever as the 60's Batman, B&R I could understand, but not Batman Forever.

 

[Ponyboy]

Batman Forever is the best Batman flick out of the old franchise because of those reasons. Schumacher got Batman more right there than Burton did in both of his flicks. Too bad he screwed it all to hell with the crappy B&R

I disagree and agree. Schumacher's version of Batman is not how I've ever viewed Batman. I mean, growing up in the 80s Batman "got darker" what with Dark Knight Returns and books of that nature. I always saw him as a tortured individual... Someone who was led to do this by some unseen force if you will. I didn't get that from Kilmer or Clooney. I don't think Batman ever gets over the death of his parents... It's the driving force that is behind why he does what he does. There are some things about Kilmer's performance that I did like. Clooney? Forget it. He might as well have been wearing a giant red clown nose through the whole picture. I think the upside to Batman Forever is that it was the most kid friendly of the first 3 Batman films... a little less "adult" Batman and a little more "for everyone" Batman. And there's nothing wrong with that... but it was quite a large leap away from the first two films and I think that's where they made their mistake.

 

[RustyCage]

I disagree and agree. Schumacher's version of Batman is not how I've ever viewed Batman. I mean, growing up in the 80s Batman "got darker" what with Dark Knight Returns and books of that nature. I always saw him as a tortured individual... Someone who was led to do this by some unseen force if you will. I didn't get that from Kilmer or Clooney. I don't think Batman ever gets over the death of his parents... It's the driving force that is behind why he does what he does. There are some things about Kilmer's performance that I did like. Clooney? Forget it. He might as well have been wearing a giant red clown nose through the whole picture. I think the upside to Batman Forever is that it was the most kid friendly of the first 3 Batman films... a little less "adult" Batman and a little more "for everyone" Batman. And there's nothing wrong with that... but it was quite a large leap away from the first two films and I think that's where they made their mistake.

It's a mistake to us, but the GA back then was panicking and rioting over how dark Burton's Batman was. So it seemed like a smarter choice for the studio to go with something more people would be okay with tonally.

 

[Ponyboy]

I recall seeing Batman Forever in the theatre... I was about to turn 17... I remember thinking at some of the scenes... "What is this?" I was really shocked at how they lightened it up... I mean from the first line "I'll get drive through." I was already groaning a bit. I guess ultimately it all depends on how you want your Batman, scrambled or over easy.

 

[RustyCage]

I recall seeing Batman Forever in the theatre... I was about to turn 17... I remember thinking at some of the scenes... "What is this?" I was really shocked at how they lightened it up... I mean from the first line "I'll get drive through." I was already groaning a bit. I guess ultimately it all depends on how you want your Batman, scrambled or over easy.

Yeah, for most hardcore fans it really hurt. Especially the older ones. I was rather young so I just rolled with it at the time, but upon rewatching it over the years, my groans got increasingly louder.

 

[The Joker]

And whats with that Burton bashing lately? This place used to be so much fun and I even praised it for being very objective and pleasure to have debates on, yet lately I can barely catch up with defending Burton's movies

Oh come on, man, can you not take some healthy criticism? I've seen you make structured criticisms against Nolan's movies before. There's nothing wrong with it. It often even leads to some healthy debate. None of these movies are perfect.

Don't be so over protective. I actually had fun in my discussion with you. Not with returntovoid though, who ultimately had to dig up someone else's post in the end instead of forming his own defense. I've no tolerance for that kind of laziness. No offense, returntovoid.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Oh come on, man, can you not take some healthy criticism? I've seen you make structured criticisms against Nolan's movies before. There's nothing wrong with it. It often even leads to some healthy debate. None of these movies are perfect.

Don't be so over protective. I actually had fun in my discussion with you. Not with returntovoid though, who ultimately had to dig up someone else's post in the end instead of forming his own defense. I've no tolerance for that kind of laziness. No offense, returntovoid.

Thats all good, I just got an impression like if closet haters are coming out, but Im happy to see that youre not one of them. It just sounded pretty harsh, but if youre saying that its just friendly criticism, Im relieved

Of course with Burton;s movies we're always gonna differ a lot because I like his Gothic, vampire-ish portrayal of Batman while you pretty much flat out dislike it. As I said, I like to have both, what Burton did presenting Batman as phantom, and what and Nolan did. Schumacher's take with Kilmer was decent, but I would much prefer him continuing with Keaton and Burton's dracula Batman. That would also eliminate the Robin character (I could enever imagine Robin fitting in Burton;s movies or Burton's Batman ever agreeing on having a teenage boy as a sidekick or anyone for that matter)

Either way, Im glad I misinterpreted the recent criticism

 

[Fudgie]

The version of Batman that was there the longest was the version from the TV series? How is portraying a version based on measuring time how long it was out there better than going back to roots and presenting the dark character as it was created and forced to change? And killing was dropped ONLY to appeal to kiddies

Burton did a perfect recreation of Kane's Batman which Kane liked the most naturally. Then for over 3 decades we got the smiling happy Batman running around with robin solving silly crimes and fighting UFOs and dinosaurs. The more known Batman appeared in mid 70s

I will never underatand why focusing on Batman is such a do or die. I personally prefer Batman to be shown as a dark avenger, a creepy and shadowy phantom who we never get to know well and see much. Just like I prefer not to see the monster in Alien movies, only the glimpses of him, and just like I prefer not to see what Phantom of the Opera is doing, but rather see the story and glimpses of him and his story through other characters, like Burton presented in his movies, rather than the old, normal , conventional superhero portrayal and placing Batman predictably as main character, taking out all mystery and Gothickness out of him.

People keep ignoring the fact that Burton didnt push aside Batman cause he didnt lie him or forgot about him, but because his movies lean more towards opera and gothic stories. And in gothic stories the characters ARE like vampires or phantoms and we see them only through the eyes of other, normal people. Im surprised that some dont want to see Batman as this phantom guy and prefer the normal approach. Oh well, maybe because I m into art that I prefer Gothic stories

And no, Kane's Batman, THE Batman as created, was not like Punisher at all. Punisher was an angry guy with guns killing criminals. Kane/Burton Batman is much more interesting psychologically. He has split personality almost like Norman Bates and we dont know whats going on in his head and by Kane's admission, hes as psycho as Joker

Kane: When Bruce Wayne was 10 years old, his mother and dad were murdered coming out of the theater. This dramatic shock motivated him to become a vigilante. became, in his own way, as psychotic as the Joker, except the Joker fights against justice and for evil. They're mirror images of each other.

And hes a mystery. He sleeps upside down, sits alone in the dark and stays away from people living in a castle. Hes a perfect Gothic character. Hes in some ways similar to and almost as interesting as Stoker's Dracula


And whats with that Burton bashing lately? This place used to be so much fun and I even praised it for being very objective and pleasure to have debates on, yet lately I can barely catch up with defending Burton's movies

The killing was dropped by DC after they got complaints when Batman #1 was released and Batman shot down one of Hugo Strange's monsters using a gun. The readers complained and DC editor Whitney Ellison got rid of killer Batman. I never said that the longest version of Batman is the best. I said out of Batman's long history Burton used the version that last like a year and was dumped by DC. Batman has predominately been against killing in his existence. The campy version, and the dark serious version that was brought back in the late 60's.

Your comparison of Batman to an alien monster creature is silly. The Alien is kept shadowy cos he's a monster creature not a main character. Its only purpose is to scare the audience. Nobody cares where it came from or what makes it tick as long as its scary. Batmans an actual character, the hero. As for Bob Kane, I dont care what that plagiarizing hack thinks of Batman. I hold Bill Finger in a much higher regard, cos hes the real creator of Batman and several of his best villains including Joker. Burtons movies were the shiz to me as a kid. But as I grew up they lost their shine and I saw them for the weak flicks they are. Especially when I saw the more modern superhero movies and how they handled their heroes better, like Raimi with Peter Parker and Nolan's movies. They just date the old Batman franchise for me.

 

[GothamAlleys]

But I do have to wonder why you're saying that Schumacher's Batman is like the one from the 60's TV series.

Well, everytihign is just an over the top camp. Batman's neon glwoing batmobiles (what happened to the stealth aspect?), Gotham being pink and colorful like a circus everywhere with street lamps that look like round lollipops, thugs with guns that are decorated like lolipops (im refering to Two face;s goons), Two face also being colorful and having half of face like pink bubble gum, The over the top campy dialogue (youre trying to get under my cape? Its the car, chicks dig the car. Im an open book, you read?) and virtually everything is over the top, like the Nigma Island which was a giant blender with all these cartoony traps and the list goes on. Burton;s movies were expresisonist and had some whacky stuff, but didnt have Batman joking all the time and flirting with women in costume, the Gotham was real, rotten and Gothic and the whacky stuff like Penguin's duck mobiles at least had some grounds in reasoning - they were taken from the abandoned amusement park that Penguin was living in. But theres no explanation how within few days Nigma built an entire island, and how come no one asked what are those watery graves for etc. And an entire island on hydraulics? Too much, same goes for a giant freezing ray turning entire city into ice. Over the top, colorful psychedelic (aka 60's) camp

his portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman were a lot more serious and psychologically in depth. Especially in Forever.

he did decent with Kilmer, yes. But I still have 2 problems about Kilmer
1. Why restate what was already said in the first movie? Bruce remembering his parents and hurting and straying away from relationships was already in the first movie. Restating the same just gives some fans an argument that Schumacher's Forever was almost a full reboot
2. I dont know if Kilmer sells Bruce so well as someone deeply depressed, sad and without many emotions, or is it just Kilmer simply not acting at all?

As for Clooney, he never played Bruce Wayne or Batman. He played the doctor guy from ER. He seemed like a normal guy, or a dad for Robin, and in the costume he did not act differently at all, so it looked ridicilous, like the doctor from ER dressed in batman's outfit. He never moved like a bat, never acted any differently, didnt even change his voice!

 

[GothamAlleys]

Your comparison of Batman to an alien monster creature is silly.

Of you find that silly then the comparison to Phantom of the Opera made by Burton is more in place. They are very similar characters, both hurt, both hiding

Batmans an actual character, the hero.

Batman is not a hero. Its a psycho whose disturbed and driven by pain.

As for Bob Kane, I dont care what that plagiarizing hack thinks of Batman. I hold Bill Finger in a much higher regard, cos hes the real creator of Batman and several of his best villains including Joker. Burtons movies were the shiz to me as a kid. But as I grew up they lost their shine and I saw them for the weak flicks they are. Especially when I saw the more modern superhero movies and how they handled their heroes better, like Raimi with Peter Parker and Nolan's movies. They just date the old Batman franchise for me.

Well thats your view and youre entitled to it

 

[Fudgie]

Of you find that silly then the comparison to Phantom of the Opera made by Burton is more in place. They are very similar characters, both hurt, both hiding

Batmans not phantom of the opera either. Why cant we have Batman portrayed the way Batman should be and not like an Alien or Phantom of the Opera? Its not too much to ask.

Batman is not a hero. Its a psycho whose disturbed and driven by pain.

Well the ending of Batman makes him out to be a hero to the public. With the batsignal and his letter and the whole city lovin him. They wouldnt do that for a psycho.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Oh, and of course, Batman wasnt a killer only in the early years. he never stopped killing, only killed less. If he thought the character is too dangerous to be kept alive or if he had to kill in self defense, he did. And he killed countless times starting with the 70s, sometimes without any deeper reason. Killing Batman was never such a huge deal as some fans make it out to be now because they cling so much to the message of TDK, which I think is blown over proportions as well. Nolan's Batman isnt some saint either and represents the modern Batman we know - if too dangerous, kill (see, Ras al Ghul)

For very few of many examples of Batman killing and using guns throughout the years, one may take a quick look here - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

 

[GothamAlleys]

Batmans not phantom of the opera either. Why cant we have Batman portrayed the way Batman should be and not like an Alien or Phantom of the Opera? Its not too much to ask.

So what if he wasnt? Doesnt mean that a Gothic take on Batman isnt interesting to see just because its not like in the comics. For me a quiet, dark Batman who keeps backing away to the shadows and eyeing people like if he wants to kill them is one of the best and most interesting movie characters. But again, it all comes down to ones taste. Perhaps maybe because Im into art, i like the Gothic makeover and I always liked to root for a so called 'superhero" whos half evil and psycho and whose almost like dracula. But again, its all personal taste. As I always say, Im glad I have both takes for my enjoyment - the regular, conventional way, and the artistic, German expressionist form


The character can be expressed in many different forms, as colorful, campy detective in the series, as dracula/norman bates type in Burton's movies, as a sad superhero in Forever and as a skilled avenger full of temper in Nolan's movies

If we would be limited just to being faithful to the comics, we wouldnt get any of the mvies cause none of them are faithful to the comic books (B89 is the closest one), and yet their new takes on the characters are very interesting (Penguin, Catwoman, or Nolan's Ghul or Two Face or Joker). And again, whether it is faithful or not is irrelevant. In the long run, I being faithful to comics has anything to do with a quality movie.Being faithful to the source and quality are two completely different things which do not affect each other. The great late Stanley Kubrick's The Shining had little to do with the actual book, yet it's a masterpiece. However at the time of the release it fell victim of this misguided criticism

Well the ending of Batman makes him out to be a hero to the public. With the batsignal and his letter and the whole city lovin him. They wouldnt do that for a psycho.

They dont know him. All they know is that he saved the city. They dont even know why hes doing it and what caused all this

 

[Fudgie]

Oh, and of course, Batman wasnt a killer only in the early years. he never stopped killing, only killed less. If he thought the character is too dangerous to be kept alive or if he had to kill in self defense, he did. And he killed countless times starting with the 70s, sometimes without any deeper reason. Killing Batman was never such a huge deal as some fans make it out to be now because they cling so much to the message of TDK, which I think is blown over proportions as well. Nolan's Batman isnt some saint either and represents the modern Batman we know - if too dangerous, kill (see, Ras al Ghul)

For very few of many examples of Batman killing and using guns throughout the years, one may take a quick look here - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

I havent read all those comics, but I own some of them like the Detective #613 one you have there and Batman didnt kill anyone there. he kicked back that thug, who accidently bumped into another guy who fell into a garbage compactor. It was an accident. Batman didnt kill him.

I bet most of your examples in that link are false like that one.

 

[Fudgie]

So what if he wasnt? Doesnt mean that a Gothic take on Batman isnt interesting to see just because its not like in the comics. For me a quiet, dark Batman who keeps backing away to the shadows and eyeing people like if he wants to kill them is one of the best and most interesting movie characters. But again, it all comes down to ones taste. Perhaps maybe because Im into art, i like the Gothic makeover and I always liked to root for a so called 'superhero" whos half evil and psycho and whose almost like dracula. But again, its all personal taste. As I always say, Im glad I have both takes for my enjoyment - the regular, conventional way, and the artistic, German expressionist form


The character can be expressed in many different forms, as colorful, campy detective in the series, as dracula/norman bates type in Burton';s movies, as a sad superhero in Forever and as a skilled avenger full of temper in Nolan's movies

He can be but the only portrayl that really works is the one that makes ya care about the character. I didnt care about Keatons Batman cos Burton gave me no reason to. He didnt explore him and made him a killer. Why should I care about this guy? Just cos he lost his parents? What about all the people he kills? They could have kids and family. Batman is just doing what Joe Chill or in this case Joker did to him.

They dont know him. All they know is that he saved the city. They dont even know why hes doing it and what caused all this

Well they should know. He goes around in public killing people and blowing stuff up.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Then bet. Accidentally or not, he did kill the guy. I presented their examples of him killing accidentally, in self defense, because the villain is too dangerous and for no reason. Nice for you to start attacking my blog and accusing me like this. I put a lot of effort in researching all this but I see no matter what I say or show, Burton's movies must be crap no matter what and hes wrong no matter what, I think its pretty clear that you made up your mind even before any arguments or debate started

 

[GothamAlleys]

Just one more thing I wanna add, did you care for Ledger's Joker, did you feel sorry for him? I didnt. Yet its one of the most badass characters out there. Same goes for Keaton's Batman

 

[El Payaso]

He can be but the only portrayl that really works is the one that makes ya care about the character. I didnt care about Keatons Batman cos Burton gave me no reason to. He didnt explore him and made him a killer. Why should I care about this guy? Just cos he lost his parents? What about all the people he kills?

Yes, what about them? Are they some kind of reason why you can't be interested in the character?

I guess that's why nop one is interested in James Bond, he has a licence to kill.

They could have kids and family.

You mean like the cops Batman almost killed in Batman Begins? Or the people who might have been in those cars (like those children) Batman blew up before checking if someone were in them?

Batman is just doing what Joe Chill or in this case Joker did to him.

That's why it's called revenge you see.

In any case I don't remember that Bruce's parents were criminals endangering the whole city. Because if Joker killed those, then it would be the "same thing" Batman does.

Well they should know. He goes around in public killing people and blowing stuff up.

And saving the whole city. And that's why they cheered him.

 

[Fudgie]

Then bet. Accidentally or not, he did kill the guy. I presented their examples of him killing accidentally, in self defense, because the villain is too dangerous and for no reason. Nice for you to start attacking me and accusing me like this. I put a lot of effort in researching all this but I see no matter what I say or show, Burton's movies must be crap no matter what and hes wrong no matter what, and then it comes down to personal attacks on me.

I'm sorry for offending you. Didnt mean to. Your blog is really nice. Keaton deliberately killed all the people he killed. I dunno why youre presenting accidental deaths that Batman didnt mean to do. He was really freaked out in that Tec #613 one you have there. So Im thinking your other ones are probably somethin like that. Just accidents and not deliberate kills like what the Keaton Batman did.

Just one more thing I wanna add, did you care for Ledger's Joker, did you feel sorry for him? I didnt. Yet its one of the most badass characters out there. Same goes for Keaton's Batman

No I didnt feel sorry for Ledgers Joker just like I dont pity comic book Joker. He was one evil dude who got his rocks off on chaos. I cared about him as a bad ass villain the way Nolan wanted the audience to care about him. The way you do care about villains like that. I cared about him cos he presented the ultimate challenge to Batman. I cared about him cos he was so cool and entertaining like the Joker should be.

 

[Fudgie]

Yes, what about them? Are they some kind of reason why you can't be interested in the character?

No theyre a reason I shouldn't care about the character. I should care about Batman.

I guess that's why nop one is interested in James Bond, he has a licence to kill.

Nail on the head. He has a license to kill. He does what he is paid to do and legally authorized to do, and only does when necessary.

You mean like the cops Batman almost killed in Batman Begins? Or the people who might have been in those cars (like those children) Batman blew up before checking if someone were in them?

Spot on. Nolan goofed there. But at least no one did actually die. At least he had Alfred chew Bruce's ass out about it too about bein reckless. The immoral nature of Keatons Batman is totally ignored.

That's why it's called revenge you see.

And revenge is wrong.

In any case I don't remember that Bruce's parents were criminals endangering the whole city. Because if Joker killed those, then it would be the "same thing" Batman does.

No Batman is killing people when he doesnt need to. He wants to. If it was a case of blowing up Axis when there was no other option left to stop them or setting that devil guy on fire cos he had no other choice in order to stop him or save someone then you could see why he did it.

And saving the whole city. And that's why they cheered him.

Which was bogus. Jim Gordon and the law would never support a loose cannon murdering vigilante.