Why not more Burton's movies after Batman Returns?

[Bat-Hombre]

yeah, bring on a new Adam West and Schumacher! lol

the only way to make the greatest batman movie, is doing a Batman movie for adults. Children should watch cartoons...

This is a little bit ignorant.

"Batman is nothing for you, you are too young."

Batman has always been for kids.

 

[Catman]

^ Exactly.

 

[Gonking]

This is a little bit ignorant.

"Batman is nothing for you, you are too young."

Batman has always been for kids.

you are right, my different view of how a Batman movie should be proves my ignorance.

When you say "it should be for children too" you are limiting the story and the imagination of the director of the movie becasue they can't show what they want. Only what is suitable for kids and that's wrong.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

you are right, my different view of how a Batman movie should be proves my ignorance.

When you say "it should be for children too" you are limiting the story and the imagination of the director of the movie becasue they can't show what they want. Only what is suitable for kids and that's wrong.

In that case, the same limits have always been placed on the creators of the comicbooks themselves.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

you are right, my different view of how a Batman movie should be proves my ignorance.

When you say "it should be for children too" you are limiting the story and the imagination of the director of the movie becasue they can't show what they want. Only what is suitable for kids and that's wrong.

I get the feeling that you're one of the kind of fanboys who feels that if something doesn't have gratutitous violence or sex, that it isn't "Adult."

Just because Batman is acceptable for kids doesn't mean that he's exclusively geared toward kids. I bet you don't even stop to think about how kid-friendly Batman: The Animated Series is. Never once are Bruce's parents actually being shown shot. Nobody tends to remember that.

Explicit content does not make something adult. Depth of writing does. Ironically, such a lust for explicit content is very juvenile, I think. Only somebody immature craves explicit adult content.... as if to validate their more "adult" status. Not pointing fingers at anybody here, just saying in general.

It's like nerds who laugh and cheer when Bruce Campbell says "penis" at fan conventions. It's just a word. It's not hilarious, and to think it's a riot is so childish, I feel sorry for Campbell because of the people he has to put up with.

 

[Catman]

I get the feeling that you're one of the kind of fanboys who feels that if something doesn't have gratutitous violence or sex, that it isn't "Adult."

Just because Batman is acceptable for kids doesn't mean that he's exclusively geared toward kids. I bet you don't even stop to think about how kid-friendly Batman: The Animated Series is. Never once are Bruce's parents actually being shown shot. Nobody tends to remember that.

Explicit content does not make something adult. Depth of writing does. Ironically, such a lust for explicit content is very juvenile, I think. Only somebody immature craves explicit adult content.... as if to validate their more "adult" status. Not pointing fingers at anybody here, just saying in general.

It's like nerds who laugh and cheer when Bruce Campbell says "penis" at fan conventions. It's just a word. It's not hilarious, and to think it's a riot is so childish, I feel sorry for the people Campbell must put up with.

OWNED!

 

[Gonking]

I get the feeling that you're one of the kind of fanboys who feels that if something doesn't have gratutitous violence or sex, that it isn't "Adult."

Just because Batman is acceptable for kids doesn't mean that he's exclusively geared toward kids. I bet you don't even stop to think about how kid-friendly Batman: The Animated Series is. Never once are Bruce's parents actually being shown shot. Nobody tends to remember that.

Explicit content does not make something adult. Depth of writing does. Ironically, such a lust for explicit content is very juvenile, I think. Only somebody immature craves explicit adult content.... as if to validate their more "adult" status. Not pointing fingers at anybody here, just saying in general.

It's like nerds who laugh and cheer when Bruce Campbell says "penis" at fan conventions. It's just a word. It's not hilarious, and to think it's a riot is so childish, I feel sorry for Campbell because of the people he has to put up with.

I'm just talking about how a Batman movie should be. I'm not making generalizations. Is it so hard to understand?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I'm just talking about how a Batman movie should be. I'm not making generalizations. Is it so hard to understand?

He's not saying you are. He's reasoning why you think Batman has to be dark and nasty, as you haven't explained it yourself.

 

[Bat-Hombre]

Explicit content does not make something adult. Depth of writing does. Ironically, such a lust for explicit content is very juvenile, I think. Only somebody immature craves explicit adult content.... as if to validate their more "adult" status. Not pointing fingers at anybody here, just saying in general.

This is the point. The most people who are interested in violence and sex are... the immature ones. My parents (back then) have never cared about such things

 

[Kevin Roegele]

This is the point. The most people who are interested in violence and sex are... the immature ones. My parents (back then) have never cared about such things

Well, that's not true. Violence and sex sell. Look at Batman movies; all of them have a lot of action, and all of them have sexy women in them.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Warner thought Returns was too scary.

Well they got their answer in B&R

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Warner thought Returns was too scary.

Well they got their answer in B&R

Funny, I find things in B&R to be far more scary than anything in BR.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Warner thought Returns was too scary.

Well they got their answer in B&R

Warner Bros didn't find it too scary. It was the parents and McDonalds who THOUGHT it was too scary for young children. Let's not warp the facts here.

 

[TMC1982]

Warner Bros. had an enormous backlash after Batman Returns was deemed too scary for children. The Soccer Moms threw a fit at McDonald's because the happy meals had toys from "such an awful movie", so McDonald's threw a fit, so WB had to quietly hint at Burton that they didn't want him to do another Batman film.

Burton himself said they were making it plain they wanted him out of the director's chair, but not forcing him out.

Keaton was still on board if he liked the script. Keaton has said he read it, and didn't like it. He met with Schumacher. He told Schumacher what he didn't like about the script, and Schumacher wouldn't budge. Keaton says he actually wanted something similar to what Batman Begins ended up being, a film letting more into Batman's origins, if not an actual prequel.

Anyway, Keaton left over the creative differences, as he saw Forever was going to focus even less on Batman. Warner Bros. next offered Keaton 30 million to come back, but Mike still refused.

Sad, really. Burton/Keaton weren't keen on doing the second one, but once it was done, they both were excited about doing more Batman films, only to be shot down by the Soccer Moms of America.

Ironically, Batman Forever did in fact, go a bit deeper into Bruce Wayne's background than the two Tim Burton movies did. For instance they did describe how Bruce became inspired to dress up like a bat. Also, it went deeper into his guilt over his parents deaths. Not only that, but the question of whether or not he should continue being Batman was touched upon. I still think that Michael Keaton was first and foremost reluctant to do another Batman movie if Tim Burton wasn't going to direct it or be directly involved.

Warner thought Returns was too scary.

Well they got their answer in B&R

You have to keep in mind that Warner Bros. gave Tim Burton total creative control over Returns. That was basically part of the deal in order to ensure that he would come back. The '89 Batman film was arguably Tim Burton's least (on one of since there's also Planet of the Apes) personal films. I don't think that Warner Bros. really gave much thought about the content that Burton was putting in to Returns as long as he continued to rake in the dough (which was really the bottom-line).

 

[baerrtt]

Ironically, Batman Forever did in fact, go a bit deeper into Bruce Wayne's background than the two Tim Burton movies did. For instance they did describe how Bruce became inspired to dress up like a bat. Also, it went deeper into his guilt over his parents deaths. Not only that, but the question of whether or not he should continue being Batman was touched upon. I still think that Michael Keaton was first and foremost reluctant to do another Batman movie if Tim Burton wasn't going to direct it or be directly involved.



You have to keep in mind that Warner Bros. gave Tim Burton total creative control over Returns. That was basically part of the deal in order to ensure that he would come back. The '89 Batman film was arguably Tim Burton's least (on one of since there's also Planet of the Apes) personal films. I don't think that Warner Bros. really gave much thought about the content that Burton was putting in to Returns as long as he continued to rake in the dough (which was really the bottom-line).

What's always peeved me of about what happened is that BR still ended up as the most successful blockbuster of that summer and the third highest grossing movie of the year in '92. The dark content SOME parents (cos mine sure as hell didn't and I was 8 that year)*****ed about didn't cause the picture to outright flop which imo would only have been the reasonable justification for getting rid of him.

 

[TMC1982]

What's always peeved me of about what happened is that BR still ended up as the most successful blockbuster of that summer and the third highest grossing movie of the year in '92. The dark content SOME parents (cos mine sure as hell didn't and I was 8 that year)*****ed about didn't cause the picture to outright flop which imo would only have been the reasonable justification for getting rid of him.

Well to put things into proper perspective, the '89 Batman film made (not adjusted for inflation) roughly $230 million domestically. Batman Returns only made around $160 million. While Batman Forever didn't get close to equaling the totals from the '89 film, it still made about 20% more than Returns made.

 

[Catman]

Batman grossed $251.1 million domestically and $411.3 million worldwide. Batman Returns grossed $162.8 million domestically and $266.8 million worldwide. So, yes, it made much less, however, the budget was only $80 million. So, WB did in fact make a nice profit and it was the studio's most successful movie that year. The fact that Batman Forever was made is enough proof that Batman Returns was considered a hit.