I?m writing this note no more than an hour after viewing a midnight showing of the film. When Batman 1989 came out, it took us by storm and the ending of the film left us clambering for more. When the sequel, Batman Returns, came out, it took on a darker tone with a downbeat ending that left the franchise in turmoil by complaining concern groups. This was mainly because of the merchandising that was attached to the film. Then, a second sequel came about, Batman Forever, with a much lighter tone that revitalized the franchise. It appealed to ALL masses (audiences, concern groups, merchandisers). Now obviously they went too far with Batman & Robin that left the franchise dead for 8 years until Batman Begins came out. It had a similar ending to Batman ?89 that left us clambering for more. What we got was yet another merchandising bonanza for a darker sequel with a VERY downbeat ending. Do you see a pattern here? I know that The Dark Knight will receive a massive amount of backlash from the same concern groups who complained about Batman Returns and we?ll have to see, yet again, a lighter Batman film that will please EVERYBODY. The Dark Knight?s ending left us without anywhere else to go. Batman Returns also had that same feeling. The only thing way to do another Batman film was to do something completely different and out of the box. That?s when Schumacher came about and delivered just that. I also believe that Nolan is probably done with Batman, just like how Cameron stopped on Terminator 2 and decided not to do anymore Terminator films. If a third Batman movie will come about, I think it will turn out the way Terminator 3 came about. I guess history really does repeat itself. I just hope they don?t go too far like the first time around.
You were the one who said it first too a couple of weeks ago.
QuoteI know that The Dark Knight will receive a massive amount of backlash from the same concern groups who complained about Batman Returns and we?ll have to see, yet again, a lighter Batman film that will please EVERYBODY.
Difference being that, unlike RETURNS, the studio is happy as hell with THE DARK KNIGHT and the critical reception is gettting, and even more with the box-office run its having.
The greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed. TDK has exceed them greatly, even with a darker tone and soccer-moms' complaints.
If Nolan returns, he's probably going to be given full-freedom again going by the overwhelming positive reception.
I've actually noticed a lot of people calling for Nolan to not do a sequal.
....although their reasoning is that TDK was "so perfect nothing can top it"
No, this Batman is not for kids. A child would not appreciate TDK anyway. People will sit up and take notice now. The series has not strayed from the comic path, it is now closer than ever. It is a great time to be a Batman fan.
Well, TDK is a lot better than Returns. I don't think there will be pandering to minority groups again, like was the case after Returns, which followed up with Forever and the dreadful Batman and Robin. Stuff the lot of them, give to the fans what is long overdue and true to the character.
Really theres nothing to worry about the Nolan films are so popular that it would be crazy for anything to happen to them. The Dark Knight is already breaking records and making heaps of money and thats all the studio cares about making money. Batman returns was NOT a kids movie but they made the mistake of trying to aim it at them and when deal's with things like fast food places failed it meant they lots money and then they made another mistake of trying to make it to kid friendly theres seems to br a nice balance now its dark enough for adults and kids to enjoy without going as dark as returns was.
Good lord that was a long last sentence. Full stops and paragraphs are your friends, use them. It makes things easier to read. I echo this to the original poster as well.
I agree with your comments though, Sandman.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Sat, 19 Jul 2008, 17:06
You were the one who said it first too a couple of weeks ago.
Say what?
Quote from: AV on Sat, 19 Jul 2008, 23:44
The greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed.
Myth. With BR and BF's respective budgets in mind, there's little difference in each film's box office profitability.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 21 Jul 2008, 20:09
Quote from: AV on Sat, 19 Jul 2008, 23:44
The greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed.
Myth. With BR and BF's respective budgets in mind, there's little difference in each film's box office profitability.
I don't see how that refutes my comment as "myth."
Whether FOREVER was more, or a lot more profitible than RETURNS or not is not the point. But merely that RETURNS' failure to meet the studio's expectative -- from its predecesor -- is what led to Burton's and the tone's change.
THE DARK KNIGHT is making too much money for it to go down the same road.
You wrote-
QuoteThe greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed.
You're the one who brought in the box office angle. If Burton got canned because of the, as you would have it, relatively meager box office performance of BR, why wasn't Schumacher likewise fired after BF?
There is an article in todays USA Today about how this film was not really meant for the kid crowd and how some parents were upset with it.
This film gives very much a graphic novel vibe. Even graphic novels are suggested for mature readers. This film version of Batman is no different.
I think you can do a lighter Batman film and probably make something good out of it... but (A) it's tough to do when most people want a darker film and (B) the Shlockmaker films are exactly how NOT to do it.
A really light live action Batman has been done very well in the 60s, I don't think there's a reason for a modern major motion picture to have a light tone. There have been light comic books, comedic/bizzare stories, TAS/TNBA episodes with a more humorous and light tone, but the films should be dark, even if there are ways to actually do a good film with a lighter tone. The Batman image projected to the general public should be that of a dark hero in a dark city.
^ When you're right, you're right.