Batman-Online.com

Have always wondered what Michael Uslan means when he says: "The second BATMAN film was - in my estimation - the Batman of the 1990s. Almost souless, very dark, almost vampiric."

Anybody care to elaborate on that statement ? What's your take on it ? What do you guys think ?

I think he was referring to the trend for Elseworlds stories that peaked in popularity during the nineties. Many had a grotesque gothic fantasy vibe, not a million miles from what Burton did in Batman Returns.

Check out the Batman Vampire trilogy, Batman: Holy Terror (1991), Batman/Dark Joker: The Wild (1993), Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop (1993), Batman: Castle of the Bat (1994), Batman: Masque (1997), 'The Tyrnat' (Shadow of the Bat Annual Vol 1 #2, 1994), Batman: The Book of the Dead (1999), Batman: Nosferatu (1999), and Batman: Haunted Gotham (1999-2000) for some of the nineties Elseworlds comics Uslan might have been referring to.

His "soulless" comment probably alludes to the violent nihilistic tone of the movie, as well as the fact it disregards Batman's moral code from the comics. Many Elseworlds stories contained similarly dark and nihilistic atmospheres. Some also depicted Batman as a killer.

It's possible he had Shadow of the Bat in mind too (this monthly debuted at around the same time Returns did). I remember some very atmospheric Batman stories in its earlier issues. Same goes for Legends of the Dark Knight (the first issue came out in 1989).

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coverbrowser.com%2Fimage%2Fbatman-shadow-of-the-bat%2F10-1.jpg&hash=c90121ab16f8382d730441a7fcd205a1296461a7) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coverbrowser.com%2Fimage%2Fbatman-shadow-of-the-bat%2F15-1.jpg&hash=d89ab5b203cba41c1281a3c6d6215423f94993b5) 
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coverbrowser.com%2Fimage%2Fbatman-legends-of-the-dark-knight%2F74-1.jpg&hash=147facc1fa1082d2407292f2d399af26eaa05453) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fmarvel_dc%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fd2%2FLODK_8.jpg&hash=76c1722e7e5be85af591fcbd01ddcf2fd2752125)

Of course many of the comics of that era were consciously reflecting the popularity of the Burton films. Some on a purely visual level (see how Anton Furst's Gotham designs were incorporated following 'The Destroyer' storyline in 1992), other times more substantially. Check out these panels from 'Shaman: Book I' (Legends of the Dark Knight Vol 1 #1, November 1989). Remind you of a scene from Batman 89?


So it's possible Uslan was referring to Burton's influence on the comics of that period. Though that wouldn't explain his remarks about Batman Returns being "soulless" and "vampiric". I wish he'd elaborate on the film's connection (or lack thereof) with the source material.

Thank you so very much guys for taking time out of your schedules and giving me detailed answers - I really appreciate it :) !

Quote from: BatmanReturns88 on Mon,  1 Aug  2016, 20:34
Thank you so very much guys for taking time out of your schedules and giving me detailed answers - I really appreciate it :) !

Our pleasure. I hope you stay around the forums.

Quote from: BatmanReturns88 on Mon,  1 Aug  2016, 08:37Have always wondered what Michael Uslan means when he says: "The second BATMAN film was - in my estimation - the Batman of the 1990s. Almost souless, very dark, almost vampiric."

It's worth remembering that Uslan came of age on a very different type of Batman comic than was widely available in the 1990's. He may have been expressing a derisive opinion about Batman comics of that era. We all have our favorite eras while we maybe don't get into other eras as much. There's no reason to think Uslan should be any different in having favorites.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  2 Aug  2016, 10:50

Quote from: BatmanReturns88 on Mon,  1 Aug  2016, 08:37Have always wondered what Michael Uslan means when he says: "The second BATMAN film was - in my estimation - the Batman of the 1990s. Almost souless, very dark, almost vampiric."

It's worth remembering that Uslan came of age on a very different type of Batman comic than was widely available in the 1990's. He may have been expressing a derisive opinion about Batman comics of that era. We all have our favorite eras while we maybe don't get into other eras as much. There's no reason to think Uslan should be any different in having favorites.

Oh yeah, that does make sense.

I think Batman Returns is a masterpiece.

Quote from: BatmanReturns88 on Tue,  2 Aug  2016, 11:32I think Batman Returns is a masterpiece.

It does a lot of things... and it does most of them really well. It's not perfect but I'll take Batman Returns with all its flaws any day over forgettable conveyor belt BS tripe like Guardians of the Galaxy.

Batman Returns is good, but I wouldn't label it a masterpiece. I may be way off base, but right now, I don't think any movie is a masterpiece. Movies at their core should entertain and elicit some form of a reaction, good or bad. Consensus is something that is never going to be reached with any product. So we just have our own opinions. Someone may trot out the company line of 'Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time.' Someone else may say, that's boring old rubbish. If we enjoy a film, that should be enough.

I know this must have been asked/discussed hundreds of times around here but, do you guys think there'll be a book about the making of the Burton's Batman films sometime down the line ?

And why is WB not doing much in terms of giving fans of the Burtonverse what we have been clamoring for ? That is some sort of continuation of that universe whatever the medium.

Quote from: BatmanReturns88 on Wed,  3 Aug  2016, 08:46
And why is WB not doing much in terms of giving fans of the Burtonverse what we have been clamoring for ? That is some sort of continuation of that universe whatever the medium.

Sadly I think the reason is because Warner Bros considers the Schumacher Batman movies to be a continuation of the Burton Batman movies.
In their minds they probably don't see the point.

The official movie books are a good place to look, if you haven't read them yet.

Have them all, they are very nice collectibles and must-own for any fan, but in terms of content they aren't much deeper than the souvenir magazines. In places the text is dated, like every publication released to coincide with a movie's release. Batman & Robin is by far the most detailed of the lot.

I think BatmanReturns88 referred to something like this.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41stYwMBQUL._SX390_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

Quote from: Azrael on Wed,  3 Aug  2016, 18:32
Have them all, they are very nice collectibles and must-own for any fan, but in terms of content they aren't much deeper than the souvenir magazines. In places the text is dated, like every publication released to coincide with a movie's release. Batman & Robin is by far the most detailed of the lot.

I think BatmanReturns88 referred to something like this.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41stYwMBQUL._SX390_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

That's exactly what I had in mind.

I own the Burton's Batman making of books but would love, as all of you, something way more in-depth.

Why isn't WB doing anything for the Burtonverse fans ? I'm sure they must be aware that it has a large fanbase.

Quote from: BatmanReturns88 on Wed,  3 Aug  2016, 19:56
Why isn't WB doing anything for the Burtonverse fans ? I'm sure they must be aware that it has a large fanbase.

But probably not large enough to justify the expenditure on print, distribution and marketing for a book like that. I can't remember if it was here or on SHH, but I remember a fan revealing they'd once contacted WB about the possibility of a book containing behind-the-scenes pictures they'd collected from people who worked on the Burton films. Apparently WB showed no interest in the project, so it never went ahead.

I doubt they'd produce books of that nature for the Nolan films either at this stage. Presently WB is only interested in the DCEU Batman.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  3 Aug  2016, 20:14
But probably not large enough to justify the expenditure on print, distribution and marketing for a book like that. I can't remember if it was here or on SHH, but I remember a fan revealing they'd once contacted WB about the possibility of a book containing behind-the-scenes pictures they'd collected from people who worked on the Burton films. Apparently WB showed no interest in the project, so it never went ahead.

I doubt they'd produce books of that nature for the Nolan films either at this stage. Presently WB is only interested in the DCEU Batman.

Which would be a mistake, considering the universal hate the DCEU is generating (and I'm not saying it deserves it - I'm as upset as anyone here that Suicide Squad is getting such poor notices, from critics and audience-members who have already seen the film, alike).

Perhaps it would be wise for WB to now revisit past glories, and remind people that there was a time when they could make great Batman films (1989-1992 and 2005-2012).

I might be off because I don't know how things actually work on these matters, but aren't these usually made by "third parties"? The TDK trilogy book was published by Abrams Books (which specializes in art "coffee table" books - like Taschen).

Also, there was a documentary about a movie DEAD and of ZERO interest to anyone outside core Superman, Tim Burton and comic book fandom - The Death of Superman Lives. Its makers had access to unseen material, they did interviews with people including Jon Peters and Tim Burton.

Books aren't docs, but this still took time and money to make, and it was about a DC movie which was not only old and irrelevant to the DCEU, but often made fun of.

Also, it's interesting that this mock up had a very positive response LINK (http://www.facebook.com/batmanonlinecom/photos/a.188532264490204.53055.120792104597554/1303627192980700/?type=3&theater)

Quote from: Azrael on Fri,  5 Aug  2016, 09:58
Also, it's interesting that this mock up had a very positive response LINK (http://www.facebook.com/batmanonlinecom/photos/a.188532264490204.53055.120792104597554/1303627192980700/?type=3&theater)

(https://scontent.fath3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13886479_1303627192980700_4197821127589783467_n.jpg?oh=0d9aa697b2d6517ecea0336bb738a941&oe=58180852) (http://www.facebook.com/batmanonlinecom/photos/a.188532264490204.53055.120792104597554/1303627192980700/?type=3&theater)

How can we make this happen?

Others might know better (if they care to share in opinions, I seriously doubt it), my guess is it needs people with access to rare material and ability to contact and interview people involved with the movies, and a kickstarter campaign. As far as I know, that's how The Death of Superman Lives was done. It wasn't made by WB.

In the case of The Death of Superman Lives, I don't think Jon Schnepp's used any copyrighted material without the permission of the rights holders. It was Jon Peters' production company that developed Superman Lives, and Peters himself was involved in Schnepp's documentary. When it comes to behind-the-scenes FX footage and concept art, Schnepp's had permission from the artists who owned and created them to feature those materials in his film. Many of those artists were also interviewed for the movie.

I imagine it would be more complicated to produce a documentary or book about an intellectual property that was completed and owned by a big studio. You could probably produce an unofficial book containing essays and analysis, as indeed some authors have. But I'm not sure you'd be able to include pictures of actors and crew, or behind-the-scenes images, without getting permission from the appropriate parties. If you were to produce a book about the art and production design of Batman 89, you'd likely need permission from the estate of Anton Furst and also from Warner Bros. And they'd probably insist on keeping a share of the royalties, which is only fair considering it's an offshoot of their product that you'd be selling.

Considering Batman 89 won an Oscar for its set design, it's rather odd they didn't release a book on the subject back in the day. A wasted opportunity, really.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  5 Aug  2016, 15:48Considering Batman 89 won an Oscar for its set design, it's rather odd they didn't release a book on the subject back in the day. A wasted opportunity, really.

That makes two of us, actually. Star Wars had books out there featuring Peter Ellenshaw, Ralph McQuarrie and other artists. Such a thing was known to be marketable long before B89 came out.

I'm working under the assumption that WB knew B89 was a hit but obviously not as big a hit as Star Wars so there might've been potential loss with merchandising that stuff.

Then again, I don't think the post-release B89 stuff is much to write home about, especially that train wreck Toy Biz action figure line.