What do you think '89 would've been like if Tim Burton had full control over the movie like he did with Returns and was not being bossed around by Peters and Guber and could do whatever he wanted? If Burton had been the producer for the first film, do you think it would have been as good as the actual film? If so or not so, why?
I often think that Tim Burton did do what he wanted in 1988.
He got the Batman he wanted. He had the Joker be the killer of the Waynes.
People say Batman Returns is the film Tim made because he had full control, but isn't Returns the film Tim Burton made because he wanted to make something entirely different to 89?
Quote from: ral on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 14:41
People say Batman Returns is the film Tim made because he had full control, but isn't Returns the film Tim Burton made because he wanted to make something entirely different to 89?
I think that's partly right. It's certainly understandable that director's do not want to do basic retread sequel's, which I'm sure was what Burton was initially thinking when plans for a followup was being brought up, which in effect resulted in Burton becoming much more interested only when WB began suggesting that "Batman II" become more of a "Tim Burton Movie".
Personally, I see it like this.
Batman 1989 = Keaton's favourite.
Batman Returns = More to Burton's liking despite being quite happy with '89.
Quote from: ral on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 14:41
People say Batman Returns is the film Tim made because he had full control, but isn't Returns the film Tim Burton made because he wanted to make something entirely different to 89?
Bingo.
Honestly, I think if Tim had won complete control over B89, the biggest differences would have been a more consistent tone and some marginal differences in the third act. The gangster/film noir style and the
Citizen Kane approach to exploring Bruce/Batman were all aspects of Sam Hamm's script that he was behind.
Batman Returns being so much more ethereal and Expressionistic is as much a reaction to having the first film's experience tainted by Peters and Gueber as it is Burton wanting to do something different with the sequel.
I also think that, if Tim had won complete control over the first film, we never would have gotten a second one from him, because he never would have felt like he hadn't been able to say all he wanted to say.
I believe we would have gotten mostly the last draft version of Sam Hamm?s script. Burton has often said that he went in thinking they were doing that until Peters came in and made the changes and eventually he made some too. I?ve been reading Hit and Run and I love how they said that Peters and Burton worked out the scene in Vicki?s apartment with Peters as Bruce and Burton as Vicki! ;D
I always felt that Burton's style fit Returns perfectly. It's hard to explain, but pretty much every Tim Burton movie has the Tim Burton trademark and look to it. Batman Returns still felt like a total Batman environment to me. I feel like Tim Burton's "style" fit Batman to a tee. To the point where I don't even notice it is a Tim Burton film.
I've always felt that if Tim was given full creative control over Batman. The Joker would definitely have been more burtonesque. We all know how extreme he went with the Penguin, why should Joker be any different? I believe that what we got in the film was a true depiction of a Bob Kane Joker, not a Burton Joker. If I recall correctly, Tim didn't have much say regarding the look of the Joker whether it be the costume or the make up, even though he had sketched some concept drawings. The actual look was being decided by Jack Nicholson and make-up artist Nick Dudman. In my opinion the best comicbook look for the Joker is the Alex Ross Joker. I believe it to be very close to Tim's stlye not to mention the Joker actually looks like nicholson especially when you see nicholson dressed in the black mime suit.
"Looking back at the original Bob Kane/Jerry Robinson artwork, it seems to me that the Joker's suit was intended to be black with purple highlights, which makes the most sense, so the only thing you focus on is that vampirish, glowing clown head. When he appears, he's dressed to the nines, and the shocking starkness of his face puts terror into his victims. Also, he didn't start off in the comics as this stick-thin anorexic guy, I wanted to give him the appearence of being long and lean, but also physically powerful, not underweight. He was originally based on Conrad Veidt in the 1928 silent movie The Man Who Laughs, and that's what I'm seeking to capture, the true face of Joker."
"There's a panel at the end of Batman #1 in which the Joker is stabbed and we see that his chest is white. I never forgot that, the realization that his whole body was white. Eerie. Also, he can't die, which makes his color seem to represent that he is undead, more than simply a clown Metaphor."
-Alex Ross
I believe that a Tim Burton Joker would have had dark circles around the eyes, the make up would have not been that different from the film except maybe for longer cuts on his face, not like ledgers. He would then have a more skull grin faced vampirish clown look that reflected the look of being undead. The costume would be black with purple highlights as Alex Ross had described, and the personality of the Joker would have been played much more darker and menacing, but still keeping true to his dark humored nature. I also believe that there would have been more murder scenes. All in all this is just my opinion and as for the other changes I believe burton would have done I'll save that for another time.
I'm pretty 50-50 on this. On one hand I agree with this
Quote from: ral on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 14:41
I often think that Tim Burton did do what he wanted in 1988.
He got the Batman he wanted. He had the Joker be the killer of the Waynes.
People say Batman Returns is the film Tim made because he had full control, but isn't Returns the film Tim Burton made because he wanted to make something entirely different to 89?
But I can't help but see something like this if it happened this way
Quote from: THE "BAT-MAN" on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 21:24
I've always felt that if Tim was given full creative control over Batman. The Joker would definitely have been more burtonesque. We all know how extreme he went with the Penguin, why should Joker be any different? I believe that what we got in the film was a true depiction of a Bob Kane Joker, not a Burton Joker. If I recall correctly, Tim didn't have much say regarding the look of the Joker whether it be the costume or the make up, even though he had sketched some concept drawings. The actual look was being decided by Jack Nicholson and make-up artist Nick Dudman. In my opinion the best comicbook look for the Joker is the Alex Ross Joker. I believe it to be very close to Tim's stlye not to mention the Joker actually looks like nicholson especially when you see nicholson dressed in the black mime suit.
I believe that a Tim Burton Joker would have had dark circles around the eyes, the make up would have not been that different from the film except maybe for longer cuts on his face, not like ledgers. He would then have a more skull grin faced vampirish clown look that reflected the look of being undead. The costume would be black with purple highlights as Alex Ross had described, and the personality of the Joker would have been played much more darker and menacing, but still keeping true to his dark humored nature. I also believe that there would have been more murder scenes. All in all this is just my opinion and as for the other changes I believe burton would have done I'll save that for another time.
I'm also wondering how different the tone would have been because I heard (either on this site or somewhere else) that Burton did not like the tone of the first picture which AMAZED me because this is a man who loves melancholy and this movie is a masterwork of just that.
Quote from: Darrell Kaiser on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 19:47
I believe we would have gotten mostly the last draft version of Sam Hamm?s script. Burton has often said that he went in thinking they were doing that until Peters came in and made the changes and eventually he made some too. I?ve been reading Hit and Run and I love how they said that Peters and Burton worked out the scene in Vicki?s apartment with Peters as Bruce and Burton as Vicki! ;D
Cool info about the apartment scene! Yeah I heard that he didn't want Vicki going up the church and just wanted the two of them alone with the sworm of bats and everything.
Quote from: Darrell Kaiser on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 19:47
I?ve been reading Hit and Run and I love how they said that Peters and Burton worked out the scene in Vicki?s apartment with Peters as Bruce and Burton as Vicki! ;D
Great info Darrell - I really must get that book.
Quote from: THE "BAT-MAN" on Sun, 7 Jun 2009, 21:24
I've always felt that if Tim was given full creative control over Batman. The Joker would definitely have been more burtonesque. We all know how extreme he went with the Penguin, why should Joker be any different? I believe that what we got in the film was a true depiction of a Bob Kane Joker, not a Burton Joker. If I recall correctly, Tim didn't have much say regarding the look of the Joker whether it be the costume or the make up, even though he had sketched some concept drawings. The actual look was being decided by Jack Nicholson and make-up artist Nick Dudman. In my opinion the best comicbook look for the Joker is the Alex Ross Joker. I believe it to be very close to Tim's stlye not to mention the Joker actually looks like nicholson especially when you see nicholson dressed in the black mime suit.
"Looking back at the original Bob Kane/Jerry Robinson artwork, it seems to me that the Joker's suit was intended to be black with purple highlights, which makes the most sense, so the only thing you focus on is that vampirish, glowing clown head. When he appears, he's dressed to the nines, and the shocking starkness of his face puts terror into his victims. Also, he didn't start off in the comics as this stick-thin anorexic guy, I wanted to give him the appearence of being long and lean, but also physically powerful, not underweight. He was originally based on Conrad Veidt in the 1928 silent movie The Man Who Laughs, and that's what I'm seeking to capture, the true face of Joker."
"There's a panel at the end of Batman #1 in which the Joker is stabbed and we see that his chest is white. I never forgot that, the realization that his whole body was white. Eerie. Also, he can't die, which makes his color seem to represent that he is undead, more than simply a clown Metaphor."
-Alex Ross
I believe that a Tim Burton Joker would have had dark circles around the eyes, the make up would have not been that different from the film except maybe for longer cuts on his face, not like ledgers. He would then have a more skull grin faced vampirish clown look that reflected the look of being undead. The costume would be black with purple highlights as Alex Ross had described, and the personality of the Joker would have been played much more darker and menacing, but still keeping true to his dark humored nature. I also believe that there would have been more murder scenes. All in all this is just my opinion and as for the other changes I believe burton would have done I'll save that for another time.
While I knew how the smile was made on here, I didn't think some portion of it were remaining cuts, but the entire mouth locked in a great smile. I did see one concept contain a lack of smile and more cuts around the mouth pass the cheek area though. This was Burton's right? You can see it here in the pictures area.
EDIT: Huh, I looked at the young Jack smile scene and apearently the mouth wouldn't reach all the way up there to the cheek and be a thin line. Funny I forgot as a kid that it's a mixture of both a real smile and open cuts. Kinda makes ya think of how much more grim it feels.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2F1233214763.jpg&hash=fe20584ce068d782a5dff7fe44fc088abc72371d)
Real apearent here!
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2F1219358809.jpg&hash=095651365dd2449fb9d5b3f5950d5a0fc8e002b1)
I feel a Butonised Joker would have been less traditional and more violent. Possibly in line with Heath's version.
You have to wonder, though; if Batman were a pure Burton film, with the same tone as Batman Returns, would Burton have been given the green light to make more Batman films? Seeing as how WB didn't do so after how soccer mommies complained about BR's tone & plot, & how McDonald's cut their ties to the film because of that, would a film like " Tim Burton's 'BATMAN' " meet the general liking & financial success that the real Batman movie had?
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 02:01
You have to wonder, though; if Batman were a pure Burton film, with the same tone as Batman Returns, would Burton have been given the green light to make more Batman films? Seeing as how WB didn't do so after how soccer mommies complained about BR's tone & plot, & how McDonald's cut their ties to the film because of that, would a film like " Tim Burton's 'BATMAN' " meet the general liking & financial success that the real Batman movie had?
I think you're right Dark Knight Detective, and as much as I love Returns as a personal movie, I still think the combination of Burton's artistic flair and the producers' commercial instinct made the first Batman arguably the best of all the live-action Batman films so far.
Well...personally, I would rather have one full on Burtonised Batman film like Batman Returns, than several only 'half going there' efforts. Still love Batman (1989), it's just how I feel on the matter.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 02:12
Well...personally, I would rather have one full on Burtonised Batman film like Batman Returns, than several only 'half going there' efforts. Still love Batman (1989), it's just how I feel on the matter.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm grateful we got both, but I certainly don't regard the first Batman film as a half-measure, although oddly I get the impression that Tim Burton isn't so proud of it as he is of his other films possibly because of studio interference.
The reason why I love the first Batman is because it is the perfect combination of everything that is great about Batman, and everything that is great about Burton. It's 'Burtman', if you will.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 02:33
I'm grateful we got both, but I certainly don't regard the first Batman film as a half-measure, although oddly I get the impression that Tim Burton isn't so proud of it as he is of his other films possibly because of studio interference.
I mean,
Batman isn't a half-cooked film, don't get me wrong, it's just that it's a shame that Burton wasn't able to "go all out", so to say, like he usually does. Just personal preference.
But, then again, if it weren't for Peters' & Gubers' roles in the film's productiont, there might not have been a
Batman Returns...
I basically view the 1989 Batman film as a great amalgam between the early Kane/Finger issues, pieces of the mythology of what makes Batman great, and Tim Burton's unique artistic direction.
Personally, I think the film works on several different levels, and it's essentially the film that still to this day, is my absolute favourite Batman film. As I really believe it truly hit the flavor that it always intended to go for.
Batman Returns is certainly more Burtonized, and I consider it a good movie, but i have to really question on if Tim would have even been brought back for a sequel if he were allowed to direct and have the creative freedom on Batman 1989, like he did with Batman Returns.
The different reactions to Returns, "Oh, this is so much darker!/Oh, this is much lighter!" is proof enough that there was a definate mixed reaction to say the least.
I really don't think he would have been brought back if he went full out Burton style for Batman89. I'm just glad he got the oppurtunity to do so with Returns. We got a taste of both styles.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 14:53
I really don't think he would have been brought back if he went full out Burton style for Batman89. I'm just glad he got the oppurtunity to do so with Returns. We got a taste of both styles.
Yeah, and at the same time I find it extremely bittersweet knowing that Burton was actually interested in following up Batman Returns, but as we all know by now, WB immediately downplayed that suggestion and the rest, as they say, is history.
Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 15:40
Yeah, and at the same time I find it extremely bittersweet knowing that Burton was actually interested in following up Batman Returns, but as we all know by now, WB immediately downplayed that suggestion and the rest, as they say, is history.
Turning down a third Batman film directed by Tim Burton is, without a doubt,
one of the most biggest mistakes ever made in the history of movies.
Yeah, I also love B A T M A N exactly the way it is. Batman & Batman Returns as films are so different and enjoyable in their own way, that I prefer them the way they are instead of having two films more similar in style and consistent in tone.
I also agree that the lack of a proper Batman 3 is one of the worst things ever to happen in the fantasy genre. But as you all said, it's history... I still wish for someone to come up with a Batman 3 in comic book/graphic novel format.
Quote from: silenig on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 19:41
I still wish for someone to come up with a Batman 3 in comic book/graphic novel format.
That would be outstanding.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 23:43
Quote from: silenig on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 19:41
I still wish for someone to come up with a Batman 3 in comic book/graphic novel format.
That would be outstanding.
I definitely agree.
Quote from: silenig on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, 19:41
I still wish for someone to come up with a Batman 3 in comic book/graphic novel format.
Now we're talking!
I would have to agree that would be something I would bve very interested in seeing done, and it could tie together the full trilogy in some way! Fantastic!