If Batman Returns came out today...

[The Laughing Fish]

...how well do you think the media and the wider audience would've received it?

I could easily see the reaction getting split right down the middle, in today's pitiful culture and sociopolitical climate. Here are three main areas I reckon would've gained a lot of "controversy":

1) Catwoman, and the supposed feminist treatment:

Now, as everybody who is a fan knows, Catwoman does engage in a bit of a misandry, but she does it to rebel against society; and in Batman's case, she uses it to take advantage of him in combat. Besides that, there's nothing in the film that suggests an "anti-men" narrative, just that Selina Kyle shed away from her meek personality, as we saw in her nervous breakdown at her apartment following her shocking "rebirth".

How would the critics react to this? I can see them spinning this in their favour to champion how Catwoman in BR a feminist icon, but do so in such an obnoxious way to criticise "toxic masculinity", as demonstrated by the long-haired creep who tried to assault that woman in the alley, the sexist security guards at the Shreck department store, Batman - for not only being more than a match but challenging him sexually, and the Penguin's perverted attitude. I can see the agenda-driven critics going so far to claim Catwoman is the real hero of the movie, as she succeeds in something Batman couldn't do: getting back at corrupt businessman Max Shreck, who benefited from a society that had enabled a "patriarchal system where men can get away with misconduct, and how Catwoman broke new ground to show women are more than damsels in distresses".

Of course, as anybody might've guessed, I'm just making up what I think critics nowadays might say.

But how would some people with a YouTube channel might react to Catwoman and the theme surrounding her in BR? I have sneaky feeling that they wouldn't take it too well. I reckon they would complain how Burton made Batman get emasculated by Catwoman, and how he got "humiliated" by her when failed to talk her out of taking revenge over Shreck at the end of the movie. Now while I do believe critics do misrepresent people on purpose to promote their agenda, unfortunately, I've seen a loud minority of fools who are sexist bigots on YouTube, and do take issue with a female character. It's irritating, because it only gives the SJWs more ammunition to attack, but it is what it is. So, it wouldn't surprise me if the critics' warped praise of Catwoman just to put men down would've resulted in the more reactionary audience to reject the film on that basis alone.

2) The fact that Batman kills:

Unfortunately, after what we've seen from BvS, there are too many idiots out there who will whine and complain if Batman kills, unless the director pays lip service to the rule. Apparently, as long as the character says he doesn't kill, it's okay and it will somehow override every time he does kill. It's utterly retarded, but that's the attitude you get from the so-called "fans" and "critics" when it comes to the subject.

It might be fascinating to see Keaton's Batman not taking as much criticism for Batman killing nowadays, but let's not kid ourselves. If people saw Batman lighting somebody up on fire with the Batmobile, and grinning a goon for one-upmanship by shoving that dynamite in his pants, I'd have no doubt parents would've been just as outraged over the hero's dark attitude as they might've been back in 1992. Even though it wouldn't be the first Batman movie - or superhero movie for that matter - to dabble in the hero's dubious conduct.

3) The depiction of the Penguin:

Like Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor in BvS, I really do believe Danny DeVito would've met heavy criticism with his take on the Penguin.

While many people thought Eisenberg was miscast in the role and didn't care for his mannerisms, I don't think BR's Penguin would've been accepted if BR was  a brand new movie that came out today. Mainly because from what I can tell, people have this inflexible, yet inconsistent perception of what they think comic book characters should be e.g. Batman should be dark but not THAT dark, but it's still okay if he does that because he says this, Superman should be bright and fun, Joker should be dark and mysterious, Penguin should be sophisticated and a gentleman mob boss, blah blah blah. Burton may have modeled the Penguin as a darker equivalent to John Merrick from The Elephant Man, and as brilliant as that may have been, I think loud naysayers with an internet connection would've attacked Burton for not getting the character...while hypocritically giving other interpretations that deviated from the comics a pass. The fact that the pathetic Razzies gave DeVito a worst supporting actor nomination tells me they wouldn't hesitate to jump on the hate bandwagon on the film today if it were still fashionable. I feel like such a piece of sh*t for even suggesting it, but the only way DeVito's take could be met with better reception, is if he passed away before the movie came out.

Last but not least, I can see people complaining online and accuse Burton and the production team of racism for casting actors of ethnic backgrounds in less than flattering roles e.g. the Native American actor who played the rapist who Catwoman attacked. Going by the accusations towards Antisemitism in The New York Times back in 1992, I could see today's outrage culture use that agenda to condemn BR in a broader scale than print media ever could.

So yeah, there's no doubt in my mind that BR would've been divisive as it probably was when it was first released a couple of decades ago. Thankfully, there was no anti-social media back then to undermine the film's merits and we can enjoy the movie in peace. Unlike this age we live in this despicable Rotten Tomatoes-obsessed culture.

What are your thoughts?

[The Joker]

TLF, you bring up some fine points and reasons explaining those points. To which I don't disagree with. I think if we're looking at BR under the lens of Alternate History where it was being released today, I agree that there would be a certain degree of division the film would spark. My viewpoint, and maybe it's just me being jaded, is to what extent would the divisiveness really play out?

If we're talking about the current day Tim Burton, who appears to be more polarizing and regarded as a hack these days, I can see BR in 2019 alternate history being just as, if not more divisive than the 1992 film. If say, Tim Burton was a internet darling, considered in his prime as a director,  and/or was currently enjoying alot of goodwill (ala MCU), then I would have to lean toward a 2019 BR ultimately being more welcomed and praised than it was in our 1992 history. Despite, as it's become clear these days, the film not being the route mainstream superhero movies is at currently (not extremely "light", not overtly jokey/snarky, adult themes, somber ending, ect).

If the MCU line have taught us anything, is that you can get away with alot of goofy things, and discrepancies from the source material, and normies/fanboys alike will not bat an eye. If you're more of a polarizing director, less goodwill, and you make deviations from the source material, watch out. It's likely not going to end well.

[The Laughing Fish]

If we're talking about the current day Tim Burton, who appears to be more polarizing and regarded as a hack these days, I can see BR in 2019 alternate history being just as, if not more divisive than the 1992 film. If say, Tim Burton was a internet darling, considered in his prime as a director,  and/or was currently enjoying alot of goodwill (ala MCU), then I would have to lean toward a 2019 BR ultimately being more welcomed and praised than it was in our 1992 history. Despite, as it's become clear these days, the film not being the route mainstream superhero movies is at currently (not extremely "light", not overtly jokey/snarky, adult themes, somber ending, ect).

I might be reaching a little bit here, but another factor we need to consider is how the directors communicate themselves. If you listen to Tim Burton speaking in interviews or DVD commentaries, such as the ones he did for both Batman movies, you can tell how timid he is, and tends to struggle trying to convey his ideas and thoughts into sentences. I remember in the B89 DVD commentary, he talked about how he directed Jack Palance on the scene where Joker gets revenge over Grissom, and Palance scolded him over his lack of experience in film making because he was annoyed by the amount of takes to shoot the scene. This shook Burton a lot, which is perhaps one of the many reasons why he doesn't regard B89 as a fond movie-making experience for him.

If word were to get out today that a director felt intimidated by one of his actors, I can only see clickbait headlines with agendas running headlines painting people like Burton as "unsuitable to handle big budget action blockbusters". You only have to look at how the media twists Zack Snyder's words to sell their stories. Look at the fuss people made into thinking he'd make a movie where Batman would "get raped" or claims "people live in a dream world if they don't believe Batman kills". When in fact, he was talking about how Watchmen is much darker compared to the DC universe when talking about the former, and how Batman's violent actions would lead to the inevitable in the real world, in the latter.

Which is perhaps one of the reasons why Nolan gets a pass, since the interviews I see of him he sounds very sophisticated, even if his movies have a lot of issues.

[thecolorsblend]

People claim to remember a massive backlash against BR in 1992. I lived through it and I don't think it actually happened. At least, not to the extent that people today claim.

But if BR (as we know it now) came out today, holy crap, talk about a gun battle! When it comes to comic adaptations, we live in far less tolerant times today. Burton would never have been given the creative latitude to make the artistic decisions he made in BR. Or if he was, it wouldn't be done on a blockbuster budget. Either way, the final product would suffer, I think.

And the fan reaction would probably break Facebook in half, glue it back together and break it in half again. The more grotesque, monster movie take on the Penguin alone would have fans crying foul. If Burton was on Twitter, his Twitter would have to go dark for at least six months to allow the more acidic stuff to filter out.

I think Catwoman's S&M-lite thing might go over okay in today's market... which may not be a good thing since the S&M thing was intended to be a subversive assertion of Catwoman's heretofore repressed sexuality. Mature audiences might greet it warmly rather than be disturbed by it as a negative, harmful overreaction to her original set of problems. She would be seen in the light of Grrrrl Power rather than as a broken individual who was never able to truly find peace in her own skin. Her rejection of Batman at the end of the movie would be regarded as a crowning achievement of feminism rather than Selina Kyle turning her back on last chance for happiness.

I'm not sure wide audiences of 1992 completely grasped what Burton was up to with BR. I'm positive that wide audiences of 2019 would do even worse than 1992 audiences did.

If BR came out today, it would be loved for all the wrong reasons by some people and hated for all the wrong reasons by other people. I contend that BR as we know it would be even more misunderstood today than it was back in 1992.

If Schumacher's films as we know them came out today, easily they'd gross nearly a billion each. I have zero doubt about that. Burton is the one whose work, vision and creative process would be tragicomically misunderstood.

[The Laughing Fish]

A couple of years ago, Daniel Waters told The Hollywood Reporter that the Strongman death scene was never planned in his draft for the movie. I'm not surprised, because the comic book adaptation had Batman throwing the dynamite into an open manhole.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-returns-at-25-stars-reveal-script-cuts-freezing-sets-aggressive-penguins-1013942

"My friends always asked, 'How can you have Batman kill somebody?' To me, Batman not killing Heath Ledger at the end of The Dark Knight after proving he can get out of any prison, it's like 'Come on. Kill Heath Ledger,' " says Waters.

But he's not thrilled with how Batman Returns' Batman handled capital justice.

"Batman killing the clown by throwing his bomb back at him, that wasn't in my draft. I know how uptight people are about Batman killing people in the first place," he says. "To me, if he's going to kill somebody, it better be worth it. It should mean something. So, when he's killing people in a devil-may-care way, it's a little grating."

I wonder if Waters and other people felt it was equally grating when Nolan's Batman proved his moral stance against killing was inconsistent and a complete waste of time, given what he does to the other villains in between that nonsensical Joker conflict?



Anyway, once again, I can only imagine how the hypocritical fuss over Batman's killing would've increased ten fold, if Waters said this shortly after the movie's release in today's culture. The clickbait media outlets would've taken advantage of this and have a field day. I wouldn't be surprised these garbage websites would make up rumours claiming Burton and Waters didn't get along, or how Burton "disrespects" the writer, or some nonsense. One thing's for sure, I can definitely see deadbeat washed-up hacks like Gerry Conway retweeting Waters' comments, to justify saying "f*** Tim Burton".

Burton recalls the violence this way: "At the time, it felt like we were exploring new territory and it's probably quite tame compared to now."

He doesn't recall the studio pushing back.

"I think that everybody was on board with the fact that these were going to be a different type of superhero movie. Because it felt new at the time, they really didn't know what to say about it," says Burton.

Makes sense why there was no push back then, because two-faced hypocrites didn't have access to brainwash wide audiences like in today's internet culture. Nowadays, people appear to be too obsessed with critical narratives instead of really analysing the damn movie. This is why most popular movies tend to follow a formulaic plot, unlike the more experimental BR, I suppose.

If Burton was on Twitter, his Twitter would have to go dark for at least six months to allow the more acidic stuff to filter out.

Sadly, Zack Snyder knows this all too well after the overreaction towards BvS. As a matter of fact, he left Twitter to join the creator-friendly Vero.

If BR came out today, it would be loved for all the wrong reasons by some people and hated for all the wrong reasons by other people. I contend that BR as we know it would be even more misunderstood today than it was back in 1992.

Great comment. Another problem I see with some moviegoers is they tend to take demented villains and see them as protagonists when they're really not. Recently, and I kid you not, I've seen some people argue Thanos was the real hero of Infinity War. Just...no. That would be like me saying John Doe in Se7en is the true hero because of his contempt for society's tolerance of sinful behaviours. Just because you might understand where the bad guy is coming from, it still doesn't necessarily make them righteous.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm taking a quick look at the scripts for the movie. Despite what Daniel Waters said to THR, it appears he did have Batman kill the Strongman in his draft.

Here is the first version of the Strongman incident, as dated on the 20th of May 1991.

Emerging from the smoke behind them, Batman sledgehammers
     down the Caped Gangster then latches out to the running
     away cape of the Thug Acrobat.  He violently swings the
     Acrobat off the ground into a harsh lamppost-wraparound
     collision.  Batman catches the Acrobats floating off
     check, before looking up to see the Tattooed Strongman
     growl out of the smoke before him.

                             TATTOOED STRONGMAN
               Oh, no big bad car tonight.  No
               spiky things to shoot at my head.
                      (pounding his Batman-
                       tattooed chest)
               Before I kill you, I let you hit
               me.  Hit me.  Come on, hit as hard
               as you can.  I need a good laugh.

     Batman quickly swings into the Strongman's stomach.  The
     Tattooed leviathan roars with laughter.

                             TATTOOED STRONGMAN
               You call that a...

     The Tattooed Strongman stops laughing when he looks down
     and sees that Batman has attached the Maniac's bomb to
     the Not-so-Strongman's leopard skin.  The Tattooed
     Strongman squeals past Batman right into an open manhole.
     An explosion geysers out of it.

     Batman sighs out of the smoke at the end of the Promenade
     into...

     EXT. GOTHAM PLAZA--NIGHT

Source: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/batman-returns_early.html


Here is another draft dated on the 1st of August 1991; this time, Wesley Strick is credited for some rewrites.

EXT. GOTHAM PLAZA--NIGHT

     The Tattooed Strongman swaggers out from a patch of smoke
     behind Batman and looses a savage kidney punch.  Batman
     painfully reels forward, keeping balance.

                             TATTOOED STRONGMAN
               Before I kill you, I let you hit
               me.  Hit me.  Come on, hit as hard
               as you can.  I need a good laugh.

     Batman punches the Strongman's stomach.  The Tattooed
     leviathan roars with laughter.

                             TATTOOED STRONGMAN
               You call that a...

     The Tattooed Strongman stops laughing when he looks down
     and sees that Batman has attached the Thin Clown's bomb
     to the Not-so-Strongman's leopard skin.  Batman gives him
     a calm, firm push into an open manhole.

     An explosion geysers out of it.  Batman turns from the
     blast at the precise moment Penguin meanders out of the
     darkness, casually shaking debris off his umbrella.  They
     stop dead at the sight of each other.

Source: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/batman-returns_shooting.html

It's important to note that after the bomb incident, the Strongman was never heard from again in either draft. Like in the final cut.

These are the only BR scripts I could find, apart from Sam Hamm's cancelled Batman II script, and neither version resembles what happened in the comic book adaptation written by Denny O'Neil. As I said before, Batman threw the ticking bomb down the manhole, and he didn't even confront the Strongman at all.



Something doesn't add up here. Either Waters is lying, or somebody else (presumably Strick) came up with the Strongman demise and they just never got credited for the May 91 draft. But then again, that still wouldn't make any sense because Waters insisted the death scene didn't happen at all. This is very suspicious.

If there is an earlier draft written by Waters and it didn't include this scene, please let me know.

[The Laughing Fish]

Another thing that got me thinking: if the film was released today, it would've faced harsher backlash from animal rights activists than it did back in the day. In 1992, PETA made a bit of a fuss over the use of real penguins, because they believed such animals shouldn't be moved outside of their natural habitat.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0618/18122.html

Of course, the American Humane Association ensured the penguins and other animals were taken care of during production. But once again, in today's toxic social media climate, I can only imagine a vocal minority shouting from the top of their lungs telling everyone to boycott the movie.

http://humanehollywood.org/index.php/movie-archive/item/batman-returns

That being said, there were some allegations that the penguins were deprived of drinking fresh water, and had to use chlorine-filled water. But even if these allegations aren't true, I still believe people would still look for something else to get upset about.

http://www.vabioethics.com/content/2017/1/15/peta-accuses-hollywood-company-of-animal-neglect

[Kamdan]

What is this from?

[The Laughing Fish]

Running Scared. Underrated buddy cop movie from 1986.

[thecolorsblend]

These are the only BR scripts I could find, apart from Sam Hamm's cancelled Batman II script, and neither version resembles what happened in the comic book adaptation written by Denny O'Neil. As I said before, Batman threw the ticking bomb down the manhole, and he didn't even confront the Strongman at all.

I put the bomb thing there as a bit of creative license on O'Neil's part. I don't think it's much of a risk to suggest that he doesn't approve of Burton's harsher, darker take on Batman. O'Neil seems to prefer writing Batman as guy who controls his demons. Burton's viewpoint, I think, sees Batman as a guy who is consumed by his demons.

O'Neil doesn't want Batman to intentionally kill. Hence, he rewrote that bit with the time bomb to wash the blood of Batman's hands. That's what I think happened.