Burton continuity references in Akiva Goldsman's draft

Started by The Laughing Fish, Sun, 12 May 2019, 09:49

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 15 May  2020, 03:06
Yeah, that's a good point. There are some similarities between this scene and what they had in mind for the cancelled Batman Unchained project.

It seemed Schumacher wanted to call back to the Burton era at some point in his tenure as a Batman movie director. You can argue he already did that in the final cut of BF, with Chase making a subtle reference to Catwoman while meeting Batman on the rooftop, and Bruce hinting his own vengeful past as he tries to dissuade Dick from seeking revenge. But he likely would've gone much further had he made a third film.

It's too bad his poor creative decisions and Warner Butchers' Happy Meal agenda ruined the future of the series.

Yeah, there was some allusions to the Burton films, but I agree that it would have been all that much sweeter if the references/callbacks were a little more heavy handed. Even if the overall formula (in terms of approach and look) was drastically different from the Burton films, I think fans of the Batman movies, of that time, would have appreciated more direct references to previous characters/events.

I still vividly recall seeing Batman Forever on it's opening Friday, and hearing people in the audience I was with say "Joker" during the flashback scene where Val's Bruce remembers his parents getting killed. Which I found pretty cool, especially as a kid, since the name "Joker" nor "Jack Napier" is not mentioned once in the film itself. 


QuoteAs I said before, my guess is they would recycle some footage from B89 and BR. I doubt that Warner would be willing to pay big bucks for Nicholson, Pfeiffer and DeVito to come back...for what would be a quick cameo that last a couple of seconds, at best.

An ensemble project like Batman Unchained on the other hand...sighs. Batman on film and missed opportunities go hand-in-hand, I tell you.

Yeah, I agree with you that it would have been footage. I meant more like if they would have just inserted quick glimpses of Burton footage containing the actors and whatever backgrounds from B89-BR? Or something more dreamlike where the footage of the actors would blend more into what backgrounds Schumacher had set up? That's what I was getting at.

I know I am doing a lot of agreeing in this post, but yeah .... that Batman Unchained is something I consider a missed opportunity as well. I think just the proposed idea of Jack Nicholson as the Joker cameo/reprisal would have had me seeing the movie atleast 5 times in the theaters!
"Imagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humour was provided to console him for what he is."

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 15 May  2020, 06:33
Yeah, I agree with you that it would have been footage. I meant more like if they would have just inserted quick glimpses of Burton footage containing the actors and whatever backgrounds from B89-BR? Or something more dreamlike where the footage of the actors would blend more into what backgrounds Schumacher had set up? That's what I was getting at.

Right, I get you. It would depend on the budget, but my bet is they'd show the Burton footage in the background, and that's it.

With that said, if I read too much into the part where it says Batman "skillfully avoids" the villains, there could've been the idea of using body doubles to play them for a brief moment, as Batman heads toward the exit. My gut feeling is this would've looked just as awkward as Superman's headless cameo in Shazam's ending.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 15 May  2020, 06:33
Batman Unchained is something I consider a missed opportunity as well. I think just the proposed idea of Jack Nicholson as the Joker cameo/reprisal would have had me seeing the movie atleast 5 times in the theaters!

It's a terrible reminder what an immense failure B&R was. Clooney was right when he said that film had killed the franchise, as so many future projects were casualties as a result. Batman Unchained, Chris O'Donnell's solo Nightwing film, any slight chance for Michelle Pfeiffer's solo Catwoman film...all gone. History would show us it wouldn't be the only time Warner Butchers ruined a superhero franchise. The only difference is unlike what they did to the DCEU, they were at least honest about where they wanted to take Batman back in those days.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  6 May  2020, 23:51

Man, what a loss. I think my kid self in 1995 would have found any sort of reference to Jack Nicholson's Joker in Batman Forever totally awesome! Same goes for Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman or Danny Devito's Penguin as well since the Burton films were, especially by 1995, near and dear to my cold heart. Hell, I recall reading the Batman Forever novelization by Peter David and appreciating the references to the apprehending of Penguin's Red Triangle Circus Gang.

The whole deal with the projected images of Batman's villains from the Burton era, kinda comes across a more of a low-key version of what was later proposed in the Batman Unchained draft. Interesting to think how that projection scene would have been fully realized though.

I'm glad it didn't happen and I don't see it as a missed opportunity. Forever is technically part of the Burtonverse but any overt references such as this would've felt false to me. I like that the film largely represents a new beginning with a new director, soundtrack and lead actor. Having Hingle and Gough as the mainstays was enough to keep a sense of familiarity.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 17 May  2020, 15:07
I'm glad it didn't happen and I don't see it as a missed opportunity. Forever is technically part of the Burtonverse but any overt references such as this would've felt false to me. I like that the film largely represents a new beginning with a new director, soundtrack and lead actor. Having Hingle and Gough as the mainstays was enough to keep a sense of familiarity.

In recent times, with consistent reboots with dramatic change in direction, it's become conventional for people to be much more prone/accustomed to accept the notion of a complete overhaul of continuity (and cast) transpiring in rapid succession with franchises. Back in 1995? It was incredibly jarring and atypical. To me, the allusions to past events and returning actors from the Burton films felt like a half measured attempt at some sort of cohesion, and overall reluctance to do away with what came before. A decision that may have very well paid off with a Unchained film that Schumacher, I believe, envisioned as a more appropriate finality to the then-current arc of Batman films (in addition to his own swan song with the franchise).   
"Imagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humour was provided to console him for what he is."

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 18 May  2020, 03:04
In recent times, with consistent reboots with dramatic change in direction, it's become conventional for people to be much more prone/accustomed to accept the notion of a complete overhaul of continuity (and cast) transpiring in rapid succession with franchises. Back in 1995? It was incredibly jarring and atypical.

Batman fandom would be a very different place without the 90s films. A lot of my interest was due to B89, BR, BF and B&R being released on a fairly consistent basis. I know they served as the bedrock for many passions other than mine and I'm forever thankful for them. Imagine if B89 was stuck in development hell and was never made, leaving the brand vacant cinematically like Superman was for 19 years. It's hard to say what would have happened without the period that inspired B:TAS.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 18 May  2020, 03:36
It's hard to say what would have happened without the period that inspired B:TAS.

Perish the thought. It's difficult not to imagine that the camp influence from the 1960's Adam West series (which I grew up loving so I am not bashing it) wouldn't have had it's shadow still looming large over the Batman property in terms of mainstream publicity/consensus. I distinctly remember watching a Entertainment Tonight report about the wrap up party for Batman Forever, and they were STILL playing the Adam West 'Nanana Batman!' song in background throughout the segment.

I also remember reading a very good and detailed article from a, i think, 2005-2006 Entertainment Weekly magazine (atleast 2-3 years before the actual Snyder movie was made) about the years of developmental hell the Watchmen movie had been in. One part I found humorous, was that following the success of the comics, and subsequent optioning for a movie, it was suggested to both Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons to shoot a pictorial on a set where it would appear as if they were climbing up the side of a building. Both responded that there was no way in hell they were doing that.

I think the Batman titles of DC Comics would have continued chugging along as in our timeline, but without the Burton films, it's highly questionable if the 1992 Animated Series would have ever got green lit (as per the documentary found on the recent blu ray release). We probably would have received atleast some sort of Batman cartoon during the '90s (if just to compete with X-Men TAS and Spider-Man TAS), but without the Burton success .... and we're talking about the era of 1990's animation, I wouldn't doubt Warners would have felt more comfortable with something more Brave and the Bold-like than The Animated Series. It's fun to speculate.
"Imagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humour was provided to console him for what he is."

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 18 May  2020, 05:44
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 18 May  2020, 03:36
It's hard to say what would have happened without the period that inspired B:TAS.

Perish the thought. It's difficult not to imagine that the camp influence from the 1960's Adam West series (which I grew up loving so I am not bashing it) wouldn't have had it's shadow still looming large over the Batman property in terms of mainstream publicity/consensus. I distinctly remember watching a Entertainment Tonight report about the wrap up party for Batman Forever, and they were STILL playing the Adam West 'Nanana Batman!' song in background throughout the segment.

It was a shock for the system at the time, but the franchise really needed B89 as a palette cleanser and blueprint for the future.

I think Superman would be a totally different property if they managed to get a film off the ground in the 1990s, and one that was relatively popular with audiences.

Dean Cain did his thing on television, but there's no denying the power and excitement of a live action film. By the time Superman Returns came around in 2006 I was willing to give the film a shot, but the enthusiasm levels just weren't the same. Batman films were my childhood, and a childhood cannot be repeated. That had come and gone, and Superman missed the boat. Think of the fans the property could have fostered with a successful bunch of 1990s films. Love or hate Marvel, but they've done just that with the current generation.

I think it's very important to view any incarnation of a character, be it West, Bale or Affleck, as a link in the chain - not the chain. For Superman, Reeve has become the chain. The fact Keaton was replaced so soon by Kilmer was key. He is beloved by many fans, but he wasn't allowed to become a faultless God frozen in time. He put his stamp on the character and moved on, allowing something else to happen - which is healthy.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 18 May  2020, 05:44
I think the Batman titles of DC Comics would have continued chugging along as in our timeline, but without the Burton films, it's highly questionable if the 1992 Animated Series would have ever got green lit (as per the documentary found on the recent blu ray release). We probably would have received atleast some sort of Batman cartoon during the '90s (if just to compete with X-Men TAS and Spider-Man TAS), but without the Burton success .... and we're talking about the era of 1990's animation, I wouldn't doubt Warners would have felt more comfortable with something more Brave and the Bold-like than The Animated Series. It's fun to speculate.

I don't own the Blu Ray release, so I don't know what was said in that documentary. But I do own the DVDs, and I remember when Bruce Timm was commentating on the episode House of Garden, he was quite emphatic about how Burton's take on Batman was crucial for the existence of BTAS.

Quote from: Bruce Timm
If he [Burton] had done an Adam West style Batman movie, regardless whether it was successful or not, they would never have allowed us to do this take on Batman. They only allowed us to do this because it was perceived to being in vein to what Tim Burton had done. Once again, thank you Tim Burton for making that movie.

Even Paul Dini acknowledged Burton's influence in his autobiographical comic, Dark Night: A True Batman Story. Dini stated that unlike Fleischer's Superman, Batman's cartoons was stuck with lightheartedness ever since the 1960s, but B89 changed that. He explained the film had "reinvented Batman as the dark, brooding character he had been in the comics. It proved people could take the character seriously again". This was accompanied by an illustration of Dini watching the film in a packed theater, saying "Wow" in amazement, and then stating that would set the stage for the groundbreaking BTAS.

We've seen a lot of revisionist bullsh*t over the years that tried to downplay Tim Burton's importance. But as you can see from the creators of BTAS, his films were far more influential than some people care to admit. A true pioneer.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei