The Batman Films and Studio Pressure

[Slash Man]

Let's take a moment to talk about the effects that the studio had on the creative process and presentation of the different Bat-films.

Unfortunately, I'm not very well-versed on the 40s serials enough to speak about Columbia's involvement in Lambert Hillyer's productions. I can only assume because of the novelty and the fact that these were Batman's first outings, a certain amount of freedom was allowed. Again, I'm not familiar with what went on behind the scenes of the late Leslie Martinson's Batman, but it's so closely linked with the TV series and faithfully carries it over that there doesn't seem to be evidence of a conflict of interests.

Now, things get interesting with Tim Burton's Batman. The recent interview with Mac McDonald again brought this to light when he talks about how his role was drastically changed when the cameras started rolling. While Batman can be seen as a genuine reflection of Burton's style, it still went against his wishes in some areas, and represented a conflict in others. In short, the studio wanted more of the commercial appeal of 60s Batman and more action. While Burton was able to fight any campiness, the film has a few (sometimes jarring) pickup shots to facilitate the "more action" stance; one of which was a late-term shoot where Dave Lea was called in to fight a scimitar swordsman. Another aspect that was severely toned down was Burton's now signature dark humor.

With the unprecedented success of Batman, Batman Returns gave Burton pretty much free reign, which resulted in a much more "Burton" film. I believe this film represents Burton's true, untouched style.

The events that followed Returns are rather infamous; Burton handpicked Joel Schumacher due to his distinctive style, but the studio did everything they could to prevent another Batman Returns. While Schumacher's vision can be seen as more of a return to the first Batman, the studio oversaw various tonal changes and alterations to the film to sanitize it for a wider audience. This results in the first instance of a "Director's Cut" existing where the director's vision differs sharply from that of the final product.

Batman & Robin was released on the heels of the smashing success of Batman Forever. This time around, Schumacher was in full control of the film. Though in trying to replicate the formula for Batman Forever, the entire thing seemed to fall flat on audiences.

The Dark Knight trilogy can only be attributed to the directorial style of Christopher Nolan. Warner Bros seemed to embrace his more realistic gritty take on the character, and that pumped out three uberly successful films.

Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad both have the same stories. Highly anticipated films differ greatly from the director's original intentions. Both were trashed by critics, but Batman v Superman had the benefit of a better-received director's cut. To me, it seems like we're slipping back into the days of Batman Forever, though the fact also remains that some directors are just better suited than others.

[thecolorsblend]

The events that followed Returns are rather infamous; Burton handpicked Joel Schumacher due to his distinctive style, but the studio did everything they could to prevent another Batman Returns. While Schumacher's vision can be seen as more of a return to the first Batman, the studio oversaw various tonal changes and alterations to the film to sanitize it for a wider audience. This results in the first instance of a "Director's Cut" existing where the director's vision differs sharply from that of the final product.

Batman & Robin was released on the heels of the smashing success of Batman Forever. This time around, Schumacher was in full control of the film. Though in trying to replicate the formula for Batman Forever, the entire thing seemed to fall flat on audiences.

Schumacher has said that he never had absolute freedom with his Batman films. He even hinted that WB was even more hands-on with B&R (which everybody wanted a piece of) than they were with BF (which practically nobody believed in).

The Dark Knight trilogy can only be attributed to the directorial style of Christopher Nolan. Warner Bros seemed to embrace his more realistic gritty take on the character, and that pumped out three uberly successful films.

I'm not convinced of that. It may be true of TDK and TDKRises (although I question even that) but BB has a very commercial type of tone to it. If you squint a fair amount, you can believe that the same guy who directed Memento did BB too. But it's not necessarily the first assumption you'd make.

TDK... maybe Nolan had total control over it. Maybe he didn't. Don't know.

Frankly, I don't think he had total control over TDKRises either. I've wondered that he truly intended to kill Batman off in that movie to prevent anybody from following him. The way he always talked about "endings" and "conclusions" and "finales" while doing press for TDKRises makes me think he originally wanted Batman dead by the time credits roll for TDKRises. Plenty of people think he really did die in TDKRises anyway. A filmmaker as didactic as Nolan wouldn't leave something like that ambiguous for no reason.

To be fair, that may be the only thing WB declined. And since they'd given him everything else he wanted, maybe Nolan figured he'd compromise on this one thing.

Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad both have the same stories. Highly anticipated films differ greatly from the director's original intentions. Both were trashed by critics, but Batman v Superman had the benefit of a better-received director's cut. To me, it seems like we're slipping back into the days of Batman Forever, though the fact also remains that some directors are just better suited than others.

I think all the Batman directors so far (and I include Snyder in this as well) all have relative strengths and merits to them. They're not interchangeable (which is a good thing) but they all have redeeming values to them. I enjoy them all.

I also think you're way oversimplifying this. And maybe I am too.

[Slash Man]

Well, we may never know the nitty gritty details, but I'm just basing my views on what's been widely reported and what can be backed up by statements from the actors/directors. Though I guess if a film is more successful, we tend not to hear about how changes were made against the director's intentions.

[The Laughing Fish]

Whatever restrictions Burton had on the 89 film, he still had the choice to make Joker be the one who murdered Bruce's parents, which Bob Kane apparently approved.

By the way, weren't there rumours that Nolan wanted to kill off Batman at the end of Rises, but WB/DC wouldn't let him?

[The Laughing Fish]

By the way, weren't there rumours that Nolan wanted to kill off Batman at the end of Rises, but WB/DC wouldn't let him?

Not only did I fail to notice thecolorsblend had already mentioned this in his post, Peter David claims that was the case.

http://www.peterdavid.net/2012/07/29/the-dark-knight-rises-like-a-souffle-but-then-a-loud-bang-makes-it-fall-my-spoiler-filled-comments/

[thecolorsblend]

From Peter David's review...

Fun fact: Nolan originally wanted to kill off Batman. DC refused to sign off on it. I kind of wish they hadn't blocked that ending, because if you thought Bane snapping Batman's spine was painful, that's nothing compared to the back breaking contortions they had to go through to keep Bruce alive. He keeps the fact that he's fixed the autopilot secret from Lucius Fox. Why? On the off chance he may have to fake his own death?

He flies a ticking down atom bomb out into the bay. We see him in the batwing seconds before detonation. One assumes he bails out at some point. So what? He's still going to be well within the bomb's six mile blast radius. How does he survive the bomb blast at effectively ground zero, especially without a refrigerator to hide in?

So DC vetoed that idea? Interesting.

It feeds into the fan theory that got advanced that Bruce really did die in the blast and what people experience afterward is a sort of idealized wish-fulfillment. Gordon discovers a new bat signal; his dream come true. Blake discovers access to the Batcave and becomes Batman; his dream come true. Fox discovers Bruce secretly fixed the auto-pilot; his dream come true. Alfred actually sees Bruce in the cafe; his self-admitted dream come true. All of these require Bruce to have survived the explosion.

One reason I'm starting to really doubt that was Nolan's intention though (apart from the improbability of surviving a nuclear explosion at point blank range, that is) is the score, of all things. It's a sparse chorale. A boy soloist. The last time the audience heard this was about 14'ish minutes into Batman Begins when Thomas and Martha got perforated.

The last time this musical cue was used was when people with the last name "Wayne" died.

And then they hear it again moments before Batman flies into a nuclear explosion in TDKRises... but we're not supposed to believe he died in the explosion?

I think what Nolan and WB (or DC) did was compromise. Nolan wasn't allowed to explicitly state that Bruce died... so he tried to make Bruce's death as bluntly and non-bluntly obvious as he could while still showing a "living" Bruce in the end. He did the job about as well as he could've, under the circumstances.

Under that framework, Batman literally did give his life to save Gotham City from the worst threat it had ever faced and would ever face. He gave them everything even though it cost him everything. Not bad! I think I prefer this to the notion he somehow survived because "I'm Batman".