One of a kind

[riddler]

I don't see how the very small shot of Pfeiffer makes the 2004 film part of the Burton universe any more than the quip about exploding penguins makes the Judtice league part of it. Berry's character is named Patience Phillips and has no connection to the Burtonverse.

It seems obvious that the 2004 film was intended to be sleek and sexy instead of actually good. Halle Berry still makes movies but there's no doubt that her career took a dive after this film. I haven't seen the film in it's entirety but I've seen parts of it on TV over the years and there really was nothing compelling about it. Sharon Stone is pretty good as a villain, that's about the only good thing I can say about it. 

[The Dark Knight]

Halle Berry still makes movies but there's no doubt that her career took a dive after this film.

It really did, which I think is a shame. Her life seems to have been full of drama, but I mean....what happened?

[thecolorsblend]

I put stuff like that down to poor management. In fairness, probably nobody assumed the movie would become what it became.

But still, when you've won Oscars and your manager comes to you saying "You should do this movie, it's a lot of money and it's good exposure", you should be wary.

Still, fair play to Berry, who personally showed up to collect her Razzie like a good sport. If the movers and shakers behind B&R had been a bit more self-deprecating, I honestly believe Internet hostilities wouldn't have become as psychotic as they did.

[riddler]

I put stuff like that down to poor management. In fairness, probably nobody assumed the movie would become what it became.

But still, when you've won Oscars and your manager comes to you saying "You should do this movie, it's a lot of money and it's good exposure", you should be wary.

Still, fair play to Berry, who personally showed up to collect her Razzie like a good sport. If the movers and shakers behind B&R had been a bit more self-deprecating, I honestly believe Internet hostilities wouldn't have become as psychotic as they did.

I may be wrong but I believe at the time she was the only person to ever bring their own oscar to the razzie awards.

I think it's a different scenario from Batman and Robin. Catwoman may have been a bad movie but its expectations weren't as high as Batman and Robins. The expectations were never that huge considering that there hadn't yet been a successful super heroine film (you could argue that didn't come until this year's Wonder Woman) and I think anyone who saw the film realizes that no leading actress could have saved the film.
There is no excuse for a Batman film to fail. He is the most popular super hero and that series already had three huge box office successes. True Batman and Robin was not a box office bomb but critically speaking it was a failure and you can't just blame internet trolls for that. It seemed to be a popular theme among 90's sequels to lampoon their earlier films and this sort of thing risks annoying fans of the material. George Clooney did basically denounce the film after it's theatrical run and that didn't help the films rep.

Take the 80's film Leonard part six as an example. Bill Cosby came out and denounced the film right off the bat but that didn't get him off the hook considering he wrote, produced, and starred in it. This isn't to say that film makers owe fans anything, they make the films, nobody is forced to watch them but I really don't think there was anything Schumacher could have done to save face at that point. He knew he was taking on an immensely popular character and was subjecting himself to a backlash if the fans didn't like what he was giving them. Note that when he did Phantom of the Opera 7 years later, his back was arched up higher when his creative choices were questioned basically saying "If you don't like what we're doing here, stay home".

[thecolorsblend]

There is no excuse for a Batman film to fail.

At that time, there absolutely was. There was arguable precedent for it, even. After B89, Batman Returns was perceived as being less successful (which was objectively true) and less popular (which was subjective) than its predecessor.

But even after BF, Batman wasn't regarded by really anybody as box office gold.

He is the most popular super hero

He is now. He wasn't back then.

[Andrew]

I was thinking how today's superhero movies are designed with sequels and setting up cinematic universes in mind.
A movie like Batman Returns where the director had almost complete reign over everything would never happen nowadays.
So when you stop and think about it Batman Returns is really a one of a kind movie.

Let alone where a director has that kind of freedom and yet isn't reverent to his first movie, instead consciously makes the second film pretty independent to it.


It's pretty weird that Catwoman is very vague about whether there have or haven't been other superheroes or supervillains around, or where it's even set (not Gotham but not a sense of any specific place). Although if it is in the same continuity of BR I wonder if it maybe implies that Pfeiffer Catwoman died if there can only be one Catwoman at a time.

[The Laughing Fish]

I was thinking how today's superhero movies are designed with sequels and setting up cinematic universes in mind.
A movie like Batman Returns where the director had almost complete reign over everything would never happen nowadays.
So when you stop and think about it Batman Returns is really a one of a kind movie.

Another thing that makes BR unique is Burton was able to create his own movie without taking any plot ideas from graphic novels, unlike today's movies.
For example, a lot of these DC movies in the last thirteen years owe a lot to artists like Frank Miller and Alan Moore when it comes to inspiration or idea. But with BR, Burton used his own imagination to reinvent characters and create the story quite differently. Whereas B89 was a surreal world that mixes some gangster film elements together with noir, BR was a film that you can tell was typically Burton: Gothic, tragic, quirky and larger than life.

[Azrael]

Agreed.

I think it comes down to how visually unique it is - you see a random still from the film, without any of the main characters in the frame, you immediately know it's Batman Returns.

Not so much with most of Marvel's movies. After a while they feel a bit like episodes of a cinema-budgeted TV series.

[The Dark Knight]

Agreed.

I think it comes down to how visually unique it is - you see a random still from the film, without any of the main characters in the frame, you immediately know it's Batman Returns.

Not so much with most of Marvel's movies. After a while they feel a bit like episodes of a cinema-budgeted TV series.

As the years pass and new movies are made, we always return to our old friends. B89 and BR are old friends. We grew up with them and you never forget your first love. That's why in the eyes of many Batman fans Burton just can't be beaten. I'm much the same. I think Affleck is probably the best overall, but I'm never leaving Keaton's side. He's still the first person I think of when someone says 'Batman'.

[Azrael]

Or 'Bruce Wayne'. Even if he wasn't a physical match to the comics Wayne, he had the attitude. It's not just nostalgia, though, there's many other things I loved as a kid at the time I loved the 1989-92 films, things which I consider silly right now. Burton's Batman stayed with me. There are things about them which are timeless.

Agreed about Affleck, he has the potential to be the best Batman in live action. I say 'has the potential' because we got only glimpses of him doing Batman things in an urban Gotham setting. I hope he's still around for the first solo Bat-film. Him and Irons, the best Wayne/Alfred duo ever.