Batman '89 (2021)

[The Joker]

Keaton must have gotten the word from Burton that Schwarzenegger got from Cameron that he could feel free to do a movie in the franchise without him. Burton seems to be very reluctant to do a "nostalgia show" by retreading familiar ground on a series that he felt like he was kicked out of, which I'm pretty sure he's not been asked back to anyways. This also explains why the sequel to Beetlejuice is taking so long. If it was something he really wanted to do, it'd be filming already.

Keaton building up a nest egg at this point, despite probable personal disconcerting creative choices, is already baked into the cake so to speak. Having to re-read the Flash script (if memory serves) two to three times may just be racked up to confusion over the multiverse concept, as publically stated (I'm sure he could have taken this further if he didn't want to be held liable ... as if the film needed any more trouble), or perhaps his own personal discontended feelings in just "how" his Batman was handled. "Hey, maybe if I read this again, it'll get better?"

Burton and Cameron are miles apart at this stage in their respective careers, but I wouldn't absolutely rule out Burton stubbornly positioning himself for a larger check when it comes to franchises he had a hand in jump starting. Especially so since he's well aware his name back in the director's chair would get the desired publicity for promotion (just like studios being cognizant of as well). Burton's much more lenient to 'play ball' nowadays than he was during the 1990's where he was given carte blanche in creative control. As if directing a live action "Dumbo" for Disney didn't already make that abundantly clear.

Your provided examples have other factors that ensured their success more than what can applied to this situation. Cruise manicured himself to resemble his 1986 self and probably had to be refrained from going to further with his appearance since he's supposed to be the elder to the rest of the pilots. Keaton has allowed his hair to whiten and most of his roles allow his natural (of any at all) hairline. Cruise wouldn't be caught dead looking like that as Maverick.

Really? Personally, I think the success of "Top Gun Maverick" goes well beyond the visual aesthetic of what people have grown accustomed to when it comes to Tom Cruise's appearance in films. The movie could've had Mav looking like Vincent from "Collateral" and it would've had no bearing on the film's overall quality.

The moment in Ghostbusters: Afterlife  with the core Busters reuniting was very forced and undeserving. They had no bearing on the story beside just giving a moment for the audience to cheer for a moment that's already been played out before.

There really should have been a "B" plot that was outside of the main Spengler family story, involving the original Ghostbusters touching base again with one another, and so forth. There's a number of ways this could have been handled, but it would've ultimately made their sudden re-appearance in the film less jarring in retrospect.

I don't need to see Keaton say "I'm Batman" or "Let's get nuts" again when he already did it perfectly. The suit in The Flash looks more less-cumbersome than his previous suits, which could seriously affect Keaton's acting since he used the claustrophobia he suffered from being in the suit for his performance. The returning Ghostbusters just had to jump into their union suits and likely had lightweight packs to maximize comfortability for the aging actors.

I would expect a "I'm Batman" reprisal line coming from Keaton if you're going to go ahead and bring him back, sure. "Let's get nuts" is more superfluous, but eh. Whatever. Oh, and the proton packs were significally more lightweight than the 1984/1989 versions. Bill Murray was pretty open about it. Even with Ivan Reitman, who was often on set.

Stallone is a whole other beast in and of itself. He writes, directs and recently took on the task of recutting one of his films. Like Cruise, he knows what the audience wants and isn't priming himself to do a personal project, like that Edgar Allan Poe project that he seems to have decided to let go of. It was unrealistic of Affleck to believe that he could effectively do those tasks in his own Batman film and it ultimately didn't happen.

"Rocky Balboa" was a nice bookend to the Rocky franchise, much more so than "Rocky V" was, but I find the Creed films, which Stallone contributed to (as he wasn't the sole writer or director), to be worthy additions to the overall storyline narrative that was originally brought forth back in 1976.

The whole Fury Road experience proves how valuable it was in the original films that they had limitations to work with. I saw no value in Miller finally being able to show someone wasting their universe's precious commodity, gasoline, on someone blaring an electric guitar that spits fire. It looked ridiculous as it sounds but people still ate it up like it was the second coming. Bob Gale mentions how terrible Back to the Future would have ended up if they had gotten their way and the changes improved the final film. I'll gladly take the original Mad Max and Road Warrior over Fury Road any day. A Batman film with the same approach I'm sure would give me the same reaction.

I found "Mad Max Fury Road" to be Miller leaning more into the amazing visuals and impressible theatrics of the Mad Max universe that were always present from the jump. More of a spectacle than concerned with it's place in the Mad Max story narrative (I believe Miller didn't even give precise timeline of where "Fury Road" takes place when he was promoting the film. Stating something to the effect of FR, in his mind, taking place after Thunderdome, but it doesn't quite sync up right, ect), but yeah, it got most of the general audience interested in seeing more Mad Max films (or possibly for some to go back and watch the original Miller/Gibson films, which would be a win-win for Warners). Unfortunately, it's now years later and a "Furiosa" film with not-Charlize Theron is in the cards. Hey, it's Hollywood.

I'm sure Keaton is just fine with whatever they've worked out for him, because he's getting paid and is content with his place in his career. Us fans, on the other hand, have our reservations and expectations that I don't believe can be achieved. I believe a better statement would be "WE deserve better" and not "Our boy."

Sometimes, people "Go along to get along" in their careers, and Keaton certainly isn't an exception (or really the entire Hollywood bubble for that matter. Especially when you think about the now ousted "God" that was Harvey Weinstein). Again, I don't think "Us" fans have these wild overblown expectations that just simply can never be met and or satisfied when it comes to bring-round many of "Our" Batman back or for a, ultimately, proper send off, but in the manner this has been handled leaves much to be desired. That, I believe.

[Kamdan]

All of this is to say that you raise a good point here. And it's something that doesn't get brought up very often when the Affleck Batman movie gets discussed. There's a very strong argument that Affleck bit off more than he could chew with that movie. Which could be what actually killed it. Or at least contributed to killing it.

That and his drinking problem that he finally had to come to terms with how it was destroying his life. He thought he could still do things he did in his 20's, but those days are long gone. Snyder's decision to cast him as older and weathered Batman since it takes more to convey that sensibility with greying temples. They tried to warn him how this was going to seriously change his career and he stubbornly dismissed the negative side of it, such as the press mainly being interested in his next outing as Batman than whatever film he was promoting. He really didn't handle well that somehow led him back to being with J.Lo. and made Keaton return as Batman. As Adam West's Batman once said, "I'd say the odds against it, would make even the most reckless gambler cringe!"

The movie could've had Mav looking like Vincent from "Collateral" and it would've had no bearing on the film's overall quality.

It would have had a bearing on the movie overall since we're supposed to see that after all these years, Maverick is the same guy as we left him. One of the key factors that I believe audiences really responded to was to see a character like this, first and foremost in a sequel instead of being sidelined for other characters that we don't care about. Having him look like he did in Collateral, which already looked phony enough where it looked like someone just put baby powder in Cruise's hair, would have been a reminder of the time that's passed. Cruise understands what other long overdue sequels failed at, we don't want to be reminded of how long it's been since we've last seen them. Nobody wants to see an old man version of Indiana Jones doing the same things he did 40 years ago or having characters like Han Solo appear just so the new characters can kill them off or empty dramatic reasons so they can just magically appear out of nowhere.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not to get sidetracked. But looking back at it, Affleck's anticipated workload should've been a giveaway. Iirc, he would've written, directed and starred in his Batman movie. Odds are he would've been involved in a producer capacity as well because those rumors were circulating as well. Just one of those jobs would've been monumental. But doing all of them would've probably been the biggest challenge of his entire career. Argo would've looked like a sunny vacation in comparison. And that's before we get into whatever behind the scenes drama was going on.

All of this is to say that you raise a good point here. And it's something that doesn't get brought up very often when the Affleck Batman movie gets discussed. There's a very strong argument that Affleck bit off more than he could chew with that movie. Which could be what actually killed it. Or at least contributed to killing it.

I never gave too much thought about Affleck directing the planned solo movie, because it was a monumental task that I didn't think was going to happen anyway. Writing the thing is already big enough as it is. But from what I understand, as much as Affleck was interested in doing a solo Batman film, he was dedicated to completing the five film Snyderverse arc was the main priority, where the character would've gotten a definitive ending in JL3. After everything we know now about the trouble behind the scenes when Snyder was ousted and the previous WB regime and Whedon sabotaged the whole thing, nobody can blame Affleck for wanting to get out of DC altogether. One of the rumours surrounding the planned Batfleck movie that was described as "James Bond-like" was another script written by Geoff Johns, and you certainly can't blame Affleck for not wanting to have anything to do with that saboteur if that's true.

I can't guarantee for sure if Affleck's personal problems would've been alleviated if Snyder stayed on and a more truncated version of ZSJL came out. Only the man himself can answer that question. But I can definitely say the chaos going on with WB and JL certainly didn't help matters.

Still, his involvement in The Flash mystifies me, if it's more than just getting a simple paycheck. Judging by the leaks, he's not dying but is getting sidelined in another universe instead. Did he take the role again because he hopes to get a Snyderverse-related project in the near future? He did film those Knightmare epilogue scenes for ZSJL during lockdown, so it's possible he'd reunite with Snyder again in a heartbeat if given the chance. We'll just have to wait and find out.

Back on-topic with Keaton, I'd say despite the underwhelming premise for his Batman comeback, he's not typecast by any means. His post-Birdman career enabled him to star in really good films such as The Founder, Spotlight, Worth and a stellar performance in the mini-series Dopesick. Sure, as Burton Batman fans it sucks that the timeline is screwed over and we definitely should've gotten a legacy sequel instead. But looking past Batman, Keaton is still doing some worthwhile content to enjoy.

[The Joker]

Judging by the leaks, he's not dying but is getting sidelined in another universe instead. Did he take the role again because he hopes to get a Snyderverse-related project in the near future? He did film those Knightmare epilogue scenes for ZSJL during lockdown, so it's possible he'd reunite with Snyder again in a heartbeat if given the chance. We'll just have to wait and find out.

Affleck, I assume, has a very good working relationship with Snyder. Agreeing to do the Knightmare epilogue scene was probably more to do with his positive relationship with Snyder than anything else. However, upon the more positive reception of the ZSJL film (because BvS theatrical cut, Suicide Squad theatrical cut, and Josstice League .. all movies Ben Affleck appeared in as Batman, and all were critical punching bags), it's possible that Affleck got revitalized with Batman once more. His participation with "The Flash", being simply a conduit that gets him out of the "Hamadaverse" shenanigans timeline, and leaves the door open for a possible return (that's separate than) down the road.

Back on-topic with Keaton, I'd say despite the underwhelming premise for his Batman comeback, he's not typecast by any means. His post-Birdman career enabled him to star in really good films such as The Founder, Spotlight, Worth and a stellar performance in the mini-series Dopesick. Sure, as Burton Batman fans it sucks that the timeline is screwed over and we definitely should've gotten a legacy sequel instead. But looking past Batman, Keaton is still doing some worthwhile content to enjoy.

Yeah, Keaton's in a good place career wise. I agree. With Batman, Keaton was often good-heartedly reminiscing about his time as Batman in public by the 2010's. Whether it was in interviews (Batman would never cry!), or when he was giving his commencement speech. With his "Flash" big Batman return arc with Warners and Hamada calling the shots being, "Well, this is all we have for you, but look it's a multi picture agreement! Uh, deal?" kinda situation, I'm sure he's just having to roll with it. Despite being acutely aware that his and Burton's Batman deserves better and this is about as incomparable to a "No Way Home" return scenario as it gets (yeah script wise, NWH wasn't a particularly 'high bar' to get over. Never mind all the Ezra stuff too now. Ugh).

It would have had a bearing on the movie overall since we're supposed to see that after all these years, Maverick is the same guy as we left him. One of the key factors that I believe audiences really responded to was to see a character like this, first and foremost in a sequel instead of being sidelined for other characters that we don't care about. Having him look like he did in Collateral, which already looked phony enough where it looked like someone just put baby powder in Cruise's hair, would have been a reminder of the time that's passed. Cruise understands what other long overdue sequels failed at, we don't want to be reminded of how long it's been since we've last seen them. Nobody wants to see an old man version of Indiana Jones doing the same things he did 40 years ago or having characters like Han Solo appear just so the new characters can kill them off or empty dramatic reasons so they can just magically appear out of nowhere.

Mav, in TG:M, still being rather 'stubborn' and/or 'inflexible', especially career wise, is more of a statement about his character rather than the overall quality of the film and the story we were given. Mav simply having graying/grayish hair alone, is just a bit too surface level, as far as something like that making a noticeable difference in the film. As he's literally surrounded by the concept that time has moved on and people have indeed changed (and some in a very different place) from what was 1986. There's really no getting around that, and I don't believe the film, whether it was with the characters or the USN, was really coy about it either.

[The Dark Knight]

It would have had a bearing on the movie overall since we're supposed to see that after all these years, Maverick is the same guy as we left him. One of the key factors that I believe audiences really responded to was to see a character like this, first and foremost in a sequel instead of being sidelined for other characters that we don't care about. Having him look like he did in Collateral, which already looked phony enough where it looked like someone just put baby powder in Cruise's hair, would have been a reminder of the time that's passed. Cruise understands what other long overdue sequels failed at, we don't want to be reminded of how long it's been since we've last seen them. Nobody wants to see an old man version of Indiana Jones doing the same things he did 40 years ago or having characters like Han Solo appear just so the new characters can kill them off or empty dramatic reasons so they can just magically appear out of nowhere.

The world has changed, Maverick has not. That's the theme. He's the remnants of old school analogue competing against a world of encroaching digital, which is just about to take over - but not yet. It feels like a glorious last sunset or a validation of yesteryear, showing guts and determination are eternal. It's the spirit of the pilot rather than the technology at their disposal which matters most. I appreciate how Cruise touched on the real possibility of Maverick dying towards the end, but smashed that dark cloud out of the way and replaced it with euphoric celebration - which is exactly what a legacy film like this needs. Especially knowing how other films have handled things, that moment in particular was satisfying.

[Travesty]

I finally got around to reading the last issue, and man, what a complete and total mess. I was pretty vocal from the beginning that I wasn't diggin this comic, but it somehow managed to get worse with every issue.

This didn't feel like anything from Burton's universe, other than some lazy artwork that semi resembled some characters and locations. Hell, they couldn't even get the Batcave correct. Look, I like the big penny in the Batcave like most people, but it just doesn't belong in the Burton-cave.

This just felt like a quick cash grab at nostalgia. I wont be coming back to this again. Wat a waste of time and money!

[The Laughing Fish]

Really awesome chat with Hamm/Quinones

So, Sam Hamm not only had Two-Face appearing in one of his Batman II drafts, he had included the Joker as well?

I almost snuck Harvey into the sequel. The head of Warner Bros. production at the time was Mark Cannon, and he said 'I know [Joker] is dead and all, but if we could find some way to get Jack Nicholson back just for a couple of minutes in the movie it would be incredible.'

I pitched a scene where the sequel would open with the trial of the Joker, who it turns out has survived his fall from the top of the cathedral. He gets wheeled into a courtroom in a full body cast [and] he announces that he wants to take the witness stand. The guy who's prosecuting him is, of course, Harvey Dent.

The Joker says, 'Okay, I've done some terrible things, but I wanted to be here today just to tell you that I know that Batman, whoever you are, you are somewhere here in this audience, because there's no way that I would come into court and you wouldn't be there.' And so, with the one part of his body that's still working, he presses a little trigger and blows himself, the witnesses, the judge, and everything else to smithereens...and that's how Harvey's face gets scarred.

I'm glad this got cut, way too many plot holes surrounding Joker's survival and sneaking a bomb into the courtroom. So in that sense, Two-Face's backstory in these comics were better. Too bad the overall story arc was a disappointment.

[Slash Man]

After avoiding spoilers in the thread, I finally read through the series with the release of the collected hardcover. I know that doesn't make me much of a comic book fan, but for something I know I'm going to purchase anyways, I like to have something for the bookshelf. Which, though I don't usually splurge on hardcover if there's the option not to, it does display quite well. The packaging and art are fantastic.

Unfortunately, I didn't quite get it. But I'm not surprised for a project that has such huge shoes to fill; my expectations were unreasonably high. It seemed a bit odd to start the series ignoring the other two films in the series (IMO you could still have a Keaton continuation without erasing the continuity). But to come out and say your work is going to undo two feature films, you've got to back that up. To which I say bringing Sam Hamm onboard was one of the only ways to add authenticity to that concept... there's only a handful of writers involved in the original films that would apply. Steve Englehart and Hamm stick out by also having comic book experience.

I think time ultimately hurt the project. It seemed like Hamm was telling the Batman story he wanted to tell now versus the one he would have told in 1995. While there is a tonal shift between 1989 and Returns, one common thread is that they both feel timeless. B89 didn't carry that over with plenty of it taking place outside of either the Gotham seen in 89 or Returns, and therefore feeling very modern. On the flip side, another writer could conceivably craft an entertaining nostalgia trip, but that would just feel like fanfiction.

I did like the Two-Face design, now that was pure Burton. Two-Face should look like a grotesque monster, but not a photorealistic burn victim. Catwoman's redesign makes sense since she'd be needing a new costume after Returns anyways, but some of the bigger TAS design changes are a little baffling.

[GBglide]

I was inspired by Batman Shadows (the Batman '89 comic), to make this logo.

[GBglide]

Andy Khouri, and Joe Quinones of the Batman '89, posted my artwork on Twitter. 

https://twitter.com/andykhouri/status/1605991964905598976?fbclid=IwAR1IEjajwkn9DNwlOXyLXQuAdEpwhSjAhmcYa7EgzyejAxSTTk8eo8KzoVo

https://twitter.com/Joe_Quinones/status/1605996169561194497?fbclid=IwAR07dtBy41bnWpTYZ4-qBeve6rVzZ1Z3Tzt7iQxLdf2yibBfj9cdys-64Dw