BR the 'anti-blockbuster'

[zDBZ]

https://collider.com/batman-returns-not-blockbuster-reasons-why-explained/

In the summer of 1992, years of pleading and cajoling had finally brought reluctant director, Tim Burton, back for the sequel to 1989's mega-hit, Batman. Warners upped the budget and granted their filmmaker "carte blanche" in creating the movie, anticipating another smash. What they got was Batman Returns – still a moneymaker, but a significant comedown from 1989, and a film scorned by parents' groups and merchandising partners. The response so unnerved Warners that, when Burton merely entertained the idea of doing a third Batman, they were quick to dissuade him from inflicting any more damage on the youth of America – and more importantly, their franchise. Screenwriter Daniel Waters was told by a friend that Batman Returns was "a great movie for people who don't like Batman." That seems harsh to me; if only by coincidence, the film does reflect elements of the comics throughout their history. Plenty of Batman fans like the flick, too. It might be more accurate to say that Batman Returns is a great movie for people who don't like blockbusters, or at least have become exhausted and cynical toward them. There have been other thrill ride films that subvert expectations or poke fun at the concept of tentpole movies, but Batman Returns goes so far as to be an anti-blockbuster.

[The Laughing Fish]

Collider is a piece of crap website ran by shills. If the Internet was around in 1992, Collider would've hated on BR and complain it's "too dark and not fun".

To hell with them.

[thecolorsblend]

It is interesting that BR is becoming bizarre counter-programming to modern superhero cinema. BR takes risks and chances while Marvel has spent years flogging a safe commercial formula (to tremendous financial success, to be fair).

I regard BR as a sterling example of a comic book being adapted into cinema. A nip here, a tuck there, lots of filtering through Burton's personal creative sensibilities, etc. It's not Batman From The Comics. Rather, those movies are Tim Burton's Batman. For that reason, they still have considerable value to me.

Maybe BR didn't sell as many Happy Meals as some suit might've wanted. But the real value that I see in BR has always come down to how distinctly Burton it is. I cherish it.

[The Dark Knight]

I like movies that are character driven, have believable interactions and allow actors to demonstrate their abilities rather than copious CGI dominating proceedings too much. Batman Returns fits that description, and it's a blockbuster for the simple fact it features Batman. The bravery is going smaller when everything else swings for the fences. That approach seems safe, but it's actually the opposite.

[zDBZ]

Collider is a piece of crap website ran by shills. If the Internet was around in 1992, Collider would've hated on BR and complain it's "too dark and not fun".

To hell with them.

The article is positive toward the film.

[The Laughing Fish]

Collider is a piece of crap website ran by shills. If the Internet was around in 1992, Collider would've hated on BR and complain it's "too dark and not fun".

To hell with them.

The article is positive toward the film.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well, so here it goes: Collider are MCU shills that often complain about other movies they find too dark for their tastes.

Excuse me for sounding cynical, but the only reason they're giving BR any praise is because they're jumping on the pro-Keaton Batman bandwagon that's reemerged in the last few years. Like I said, I really doubt they'd be be so positive about it if they existed back in 1992.

That's how little I trust their credibility.