NEW INTERVIEW WITH JOEL SCHUMACHER!!!

Started by DarkVengeance, Fri, 19 Dec 2008, 04:44

Previous topic - Next topic
Correct me if I am wrong, but on the BR dvd making of, did burton not say that he wanted to make a third movie, but it was WB that didnt want him to make it.

But to keep him happy they made him executive producer.

The revisionism is what bugs me the most.  There's this perception that BR was a theatrical failure while BF was a major blockbuster.  Truth is that they both generated roughly the same amount in terms of Return On Investment (give or take a million or two bucks).  Yet, BF is a champ while BR isn't.  Ticks me off...  And it looks like Shlockmaker is drinking that Kool-Aid too.

Batman Returns was labeled as another box office and marketing success also wasn't it? Not nearly as much as 89 made, but none the less a more than satisfying and sizable profit.

As far as the Keaton thing goes, the only reason he even did Batman in the first place is because it was Tim Burton's film wasn't it? Thus, it would make the most sense, even by presumption, that Burton's lack of involvement in the film was a key factor in Keaton's departure.

I was under the impression that Keaton had showed up for a few costume fittings but had yet to actually sign the dotted line, and once he saw the direction things were going in, he got on out of there.

You gotta have respect for someone who will turn down 35 million for the reasons Keaton did.

Glad this article got a good discussion brewing, its what we need around here. I wont go too deep on my thoughts on this just because but most of what Im hearing on here is right.

Also it is true when you look at the numbers BR was still one of biggest films of that year, they really arent that far off from each other.

1992
$217,350,219   Aladdin (1992)
$173,585,516   Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)
$162,744,850   Batman Returns (1992)
$144,731,527   Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
$141,340,178   A Few Good Men (1992)

1995
$191,773,049   Toy Story (1995)
$183,997,904   Batman Forever (1995)
$141,600,000   Pocahontas (1995)
1$08,344,348   Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995)
$100,475,249   Jumanji (1995)




I have given a name to my pain, and it is BATMAN.

When I first read this I called B.S. This interview goes against everything weve heard, read, and learned over the last 10 years. Either Schumacher was on drugs that day or the interviewer took alot of liberties when writing this.

Batman Returns is better then Batman Forever.

Quote from: Redskull on Sat, 20 Dec  2008, 02:46
Batman Returns is better then Batman Forever.
By a mile. There is no contest.

Quote from: Batmoney on Fri, 19 Dec  2008, 23:11
As far as the Keaton thing goes, the only reason he even did Batman in the first place is because it was Tim Burton's film wasn't it?

Almost, but not entirely. It coming from Burton is what got him to even read the script. Keaton knew nothing of Batman except for (a little bit) about the 60s show. And he figured it would probably be garbage, a modern attempt to spoof a spoof. But Tim Burton pitching it made him willing to see what it was all about.

He once said "Had it not been from Tim, I probably wouldn't have even looked at the thing. But I figured that if he was interested in it, it must be pretty special." (Or words to that effect)

It took Burton's vision to show Keaton the brilliance of Batman.

He was committed more to the character than to Burton. Had he not 'dug' the character and the film as Tim introduced them, he wouldn't have done it even as a favor to Burton.
"There's just as much room for the television series and the comic books as there is for my movie. Why wouldn't there be?" - Tim Burton

Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 19 Dec  2008, 23:34Also it is true when you look at the numbers BR was still one of biggest films of that year, they really arent that far off from each other.

$162,744,850   Batman Returns (1992)
$183,997,904   Batman Forever (1995)
It gets even better though.  Check this out.

BR Production Budget- $80 million
BF Production Budget- $100 million

So yeah, BF grossed $20 million more than BR did... but it also cost $20 million more to make.  Pretty much it's a wash in box office profit dollars.

The only sense in which the "toyetic" BF indisputably outperformed BR was in terms of merchandising and tie-ins and whatnot.  Under the circumstances, the geek in me sees nothing worth bragging about in that statement.

QuoteBatman Forever had a very modest budget, considering the phenomenal profits it made, and how little we all made.
100 million dollars wasn't very "modest" back in 1995.