Batman-Online.com

Monarch Theatre => Burton's Bat => Batman Returns (1992) => Topic started by: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jun 2016, 17:09

Title: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jun 2016, 17:09
And describes his vision for the sadly unrealised solo Catwoman movie.

http://www.money-into-light.com/2016/06/daniel-waters-on-batman-returns.html (http://www.money-into-light.com/2016/06/daniel-waters-on-batman-returns.html)

I love this final statement: "The popular kids and the jocks love Christopher Nolan's Batman movies but the really downtrodden, quirky and imaginative kids growing up love BATMAN RETURNS."  So true. :)
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: BatmAngelus on Wed, 29 Jun 2016, 21:34
Thanks for the link.

Had no idea that Waters was going to include Alexander Knox just to kill him off or feature Harvey's scarring. Closest we've got is a previous interview where he just says that we see Harvey/Two-Face flipping a coin on whether to interfere.

Wish that he had clarified that Max Shreck was never originally Harvey Dent, though. The idea that Shreck used to be Dent was an IMDB rumor that just won't die. Kinda like how everyone says Burton's Batman Forever would've had Robin Williams as Riddler and Rene Russo as Chase Meridian when those were both Schumacher's choices (and Chase Meridian didn't exist until Burton was off the director's chair).
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jun 2016, 21:37
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 29 Jun  2016, 21:34Wish that he had clarified that Max Shreck was never originally Harvey Dent, though. The idea that Shreck used to be Dent was an IMDB rumor that just won't die. Kinda like how everyone says Burton's Batman Forever would've had Robin Williams as Riddler and Rene Russo as Chase Meridian when those were both Schumacher's choices (and Chase Meridian didn't exist until Burton was off the director's chair).
I totally agree, although everything he said in the interview suggested that Shreck was a totally original character that didn't grow out of Harvey Dent.

Since he doesn't make any categorical denial that Shreck was originally Dent, the rumour/myth will no doubt continue, but I think it's safe to say that on balance there is nothing to link the two characters.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Dagenspear on Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 05:06
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jun  2016, 17:09And describes his vision for the sadly unrealised solo Catwoman movie.

http://www.money-into-light.com/2016/06/daniel-waters-on-batman-returns.html (http://www.money-into-light.com/2016/06/daniel-waters-on-batman-returns.html)

I love this final statement: "The popular kids and the jocks love Christopher Nolan's Batman movies but the really downtrodden, quirky and imaginative kids growing up love BATMAN RETURNS."  So true. :)
I have never in my life, not once ever been considered popular or a jock by humans. And I like both. What he's saying is also seemingly an attempt to insult people. There's no truth in this statement, just like there would be no truth in the same statement about how BR is for jocks and TDKT is for quirky imaginatives. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: JokerMeThis on Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 05:29
QuoteI love this final statement: "The popular kids and the jocks love Christopher Nolan's Batman movies but the really downtrodden, quirky and imaginative kids growing up love BATMAN RETURNS."  So true. :)

This kind of applies to me. I can't say I was unpopular or downtrodden but I was in no sense a jock and I was definitely quirky and imaginative when I was in school and I LOVED Batman Returns when I first saw it at age 15. I wouldn't have been as impressed by the Nolan Batman movies if they were around back then in the 1990's.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 14:20
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 29 Jun  2016, 21:34
Had no idea that Waters was going to include Alexander Knox just to kill him off
Not sure how I feel about this. It could've been dramatic and heartfelt or tacked on and cheap. I guess it doesn't matter either way, but interesting to mull over regardless.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 17:52
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 30 Jun  2016, 05:06I have never in my life, not once ever been considered popular or a jock by humans. And I like both. What he's saying is also seemingly an attempt to insult people. There's no truth in this statement, just like there would be no truth in the same statement about how BR is for jocks and TDKT is for quirky imaginatives.
It's entirely possible that his comments related to the casual moviegoer rather than core fans like us. In any case, it's only his opinion.

Another way of looking at it is asking if Batman, in the purest, most idealized conception of the character, is supposed to have widespread mainstream appeal or if he's supposed to only be attractive to outsider, misfit types who relate to him on a base personal level.

Me, there's no harm in making room for the Burton wing of the fanbase as well as the Nolan wing in my opinion.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: GBglide on Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 20:39
I would not have been happy with killing off Alexander Knox, Robert Wuhl is just too likeable.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, 11:05
Quote from: GBglide on Thu, 30 Jun  2016, 20:39
I would not have been happy with killing off Alexander Knox, Robert Wuhl is just too likeable.
I think ultimately, it was best not having Knox in the film. Apart from the mainstays of Hingle, Keaton and Gough, everything and everyone else was new. Batman Returns had the continuity, but it also represented something of a fresh start. A different perspective on the same world.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: johnnygobbs on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, 11:47
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 30 Jun  2016, 05:06
I have never in my life, not once ever been considered popular or a jock by humans. And I like both. What he's saying is also seemingly an attempt to insult people. There's no truth in this statement, just like there would be no truth in the same statement about how BR is for jocks and TDKT is for quirky imaginatives. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!
I am sorry if I caused offence.  I was only reporting what Daniel Waters said.

I don't always feel like an unpopular, quirky misfit, and I like TDK, but I just feel that Batman Returns appeals to the insecure outcast side of my personality.  Tim Burton's films have always had that affinity with outsiders.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Catwoman on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, 19:30
Quote from: GBglide on Thu, 30 Jun  2016, 20:39
I would not have been happy with killing off Alexander Knox, Robert Wuhl is just too likeable.

In one of those fanfics I started and never finished I wrote him in just so I could kill him off. That scene actually was written and posted, one of the last chapters I did (I also killed off Vicki Vale lol). Then I watched the movie again and I was like "Um.....no, let's let him live." He's great.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: johnnygobbs on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, 19:39
Although I like the image of a character being brought back for the sequel only to be killed off whilst strung up to the Bat-symbol (Batman Begins did something fairly similar with Falcone - although he wasn't killed), and it would make sense that Knox would be the character to be killed off this way since he was the one who enquired about the Bat-signal at the end of Batman 1989, it would have been sad to kill off such a likeable and sympathetic character in such a grisly way.

If he was only going to be killed off, and not even be allowed to die a hero (as was his fate in the original screenplay for Batman 1989), I'm pleased he wasn't brought back for the sequel.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Dark Knight on Sun, 3 Jul 2016, 10:22
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri,  1 Jul  2016, 19:30
Quote from: GBglide on Thu, 30 Jun  2016, 20:39
I would not have been happy with killing off Alexander Knox, Robert Wuhl is just too likeable.

In one of those fanfics I started and never finished I wrote him in just so I could kill him off. That scene actually was written and posted, one of the last chapters I did (I also killed off Vicki Vale lol). Then I watched the movie again and I was like "Um.....no, let's let him live." He's great.
Knox is an underrated aspect of B89. I think he lends charm and warmth to the film. He jokes around, but he asks the hard questions. When he gets thrown down off Vicki's car, you fear for his safety. Knox deeply cares about his city and Vicki, risking being poisoned to fight off thugs at the parade. Wuhul did great with what he had.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: thecolorsblend on Sun, 3 Jul 2016, 10:50
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Jul  2016, 10:22Knox is an underrated aspect of B89. I think he lends charm and warmth to the film. He jokes around, but he asks the hard questions. When he gets thrown down off Vicki's car, you fear for his safety. Knox deeply cares about his city and Vicki, risking being poisoned to fight off thugs at the parade. Wuhul did great with what he had.
You know, I find it fascinating that you all can be so clear-headed and so objective about this.

For me, everything about B89 is too big for me. This was the movie that cemented my Batman fandom when I was a kid. To me, Knox is part of that movie's fabric. I can't picture it without him, I can't picture some other actor in the role and I can't even tell you if his contributions are positive or negative. I think Wuhl is funny in general but I have no clue whether B89 NEEDS him or if he's a kinder, gentler Jar Jar.

That same mentality is why I can't picture him in Batman Returns. Because he's NOT in it, you know?

Anyway, I don't pretend that I'm being logical here. I just think it's interesting that people less attached to the movie are capable of being so analytical about it.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Dark Knight on Sun, 3 Jul 2016, 12:33
I'm attached to the movie. I think they're quality films, but the nostalgia factor of B89/BR practically make them untouchable for me. But I can see the strengths where they lie, and Wahul brought something to the table. He's the man who isn't taken seriously, can be goofy at times, and is rejected by his female workmate. But he's not dumb. He knows what's going on, and despite his setbacks, doesn't take it to heart and remains professional. He's a character to admire and enjoy.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: GBglide on Tue, 5 Jul 2016, 00:56
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Jul  2016, 12:33
I'm attached to the movie. I think they're quality films, but the nostalgia factor of B89/BR practically make them untouchable for me. But I can see the strengths where they lie, and Wahul brought something to the table. He's the man who isn't taken seriously, can be goofy at times, and is rejected by his female workmate. But he's not dumb. He knows what's going on, and despite his setbacks, doesn't take it to heart and remains professional. He's a character to admire and enjoy.

It's a shame his character never made it into the comics.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: thecolorsblend on Tue, 5 Jul 2016, 01:23
Quote from: GBglide on Tue,  5 Jul  2016, 00:56It's a shame his character never made it into the comics.
Mmm, this is an interesting point. Apart from occasional guest appearances by Vicki Vale, the Batman titles generally don't have a Ben Urich character. But this could be kind of interesting.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Dark Knight on Tue, 5 Jul 2016, 04:27
I'm happy for Shreck and Knox to remain in the films. I'd only welcome Knox back in a Burtonverse continuation comic. And Shreck in a Batman Returns prequel.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017, 13:49
Fascinating article. There's a fairly broad canvas of perspectives to cover after reading this interview. First, it's not at all surprising that Burton is not a huge fan of his first Batman movie. But there's so much context people lose in understanding the bigger picture in that project at the time and why ultimately it's coveted by fans so much to this day.

Batman '89 had to service allot more than just become a profitable film. It had to answer the age old question (at the time) of how do you make a serious Batman film about a guy in tights? This movie really represents that moment when Hollywood stepped outside it's comfort zone and went after a comic book property with no blueprint for how to create it. Yes, they absolutely followed the casting blueprint of Superman the Movie in terms of getting a big name actor to play the lead villain and bring credibility tot he project. But from there, they were completely on a new frontier.

When Batman '89 came out, I was 25 and to this very day the movie still feels like a minor miracle to me. The only true cultural success of Batman up to that point had been Adam West and the '66 television show, which had long been panned and spoofed after it went off the air. I loved it, but there was a huge disconnect at that point between what the public thought, what people like me felt, and even how comic fans believed. Allot of fans felt like West discredited the comics and helped contribute to this popular notion that comics were for the uneducated. There was a huge stigma to the Batman character in terms of translating something to a live action film that could be taken serious.

And WB were probably the last authority on the subject when it came to really knowing what to do. Hiring Tim Burton was probably the most brilliant move amongst all of it. And trusting his choices for casting the film was the next move. Had the executive branch of Warners been composed of comic book readers, Keaton never would have entered the conversation. This was truly a project where ignorance was absolute bliss throughout. When I heard about Keaton, I was puzzled as well. But it wasn't because I didn't think he was a good actor. I had seen Clean and Sober and that kind of serious role really showed me his range. In terms of seeing him play Bruce Wayne, I felt just fine from that perspective. It was Batman that I couldn't get my head around on in terms of a visual.

I thought, " How do you put that guy in tights and make people take him serious?" No one had really done anything yet with latex in terms of creating a superhero physique. So what Batman '89 did was completely revolutionary (not only for that character, but the whole comic universe) because it solved the riddle of translating a look that bridged the gap between what comics suggested versus what live audiences could accept. But now they needed something else - atmosphere. Again, without Burton, this film never finds it's identity. Batman had to reside in the world of the surreal, and not the average city or neighborhood you and I existed in. Without Burton's brilliant mind to stage this fairy tale world where the public were as carefully crafted as it's beloved vigilante, nothing would have clicked.

But Burton couldn't be left to his own devices. This movie had allot of cooks in the kitchen to try and carefully craft this brand new image of Batman. And while Burton deserves a chief portion of the credit, he had to be held in check while the studio crafted a movie that was more spectacle and event than just another movie project. And when you watch the movie today you can see the mechanics of that intended approach and how measured every aspect of this film is. So much of the movie is about staging "moments" to cater to this new comic book event. It's kind of like reading a comic book with nothing but splash pages instead of individual panels. Everything is big and epic in scope. But that's what Warners had to sell to a public that had no idea what they were seeing and  history speaks for itself.

I think when the demand for a sequel became an immediate priority, Burton was probably both drained and feeling more than a little confined to have to go through another high stakes, big budget blockbuster where everyone had their voice in his ear. So when he was reluctant to go there again, I think Warners had no choice but to give him free reign to the franchise, because there was not another director out there that could duplicate Burton's sensibilities to this newly branded superhero. In retrospect, I think Returns was an unavoidable byproduct of the studio being so codependent in the creation process and building up this marketing behemoth that could only be serviced by Burton's imagination.

That being said, you can only introduce a superhero of this magnitude once. His new look, and the world he resided in could only feel brand new and refreshing with that first film. Anything after that point was going to find that familiar vein of being painfully derivative. So giving Burton full reign to embellish this new universe as he saw fit was honestly the only way this narrative was going to advance. And to me, that's probably why these two films are coveted as much as they are. Because while they both share that beautiful style of Tim Burton, both are uniquely different in their approach which gives Keaton fans a broader canvas to enjoy these characters. Schumacher and Nolan stayed married to one approach while Burton tried to extrapolate new material from a previous installment to keep the material fresh and unpredictable.

In terms of what the writer said about labeling fans, I pretty much laughed at that self-serving opinion. Batman Returns is hardly a film trying to speak to a specific audience. It's themes clearly study the psychology of that world where people feel displaced, but most Burton films are coated with that tone which feels more like self-therapy for the director, than anything he is purposely trying to express directly to (or relate with) his audience. Burton is a visionary genius that constantly brings great skill and artistic flare to all of his projects. I don't see his side hobby being the spokesman for the quirky, eclectic club of the universe. People of all walks and backgrounds are fans of his films.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Andrew on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, 15:57
Interesting, especially that he and Burton were really not interested in action or coolness for its own sake, the characterizations come first. Also unusual and surprising that he freely admits he was a lot more interested in Catwoman than Batman, that probably contributed to her being so well done although also to Batman being a bit too overshadowed/underused.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jun  2016, 17:09
I love this final statement: "The popular kids and the jocks love Christopher Nolan's Batman movies but the really downtrodden, quirky and imaginative kids growing up love BATMAN RETURNS."  So true. :)

There's something to be said for that Nolan's Batman has little of a dark side, he's very much a hero rather than an anti-hero, but there is a lot of quirkiness and imagination in some of Nolan's other characters especially the Joker and Two-Face.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: zDBZ on Thu, 12 Oct 2017, 01:16
I suppose I should've looked harder to see if there was a thread about this interview... ;D

My favorite line from this is: "Christopher Nolan's work is prose, Tim's is poetry, but they can co-exist in the same stratosphere."

And I'm fascinated by Waters' description of the competing visions for the Catwoman film. Burton's influences for it make me smile; the original Cat People is a great movie.

And I just took that last comment on the different types of audiences as personal opinion expressed in shorthand cliches; nothing to get offended by.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 12 Oct 2017, 11:14
Quote from: zDBZ on Thu, 12 Oct  2017, 01:16
My favorite line from this is: "Christopher Nolan's work is prose, Tim's is poetry, but they can co-exist in the same stratosphere."

Prose may be true, though I have far more "colourful" descriptions to describe Nolan's work on Batman.

I admire Burton's contribution to Batman, but I kinda want to avoid using terms like "poetry". Makes his movies sound pretentious. And besides, Daniel Waters went on record saying he outright hates B89.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: thecolorsblend on Thu, 12 Oct 2017, 20:40
Quote from: Andrew on Thu, 28 Sep  2017, 15:57Interesting, especially that he and Burton were really not interested in action or coolness for its own sake, the characterizations come first. Also unusual and surprising that he freely admits he was a lot more interested in Catwoman than Batman, that probably contributed to her being so well done although also to Batman being a bit too overshadowed/underused.
As much as I enjoy DeVito's performance in BR, I can't help thinking that deleting the Penguin from the movie would've allowed a bit more focus on Batman.

Then again, without the Penguin, Catwoman might've gotten even more of the spotlight so hmm.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Wayne49 on Fri, 13 Oct 2017, 16:58
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 12 Oct  2017, 20:40
As much as I enjoy DeVito's performance in BR, I can't help thinking that deleting the Penguin from the movie would've allowed a bit more focus on Batman.

Then again, without the Penguin, Catwoman might've gotten even more of the spotlight so hmm.

My opinion has evolved quite a bit through the years on this. But now I'm really of the opinion that Batman actually had more than enough film time here. I think he was established in the first film and from there he becomes a bit reactionary to the main villains, but then again we're still seeing character development. If anything we might see him more because he's in allot of ancillary scenes where he's driving to and from events, recovering from injuries, and encountering Penguin to establish motivation between the two. So Batman's presence is certainly felt in the story.

I think because this sequel did not take place immediately after the events of the first film, people sometimes feel a bit of disconnect as to where he's at in his life. But what we do know is its somewhere in the near future and his answer for life and how to balance that as the caped crusader have not been resolved. Other than that we realize he's growing tired of the performance and wants to find resolution if he can. Batman is Wayne's fix and he's wanting a way out.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Dark Knight on Fri, 13 Oct 2017, 21:24
I agree that we see Batman just enough in the film. A good example is how they devote a solid chunk of screentime to establishing Oswald at the start, and then give a small sequence of Bruce browsing old newspapers on the batcomputer. That's where the story was at that point. Nothing had started to happen yet. It was all suspicion and research, that eventually became confirmed by the circus gang rampages. Oswald drove the plot. The villains do get more screentime but that way, Batman feels more mysterious and important. To me, anyway.

His screentime picks up as the film progresses which is rather cool. My favorite stretch would have to be Batman meeting Selina in Gotham, the fireplace sequence, suiting up, the Batmobile chase, framing Penguin and then the masquerade ball. That's PLENTY of Bruce and Batman content, and the chemistry between Keaton and Michelle is incredible. And you know what? It actually makes me feel sad now. Michelle and Michael are getting on now, and BR isn't exactly a new film anymore. It's a moment frozen in time and that moment just keeps getting further away.

I can't really explain it, but I think you get the gist.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 15 Oct 2017, 11:56
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 13 Oct  2017, 21:24
I agree that we see Batman just enough in the film. A good example is how they devote a solid chunk of screentime to establishing Oswald at the start, and then give a small sequence of Bruce browsing old newspapers on the batcomputer. That's where the story was at that point. Nothing had started to happen yet. It was all suspicion and research, that eventually became confirmed by the circus gang rampages. Oswald drove the plot. The villains do get more screentime but that way, Batman feels more mysterious and important. To me, anyway.

One detail that most people overlook in the Burton films is Batman still shows some detective prowess. Just as he shows Vicki Vale which chemicals the Joker tainted to create the Smylex gas, he uses the Batcomputer again to investigate Oswald's past and connections with the Red Triangle Gang, proving his suspicions right all along. Albeit much to his dismay. Whereas Alfred, as the rest of Gotham City, believes Cobblepot is a kind and misunderstood outcast, Batman continues to uncover how deviant he is.

People can debate Batman's screen time in BR all they want, but they're kidding themselves if they believe he doesn't drive the plot.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Wayne49 on Mon, 16 Oct 2017, 13:12
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 15 Oct  2017, 11:56

One detail that most people overlook in the Burton films is Batman still shows some detective prowess. Just as he shows Vicki Vale which chemicals the Joker tainted to create the Smylex gas, he uses the Batcomputer again to investigate Oswald's past and connections with the Red Triangle Gang, proving his suspicions right all along. Albeit much to his dismay. Whereas Alfred, as the rest of Gotham City, believes Cobblepot is a kind and misunderstood outcast, Batman continues to uncover how deviant he is.

People can debate Batman's screen time in BR all they want, but they're kidding themselves if they believe he doesn't drive the plot.

Anther aspect I believe gets missed is that Wayne appears to be the architect and engineer behind Batman and the tools he utilizes. Note when the Batmobile is returned after being hijacked by the Red Triangle Gang, it is Bruce Wayne in mechanic overalls working on the car. Alfred seems to remain in a butler capacity maintaining care of the suits and facility, but not coming across as the designer of these items as future films would take liberties in assigning to him.

I think Schumacher exaggerated Alfred's role to ridiculous proportions making him look like the chief brains of the entire outfit while the kids played dress up. In Burton's world, Bruce certainly seem to be the author of his alternate life and had to remind Alfred of his need to remain committed to his secret (even chastising him for letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave). I think this point is relevant to the overall character of Bruce Wayne, because if he had to be co-dependent on others in the creation process, then he likely wouldn't be much of a detective to resolve more complex matters.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 19:32
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 12 Oct  2017, 20:40
As much as I enjoy DeVito's performance in BR, I can't help thinking that deleting the Penguin from the movie would've allowed a bit more focus on Batman.

I love Batman Returns and have perhaps written more to defend it over the years than anyone else on the internet. But the movie, like any film, has its flaws. And I happen to agree with the one about Batman's lack of screen time. Bruce/Batman doesn't even have any proper dialogue until the 35 minute mark (besides "We'll see"). That's over a quarter of the way into the movie! And considering he's the eponymous character, I think that's a valid point of criticism. You could more or less remove him entirely from the first half of the film and it would have minimal impact on the plot:

•   Max would still push for the new power plant to be built
•   The Red Triangle Gang would still attack the tree lighting ceremony
•   Oswald would still kidnap Max and form an alliance with him
•   They'd still stage the kidnap and rescue of the mayor's baby
•   Oswald would still access the hall of records, compile a list of the firstborns and reveal his parents' names to the press
•   Max would still order a recall election and persuade Oswald to run for mayor
•   Oswald would still send out the Red Triangle Gang in a false flag strategy to undermine the public's faith in the current administration

And with that, we're literally halfway through the movie's 2 hour runtime. And yet Batman has had little to no impact on any of these major plot beats. He doesn't prevent any crimes from taking place during this part of the film. He just shows up when the riots are already underway and beats up a few bad guys, then almost kills Catwoman by knocking her off a roof.

The only significant aspect of the plot he has any influence on throughout the first half of the picture is Selina's arc, and even that's debateable. He does save her from the taser clown during the first riot scene, but the taser clown wouldn't have had reason to take her hostage in the first place if Batman hadn't been there. Seeing Batman in action is likely what inspired Selina to don her costume. But the cat motif was already foreshadowed, even without Batman's influence, so she likely would have adopted a similar guise anyway. Bruce's main contribution to Selina's arc in the first half of the film is the fact she was caught snooping through Max's files while "boning up" for her boss' meeting with Bruce Wayne. But her curiosity regarding the power plant had nothing to do with Bruce; rather she was interested in the plant itself. So she still probably would have looked at the files at some point anyway, Max still would have tried to kill her, and she still would have embraced her feline totem when she embarked on her quest for revenge. Batman has little impact on these events, other than maybe inspiring her to wear a black suit and mask. He has absolutely zero influence on Oswald and Max's activities throughout the first half of the movie.

Batman is the central character in the 1989 film. You could make the argument that Nicholson's performance overshadows Keaton's, but Batman is still the main protagonist in the script. It's his actions that drive the narrative. Batman has an objective in the 1989 film: he wants to topple the criminal organisations that are ruling Gotham, restore authority to the police department and avenge the deaths of his parents (these are mostly proactive rather than reactive).

But then, as in all good stories, a complication arises that tests his resolve to pursue these goals – he meets a woman who tempts him into relinquishing his crusade in favour of a normal life. To reference Joseph Campbell's 17-point deconstruction of the hero's journey, this would be the 'woman as temptress' stage that precedes the stages of 'atonement with the father' and 'apotheosis' (i.e. Bruce confronting and comprehending the truth about the night his parents died and resolving to avenge them). Bruce's biggest trial in the 1989 movie is not the fight against the Joker; it's the internal struggle between his vocation as a vigilante and his desire to live a normal life. And through it all, his behaviour actively and directly influences the ambitions and motivations of the film's other two main characters: the Joker and Vicki Vale.

Bruce Wayne's 2 primary motivations:
•   Avenge his parents as Batman (draws him to the Joker)
•   Try to pursue the normal life he would've had if his parents hadn't died (draws him to Vicki)

Joker's 2 primary motivations:
•   Get revenge against Batman (draws him to Bruce)
•   Express his madness through his crimes/art (draws him to Vicki)

Vicki's 2 primary motivations:
•   Chronicle Batman's crime fighting (draws her to Batman and the Joker)
•   Win the heart of the man she loves (draws her to Bruce)

In this way we can see how their core motivations link the three main characters to one another. The only part that feels a little contrived is the Joker's fascination with Vicki. Of all the women in Gotham to obsess over, of all the photojournalists he could choose to document his 'art', he just happens to select the one person Bruce Wayne is sleeping with. It's a stretch. But whatever, I'll buy it. It's a way of getting the love interest more actively involved in the central conflict.

The point to take away from this is that it's Batman's actions that inspire the other characters' motivations. Vicki would never have come to Gotham were it not for her fascination with Batman, and Jack Napier would never have become the Joker if Batman hadn't dropped him into the vat of chemicals. Batman is the main protagonist. He is the rotational axis around which the narrative spins, and it's his willpower that propels the plot into motion. If Bruce hadn't set out to avenge his parents, none of this would have happened.

The principal driving force of the narrative in Batman Returns is Max Shreck, not Batman. There's an argument to be made for the Penguin being the central character, but I'd say Max edges him out slightly in terms of proactively setting the plot in motion. It's Max's desire to build the power plant that triggers the recall election; it's Max's desire to cover up the truth behind the power plant that leads to Selina becoming Catwoman and seeking revenge against him; it's Max's need for a candidate in the election that motivates him to propose Cobblepot as a mayoral prospect; it's Max's machinations as Cobblepot's campaign manager that prompts the Penguin to send out the Red Triangle Gang to terrorise the city; it's Max's bid to construct the power plant that leads to Bruce and Selina meeting out of costume for the first time. Max's ambition drives the plot, not Batman's.

The second most important character is the Penguin. His desire for revenge facilitates the mayoral campaign (though it is Max's ambition and strategising that truly drives it), as well as propelling the plot to kidnap the children and dispatch the penguin commandoes to nuke the city. Catwoman would be the third most important protagonist, as she has the strongest character arc and is directly embroiled in the machinations of the two main villains. In the case of Shreck, she was unwillingly and passively embroiled; in the case of Cobblepot, she actively involved herself. But the fact remains she has a more personal connection to both Shreck and Cobblepot and spends more time interacting with them than Batman does. She also plays a more proactive role in the plot when she teams up with the Penguin and inspires him to frame Batman (incidentally that part of the storyline makes absolutely no sense, but I'll elaborate on that subject at a later time). Batman is the fourth most important character in the film. None of the villains give a toss about him until he starts interfering in their activities, and even then they mostly limit their focus on him to the middle act of the film.

Batman would probably still qualify as the heroic sphere of action in BR, as he does eventually restore the equilibrium that is disrupted by the villains (exposes Cobblepot to the public, saves the children from being kidnapped, stops the penguin commandoes from nuking Gotham Plaza – all of which occurs in the final act of the film). However in Proppian terminology, he's very much a 'victim hero' rather than a 'seeker hero'. Most of the plot is acting against him instead of having him propel it forward. In B89 Bruce is a proactive character whose personal goals (namely avenging his parents) compel him to hunt down the villain. In BR he's purely reactive and is only there to respond to what the bad guys are doing. He's Batman so he stops criminals. That's about as far as it goes in terms of his personal motivation. Beyond that he has no goal, almost no emotional investment in what's happening. At least not until the second half of the film, where he eventually develops a more personal connection to one of the antagonists. Then he finally becomes emotionally invested in the pursuit of a proactive objective: to prevent Selina from walking down the same doomed path that he himself once trod.

But even then, I'd argue that was more a way of adding internal conflict to Selina's story than creating an arc for Bruce. Unlike Batman, Catwoman has a deeply personal connection to the two main villains. Both betrayed her trust and tried to murder her. It falls on Selina to deal the final blow in restoring the status quo by delivering the coup de grace to Shreck. As I mentioned earlier, all the disequilibrium in this film is caused or enabled by Max. Batman reacts to the symptoms of Shreck's evil, but he doesn't remedy the cause. That's Selina's function in the plot. In that sense you could argue that Catwoman was the film's real hero. Bruce develops a fascination with saving Selina in order to tempt her away from her goal/destiny of killing Shreck. In effect, Bruce plays the same role that Vicki played in the 1989 film; the love interest that monitors/reacts to the other characters' activities and tempts the hero into abandoning their vocation in favour of a normal life. But in both films, the hero puts aside their beloved and actively pursues the villain to the bitter end.

As to the argument that the antagonists reflect three sides of Batman's personality – the damaged orphan, the billionaire aristocrat and the costumed vigilante – that's a really nice way of creating thematic symmetry between the main villains and Bruce Wayne. But it doesn't compensate for the lack of expansion/exploration concerning Batman's own character. The damaged orphan and costumed vigilante aspects of Bruce's personality were showcased in B89. Less so the billionaire aristocrat, but it was there to an extent. By revisiting these character themes through the villains in Batman Returns, Burton wasn't really giving us any new insight into Batman that we hadn't already seen in the previous movie. And if Burton had really said everything he had to say about Bruce in the first film, then that just illustrates how shallow his understanding of the character was to begin with. Batman 89 is a great cinematic introduction for the character, but only scratches the surface of what makes him tick. Schumacher and Nolan both drew attention to other facets of Bruce Wayne which Burton neglected to explore. Burton could have done this himself in BR had he not sidelined the title character in favour of the villains.

To reiterate, I do love Batman Returns. But I can see why many people, especially die hard comic fans, feel it's a poor Batman film. It's a lot like Assault on Arkham insofar as they both have Batman's name in the title, but they're both really stories about the villains. Batman's a supporting character who plays an important part in the second half of both films, but has little to no impact on the first half. BR is the only live action Batman movie I'd say that about (not counting Suicide Squad). Anyway, those are just my two cents. Apologies for the long post.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Andrew on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 21:02
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 19:32
In BR he's purely reactive and is only there to respond to what the bad guys are doing. He's Batman so he stops criminals. That's about as far as it goes in terms of his personal motivation. Beyond that he has no goal, almost no emotional investment in what's happening. At least not until the second half of the film, where he eventually develops a more personal connection to one of the antagonists.

I think there's some emotional investment and connection from him earlier, particularly in his being very suspicious of the Penguin, very reluctant to consider that he might be a new other hero (instead thinking it's more likely his trauma turned him bad) and briefly sympathizing with him before thinking his trying to get public sympathy is insincere, and very hostile to Max and his power plant plan and friendship with the Penguin (particularly compared to and considering him being very reclusive in B89). The relationships are eventually in their climaxes made clear, Penguin's "You're just jealous because I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask," Batman admitting he may be right and Max admitting he is the city's ugly soul. I think those themes are present earlier but could have been done better (but then again there certainly was a lot of plot). There also could have been more of him reacting to Catwoman disliking the rich and the powerful.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 19:32Batman reacts to the symptoms of Shreck's evil, but he doesn't remedy the cause. That's Selina's function in the plot. In that sense you could argue that Catwoman was the film's real hero.

I'm not sure what you mean by symptoms rather than cause or how he could remedy the cause. The film does seem to want you to feel that her killing Max is at least understandable but also that him going to jail is also reasonable if not better.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 19:32Schumacher and Nolan both drew attention to other facets of Bruce Wayne which Burton neglected to explore. Burton could have done this himself in BR had he not sidelined the title character in favour of the villains.

Well Schumacher's main additional focus was Batman being a (reluctant) mentor to others, considering quitting and becoming less depressed, those are OK facets but I can see why Burton wouldn't want to do that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 19:32It's a lot like Assault on Arkham insofar as they both have Batman's name in the title, but they're both really stories about the villains. Batman's a supporting character who plays an important part in the second half of both films, but has little to no impact on the first half. BR is the only live action Batman movie I'd say that about (not counting Suicide Squad).

True it's a lot more about the villains if not outright about the villains but I think that also applies to some TAS episodes.
Batman doesn't have much impact, aside from action, on B&R other than telling Robin to practice and letting Barbara stay. And he also decides to try and make a trap for Freeze but that made things feel too lightweight.
It's a difficult balance in dividing the focus and plot between heroes and villains.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 Oct 2017, 21:56
Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 21:02I think there's some emotional investment and connection from him earlier, particularly in his being very suspicious of the Penguin, very reluctant to consider that he might be a new other hero (instead thinking it's more likely his trauma turned him bad) and briefly sympathizing with him before thinking his trying to get public sympathy is insincere, and very hostile to Max and his power plant plan and friendship with the Penguin (particularly compared to and considering him being very reclusive in B89).

Bruce definitely displays an emotional reaction to Oswald when he watches the news broadcast and says he hopes he finds his parents. But that element of sympathy is unique to that one scene. Throughout the rest of the film Bruce treats Oswald with suspicion and distrust, just as he would any other street thug. Perhaps if they'd played up Bruce's sympathetic attitude towards Oswald in the first half of the movie – maybe even having him meet Oswald out of costume, similar to how Bruce met the Joker in B89 – then they could have established a deeper emotional connection between the two. Then Batman's anger with Penguin in the second half of the film could have stemmed from Bruce's frustration at being emotionally manipulated earlier in the story.

They could have had Bruce volunteer to help Oswald find his parents, only to realise that Oswald doesn't need any such help because he already knows who they are. This would have offered a smoother way of introducing Bruce's suspicions concerning Oswald's true agenda while also displaying the philanthropic side of his character that was mostly otherwise absent from Burton's films. Instead the finished film leaps rather abruptly from having Bruce express sympathy towards Oswald to then trying to dig up dirt on him in the next scene. The only real gesture of compassion Bruce extends towards Cobblepot is that one line about hoping he finds his parents. And even that is another form or passive reaction rather the active interaction.

Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 21:02The relationships are eventually in their climaxes made clear, Penguin's "You're just jealous because I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask," Batman admitting he may be right and Max admitting he is the city's ugly soul. I think those themes are present earlier but could have been done better (but then again there certainly was a lot of plot). There also could have been more of him reacting to Catwoman disliking the rich and the powerful.

Agreed.

Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 21:02
I'm not sure what you mean by symptoms rather than cause or how he could remedy the cause. The film does seem to want you to feel that her killing Max is at least understandable but also that him going to jail is also reasonable if not better.

By symptoms I mean the disequilibrium stemming from Max himself. In other words the crimes ensuing from his machinations:

•   Cobblepot running for mayor (to facilitate construction of Max's power plant) – Batman foils this campaign
•   The Red Triangle Gang attacks (to undermine faith in the current administration and necessitate the recall election) – Batman foils these attacks
•   Max's attempts to murder Selina (to cover up the truth about his power plant being a capacitor) – Batman attempts to resolve this during the finale, but ultimately fails

Batman reacts to the crimes resulting from Max's machinations, but at no point does he eliminate the cause of those crimes (Max himself). That's what I mean when I say he tackles the symptoms without remedying the cause of the illness. It's Catwoman who eliminates the root of the evil, not Batman. Batman could have done it himself, and indeed would have done had Selina not killed Max first. But the fact remains that Burton and Waters chose to have Selina fulfil that narrative function instead of Bruce. They made her the one to deliver the final blow that ends the main source of corruption in the film.

Quote from: Andrew on Tue, 17 Oct  2017, 21:02True it's a lot more about the villains if not outright about the villains but I think that also applies to some TAS episodes.
Batman doesn't have much impact, aside from action, on B&R other than telling Robin to practice and letting Barbara stay. And he also decides to try and make a trap for Freeze but that made things feel too lightweight.
It's a difficult balance in dividing the focus and plot between heroes and villains.

Absolutely. It's also true of many classic comics, including Burton's favourite Batman story: The Killing Joke.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: Andrew on Wed, 18 Oct 2017, 01:04
I think it's interesting that Batman, maybe from seeing the similarities between himself and the Penguin, quickly becomes suspicious of him (especially when even Alfred is fooled, he refers to the Penguin and heroic and doesn't understand why Batman is suspicious rather than welcoming). But agreed that making Batman initially sympathetic and then feeling betrayed would be a good way to make him more involved in the story and show more his compassionate/philanthropic side.

Catwoman does deliver the blow that finally outright eliminates Max but I think Batman still beats him pretty solidly, even in a way eliminates him or will do so, with the rescue-followed by-"You're going to jail." But him pleading with Selina to not kill him and failing as she does is an interesting way of having him fail.

I'm not sure how superhero films could make the hero more active rather than reactive in the story and especially climax without seeming a bit random/underwhelming and also make the hero seem overly aggressive.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 18 Oct 2017, 11:07
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 16 Oct  2017, 13:12
Anther aspect I believe gets missed is that Wayne appears to be the architect and engineer behind Batman and the tools he utilizes. Note when the Batmobile is returned after being hijacked by the Red Triangle Gang, it is Bruce Wayne in mechanic overalls working on the car. Alfred seems to remain in a butler capacity maintaining care of the suits and facility, but not coming across as the designer of these items as future films would take liberties in assigning to him.

I think Schumacher exaggerated Alfred's role to ridiculous proportions making him look like the chief brains of the entire outfit while the kids played dress up. In Burton's world, Bruce certainly seem to be the author of his alternate life and had to remind Alfred of his need to remain committed to his secret (even chastising him for letting Vicki Vale into the Batcave). I think this point is relevant to the overall character of Bruce Wayne, because if he had to be co-dependent on others in the creation process, then he likely wouldn't be much of a detective to resolve more complex matters.

Alfred designed Robin's suit, but if I recall, the sonar suit was a prototype containing features invented by Bruce himself. I can't remember whether or not Alfred had a hand in designing the other Batsuit in BF.

Nonetheless, I totally get your point. I too prefer Batman to be more independent in his own creation. After all, it plays with the idea that he would spend his whole life dedicating to fighting crime by training himself training himself physically and mentally - in a wide variety of skills, to become the best he could be. With that being said, that's not to say he can't have any help. In the comics, he had assistants like Oracle and Harold Allnut to fulfill certain expertise, i.e. computer hacking and inventing new gadgets. But the difference is Batman is still his own man and carries out the investigations, and outsmart the villains.

In the Burton films, Alfred was not only a butler, he was an assistant too. In B89, Bruce depended on Alfred to retrieve police files on Jack Napier and his parents' murders, and in BR, he used Batman's radio signal to divert the kamikaze penguins back to the Arctic World theme park. It can be said that Batman relied on sidekicks even before Robin entered the picture. And although Alfred's contributions were important, they didn't necessarily undermine Batman's ability to crack the case for himself.

So what about in BF? Putting any bias aside for a moment, it made sense for the story to have Alfred design the Robinsuit because Bruce initially wasn't keen on having Dick as a partner. I saw that as Alfred serving as a mediator between the two, and this contribution convinced Batman that he does need support to stop Riddler and Two-Face. Besides, it's economical plotwise because Bruce himself had to recover from his injury and amnesia inflicted by Two-Face.

Once again, I agree that Batman should be independent, but some help doesn't hurt sometimes. It only becomes a problem if Batman relies on somebody too heavily for the costumes, the gadgets, the vehicles, the problem solving and even the detective work. When it gets to that, it only makes Batman less of the World's Greatest Detective as we know and love, and more of a costumed James Bond clone. Which isn't who he is.
Title: Re: Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns
Post by: thecolorsblend on Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 02:42
Alfred created encryption so effective that I doubt even the NSA could've hacked it. Then again, his password consisted of three letters and howsecureismypassword.net assures me that it would've been cracked in 400 nanoseconds. So maybe that's a wash.

Also, Alfred created his own interactive AI, and in his own image. Either of those is enough to place him far ahead of Microsoft's techs. If you don't believe me, Google what happened with Microsoft's Tay becoming a Nazi just a few hours after going online, it's hilarious.

Alfred not only has the ability to design and build two different suits for Batgirl but he's also capable of imparting that knowledge to the Alfred AI. Which is another leg-up that AI Alfred has over Microsoft's AI.

Overall, Alfred was pretty sharp for such an old-timer.