Daniel Waters discusses Batman Returns

[Catwoman]

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.

[johnnygobbs]

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.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[GBglide]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

It'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.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[Wayne49]

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.

[Andrew]

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.

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.