If Batman Returns came out today...

[thecolorsblend]

People claim to remember a massive backlash against BR in 1992. I lived through it and I don't think it actually happened. At least, not to the extent that people today claim.

But if BR (as we know it now) came out today, holy crap, talk about a gun battle! When it comes to comic adaptations, we live in far less tolerant times today. Burton would never have been given the creative latitude to make the artistic decisions he made in BR. Or if he was, it wouldn't be done on a blockbuster budget. Either way, the final product would suffer, I think.

And the fan reaction would probably break Facebook in half, glue it back together and break it in half again. The more grotesque, monster movie take on the Penguin alone would have fans crying foul. If Burton was on Twitter, his Twitter would have to go dark for at least six months to allow the more acidic stuff to filter out.

I think Catwoman's S&M-lite thing might go over okay in today's market... which may not be a good thing since the S&M thing was intended to be a subversive assertion of Catwoman's heretofore repressed sexuality. Mature audiences might greet it warmly rather than be disturbed by it as a negative, harmful overreaction to her original set of problems. She would be seen in the light of Grrrrl Power rather than as a broken individual who was never able to truly find peace in her own skin. Her rejection of Batman at the end of the movie would be regarded as a crowning achievement of feminism rather than Selina Kyle turning her back on last chance for happiness.

I'm not sure wide audiences of 1992 completely grasped what Burton was up to with BR. I'm positive that wide audiences of 2019 would do even worse than 1992 audiences did.

If BR came out today, it would be loved for all the wrong reasons by some people and hated for all the wrong reasons by other people. I contend that BR as we know it would be even more misunderstood today than it was back in 1992.

In light of JOKER, I don't think my comment here has aged very well.

I stand by some parts of it. I think the issues with Catwoman's sexual expression would be understood in a very different context today than Burton originally intended. I think I was right about that.

But JOKER has given me faith that maybe, just maybe, certain contingents of the wide audience would have a much better bead on what Burton was attempting to do with BR. Critics responded overall favorably to the film back in 1992. But in today's world, where critics try so hard to convince us they're geeks like us even though we know they're not, I think BR might be critically savaged precisely so some nitwit critic can attempt to establish his geek bona fides.

In the end, it might be a wash. Yes, wide audiences might give certain elements of BR a warmer reception than 1992. But certain other things that were not controversial back in 1992 would be problematic now. Controversy would remain; just different controversies than 1992. Maybe that's the best way to put it.

[johnnygobbs]

I apologise for starting a new thread.  I will now delete it.  I had forgotten there was an almost identical one in which my post would be perfectly on-topic, so I've carried it over:

"If the film were to be released for the first time today, how would modern critics and audiences respond to it?

My fear, looking at some comments on Twitter and many contemporary reviews, is that Batman Returns is misunderstood by many modern audiences.  In 1992, it was rightly understood as a companion piece to Edward Scissorhands which displayed an affinity with outsiders and those poor unfortunates shunned by society, including Catwoman, but especially The Penguin.

Unfortunately, today it seems that more shallow aspects of the film, including The Penguin's run for political office, and Shreck's underlying plan to use him for his own interests, consume the thoughts of a lot of modern critics.  Catwoman is still, for the most part, recognised as a victim of oppressions turned righteous avenger, but in our less nuanced current times, too many idiots are quick to seize solely on the most negative aspects of The Penguin, seeing him merely as a horny, misogynist 'incel', with political aspirations above his competency, failing to understand that he is supposed to be seen as a tragic and even quasi-sympathetic character; a disabled 'mutant' who was never given a chance by 'normal' society.

How far we have fallen as a society.  Where is our empathy?!?  Look at the moronic responses by some 'critics' and social media pundits to Joker, another similarly disabled and maligned character."

[The Laughing Fish]

This fan made trailer of how BR would've been advertised if it were released today goes to show the film has aged very well.

Still looks brand new.

[thecolorsblend]

This fan made trailer of how BR would've been advertised if it were released today goes to show the film has aged very well.

Still looks brand new.

I could nitpick some aspects of that but, man, that looks AWESOME! Makes me want to rewatch the movie right now.

[Andrew]

how would some people with a YouTube channel might react to Catwoman and the theme surrounding her in BR? I have sneaky feeling that they wouldn't take it too well. I reckon they would complain how Burton made Batman get emasculated by Catwoman, and how he got "humiliated" by her when failed to talk her out of taking revenge over Shreck at the end of the movie. Now while I do believe critics do misrepresent people on purpose to promote their agenda, unfortunately, I've seen a loud minority of fools who are sexist bigots on YouTube, and do take issue with a female character.

Maybe. The biggest complaint would probably just be, again, that she just gets too much time and focus rather than Batman, and that could be combined with claiming she seems to beat, not be won over by Batman, but I think most would still be pretty charmed by and interested in her.

While many people thought Eisenberg was miscast in the role and didn't care for his mannerisms, I don't think BR's Penguin would've been accepted if BR was  a brand new movie that came out today. Mainly because from what I can tell, people have this inflexible, yet inconsistent perception of what they think comic book characters should be e.g. Batman should be dark but not THAT dark, but it's still okay if he does that because he says this, Superman should be bright and fun, Joker should be dark and mysterious, Penguin should be sophisticated and a gentleman mob boss, blah blah blah. Burton may have modeled the Penguin as a darker equivalent to John Merrick from The Elephant Man, and as brilliant as that may have been, I think loud naysayers with an internet connection would've attacked Burton for not getting the character...while hypocritically giving other interpretations that deviated from the comics a pass.

Reactions to the Penguin would probably be about the same (maybe a bit less shock after Ledger The Joker being both non-sophisticated and monstrous in his way, but Penguin still feels pretty shocking type of monster).

In general, with years of MCU and away from Nolan films, there is still as much sense that superheroes are and should be for whole family viewing than in 1992.

OTOH the whole run for mayor plot would probably be regarded as much smarter than it was back then (it may have gotten more screentime), not a weird waste of time or just weirdly trying to redo a plot from the TV show but smart digs about disliked politicians from either side (Burton would have been more asked about it, there also could have been more polarizing dislike from those who felt their side was being targeted).

Last but not least, I can see people complaining online and accuse Burton and the production team of racism for casting actors of ethnic backgrounds in less than flattering roles e.g. the Native American actor who played the rapist who Catwoman attacked. Going by the accusations towards Antisemitism in The New York Times back in 1992, I could see today's outrage culture use that agenda to condemn BR in a broader scale than print media ever could.

There would have been not just puzzlement but real anger about Billy Dee Williams Harvey Dent not returning (though I think even Burton would, if he made the movie now, probably be series-thinking-enough to bring back him and Vicki Vale).

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this video showing a UK censored version of the scene where Catwoman attacks the Shreck retail store, and I read this description explaining the reasons for the censorship.

Tim Burton's darker Batman film "Batman Returns" was released in 1992 and was submitted to the BBFC [British Board of Film Classification] for a cinema release. However, 9 seconds of cuts were required in two scenes before it could get a 12 rating. One scene of a clown swinging nunchucks (James Ferman (who was the BBFC secretary from 1975-1999) had a policy on martial arts weapons) and another scene of Catwoman putting aerosol cans into a microwave (the BBFC thought putting aerosol cans into a microwave was a "potentially dangerous imitable technique") The film was cut and passed 12 and this version was released on VHS and later on DVD. A 2 disc special edition of Batman Returns was released in 2005 and the cut to the nunchucks scene was waived but the cut to the microwave scene was still upheld. The uncut version of the film was submitted to the BBFC in 2009 for a Blu-ray release. The film was passed 15 uncut and the uncut version is available on Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray.

I think BR has other moments that could be seen as "potentially dangerous imitable techniques", but I guess the folks at the BBFC think they know better.

The removal of the clown with the nunchucks is strange, but I suppose it was typical of the BFCC's sensitivity when it came to martial art paraphernalia back in the late eighties and early nineties. I remember reading about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was renamed Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles when the cartoon was shown on British TV screens. I don't think nunchucks or having "Ninja" in the title is any more imitable than showing Catwoman arming herself with claws to slash people in the face and stomach, or Penguin biting somebody else's nose. But what do I know?

I do understand that the UK has a peculiar rating system compared to the likes of the US and Australia. Both of those countries have a five-tier rating system (technically, Australia has six, but the X18+ rating is only available in two states), but the UK system has six, with the 12 rating system (equivalent to US's PG-13 and Oz's M ratings) having two sub-categories:

• U (Universal): Suitable for all.
• PG (Parental Guidance): General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children.
• 12A and 12:
  -12A (Cinema): Generally suitable for those aged 12 and over; those under 12 admitted, but only if accompanied by an adult.
  -12 (Video): Suitable only for persons of 12 years and over. Not to be supplied to any person below that age.
• 15: Suitable only for persons of 15 years and over. Not to be supplied to any person below that age.
• 18: Suitable only for persons of 18 years and over. Not to be supplied to any person below that age.
• R18: To be supplied only in licensed sex shops to persons of not less than 18 years.

https://rating-system.fandom.com/wiki/Rating_systems_(Movies)#United_Kingdom

Strange system, a kid younger than 12 can go see a 12A-rated movie at the cinema as long as they're accompanied by an adult, but they can't buy the movie if it's on home video.

[thecolorsblend]

I found this video showing a UK censored version of the scene where Catwoman attacks the Shreck retail store, and I read this description explaining the reasons for the censorship.

Tim Burton's darker Batman film "Batman Returns" was released in 1992 and was submitted to the BBFC [British Board of Film Classification] for a cinema release. However, 9 seconds of cuts were required in two scenes before it could get a 12 rating. One scene of a clown swinging nunchucks (James Ferman (who was the BBFC secretary from 1975-1999) had a policy on martial arts weapons) and another scene of Catwoman putting aerosol cans into a microwave (the BBFC thought putting aerosol cans into a microwave was a "potentially dangerous imitable technique") The film was cut and passed 12 and this version was released on VHS and later on DVD. A 2 disc special edition of Batman Returns was released in 2005 and the cut to the nunchucks scene was waived but the cut to the microwave scene was still upheld. The uncut version of the film was submitted to the BBFC in 2009 for a Blu-ray release. The film was passed 15 uncut and the uncut version is available on Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray.

I think BR has other moments that could be seen as "potentially dangerous imitable techniques", but I guess the folks at the BBFC think they know better.

The removal of the clown with the nunchucks is strange, but I suppose it was typical of the BFCC's sensitivity when it came to martial art paraphernalia back in the late eighties and early nineties. I remember reading about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was renamed Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles when the cartoon was shown on British TV screens. I don't think nunchucks or having "Ninja" in the title is any more imitable than showing Catwoman arming herself with claws to slash people in the face and stomach, or Penguin biting somebody else's nose. But what do I know?

I do understand that the UK has a peculiar rating system compared to the likes of the US and Australia. Both of those countries have a five-tier rating system (technically, Australia has six, but the X18+ rating is only available in two states), but the UK system has six, with the 12 rating system (equivalent to US's PG-13 and Oz's M ratings) having two sub-categories:

• U (Universal): Suitable for all.
• PG (Parental Guidance): General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children.
• 12A and 12:
  -12A (Cinema): Generally suitable for those aged 12 and over; those under 12 admitted, but only if accompanied by an adult.
  -12 (Video): Suitable only for persons of 12 years and over. Not to be supplied to any person below that age.
• 15: Suitable only for persons of 15 years and over. Not to be supplied to any person below that age.
• 18: Suitable only for persons of 18 years and over. Not to be supplied to any person below that age.
• R18: To be supplied only in licensed sex shops to persons of not less than 18 years.

https://rating-system.fandom.com/wiki/Rating_systems_(Movies)#United_Kingdom

Strange system, a kid younger than 12 can go see a 12A-rated movie at the cinema as long as they're accompanied by an adult, but they can't buy the movie if it's on home video.

I put stuff like that down to cultural differences between the UK and the US. We have a lot in common. But the small differences add up in some surprising ways.

A good example is Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones. At one point, Jango Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi duke it out. Jango gives Obi-Wan a headbutt and sends Obi-Wan flying.

In the US, a shot like that in a movie is no problem. It's non-controversial. But in the UK, where apparently headbutting is more of a problem (idk if that's a soccer thing or what), that moment got clipped out of the movie. Apparently, Jango and Obi-Wan trading punches and swinging lightsabers at each other is totally alright. But the headbutt is just too much.

I don't get that. But that's what happened.

[Silver Nemesis]

The UK version of The Matrix was also edited to remove the bit where Morpheus and Smith trade headbutts at the beginning of their fight scene. Batman Forever featured several similar cuts too, which was especially confusing during Robin's fight against Two-Face (in my old VHS version Dick says "And this is for me!" and then Two-Face just randomly falls over without being hit). Yet with all of these movies, they'll show the uncut versions on TV. You just can't buy many of them on DVD or Blu-ray.

Earlier this year I finally got the see the full uncut US version of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom when it aired on television. I've seen that movie hundreds of times since I was a kid, but I never realised how heavily edited the UK version was until now. The version available on DVD in the UK is missing the following bits: the shot of Mola Ram's hand entering the chest of the sacrificial victim and pulling out his heart, the final shots of the sacrificial victim writhing in flames as he's lowered into the pit, the bit where the Maharajah whips Short Round and Indy calls the Thuggees "bastards", and several shots of kidney blows and other punches during Indy's fight against the chief guard. I've read that they could release the uncut version on DVD, but it would need to be upgraded from a PG to a 12 and apparently Spielberg is opposed to that for some reason.

Even the UK version of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie was edited for many years to remove the nunchuck contest between Mike and one of the Foot ninjas. They don't even hit each other with the nunchucks during that scene, but the BBFC was concerned kids might construct their own imitation weapons. It's for that same reason the BBFC would often cut shots of shuriken and other martial arts weapons from movies, even when they were rated 18 (the UK equivalent of R). My original VHS copy of Ninja Scroll (1993) was really badly edited in this regard. Individual shots of throwing stars were censored, though thankfully the excised elements were all restored for the DVD release.

With Batman Returns, I had to buy multiple copies of the film just to get the uncut version. I recorded the TV premiere back in the nineties, but that version was edited to get a 12 rating. I then bought a retail VHS copy which was rated 15, but it was missing the shot of the goon with the nunchucks and the bit where Catwoman puts the aerosols in the microwave. The movie was then re-categorised as a 12 and released on DVD with the nunchuck goon restored, but that version was still missing the aerosol scene. Because it was edited, it also didn't featured Tim Burton's commentary as a bonus feature. I wanted to hear the commentary, so I then had to buy the Blu-ray release, which was totally uncut and re-rated as a 15.

Oddly enough, I remember my film studies teacher telling me that any movie in which a man headbutts a woman is automatically given an 18 certificate by the BBFC. Yet the shot of Batman headbutting Catwoman has never been removed from the UK version of BR, even when it was downgraded to a 12 certificate. As for why the BBFC is so sensitive about headbutts, I think it's because headbutting is such a common street fighting move in the UK, especially among football hooligans. The BBFC is also very sensitive about depictions of blades, since knife crime is so high in the UK. Gun crime is less of an issue, so they're not as sensitive about that. But headbutting and stabbing are a touchy issue.

[thecolorsblend]

Because it was edited, it also didn't featured Tim Burton's commentary as a bonus feature. I wanted to hear the commentary, so I then had to buy the Blu-ray release, which was totally uncut and re-rated as a 15.

Dude, you should've said something. I've had mp3's of the Burton and Schumacher Batman commentaries on my hard drive since those remastered DVD's came out back in 2005. I could've Dropboxed the BR file to you easily.

Oh well, you got it in the end so that's what counts.

[Silver Nemesis]

I appreciate the offer, but I would've had to buy the Blu-ray anyway just to see that extra five seconds of footage of Pfeiffer putting the aerosols in the microwave.

I'm thinking about buying the movie yet again, simply because the cinematography in the 4K print looks so much better than the earlier versions. If I do, it'll be my fifth copy of Batman Returns.