Messages

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.

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.

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

Agree. Holding back can sometimes equal being more true to the characters. Certain things can feel out of character if the guardrails are taken away. The Killing Joke adaption being a key example of that, with it also being so unnecessary.

That was unnecessary for different reasons, though. TKJ was supposed to follow the comic as closely as possible, and they decided to do a 15min prologue that had nothing to do with the story. It just didn't make any sense to the comic.

I feel like that's totally different from not wanting to be censored for certain ideas. If they want to show The Joker killing someone, they can.

The Joker can kill as often as he wants, but I don't want to see him pushing the carcass of a man he skinned alive onto a stage, or chaining Harley up in a room full of skeletons he tells her are ex-Harleys, or stapling his face back on.

Not that I think Timm would do these things specifically; he's got his own odd tics. But this is the kind of stuff in comics that puts me off. It's not "mature," it's gratuitous, and it turns characters meant to be larger-than-life into cheap knockoffs of low-grade crime fiction.

There's no reason for them to slow the train down: https://screenrant.com/batman-fatigue-not-real-dc-comic-sales-up/

No financial reason for Disney to stop live-action remakes either, but I'm still going to call them travesties of cinema

The Flash with Affleck/Keaton is giving all the fantasy I'll need for the time being. The Snyderverse having all the other heroes being present increases the fantasy element by default. I want there to be a serious tone with the movies, though. I think that's how things should be, with animation such as Brave and the Bold providing the lighter touch.

Serious and fantasy aren't mutually exclusive though. One thing I'm not looking forward to with this new film is a fresh round of revisionist "well, when you look back, those Tim Burton movies were just the campy TV show set at night" takes from cliquey critics. You can be dark, and take the material seriously, without being relentlessly serious, and without chasing the notion that there's any way for a guy in a bat costume stopping crime to be realistic.

I guess I'll play the killjoy - I've barely followed the news for this film, but my first reaction to the trailer was "oh, look - a movie for people who think Nolan and Snyder didn't let realism and self-seriousness take enough of the fun out of this character." (And I don't mean bad jokes or comic relief by that - I mean embracing the fantasy of this character and his world and taking it all on their terms.)

It's all good. While I think it looks great, I can understand not liking certain things. I also wish they would go in more of the fantasy realm, but it is what it is.

Maybe you'll turn around on it?

To be honest - Batman's always been my favorite superhero, but I think it's more than time for adaptations to get put on pause for a few years. I'm burnt out on franchises altogether, but wave after wave of Batmedia in particular has diluted the impact of any new take on the character for me. But if the new film's good, more power to Matt Reeves.

Abrams and Reeves' job is to provide support for Timm to do what he wants. There wasn't a "name" like that attached to the Animated Series. I don't understand why "representation and inclusivity" are considered to be "red flags" for this series.

Some things that would otherwise be commendable often (not always) turn out ham-fisted, distracting, and sanctimonious when they're imposed on material like this to ride a cultural current.

I'm more worried about what Timm and co. might cook up without content restrictions myself; sometimes, ratings standards can improve these stories by forcing text into subtext and making writers get clever to work or dodge the censors. And too many people working in comics and their adaptations seem to think that being as violent or sexual as possible automatically equates to "serious, mature fiction."

I guess I'll play the killjoy - I've barely followed the news for this film, but my first reaction to the trailer was "oh, look - a movie for people who think Nolan and Snyder didn't let realism and self-seriousness take enough of the fun out of this character." (And I don't mean bad jokes or comic relief by that - I mean embracing the fantasy of this character and his world and taking it all on their terms.)

I think it's the best-looking of any live action suit to date. The long ears, the yellow highlights, the cloak that actually wraps around his arms to envelop him - all my preferred elements. Pair that design with more flexible materials and you've got perfection.

Keaton's maintained it was dissatisfaction with the direction since the 90s, and the studio's position has been that it was about money for as long. There have been alternate stories about why Robin Williams didn't get the part floating around for years too.

Wish the interviewer would've asked more about the writing process for Batman himself; in previous interviews, Waters has implied that Burton was of a mind with Keaton about the angry Batman monologues not "being the character."