Messages

It's a shame that all these years later we still can't get a quote confirming that any of these parallels were deliberate. Still, the writer of Demolition Man said "Oh sh*t!" in response to something I posted, and that makes the whole endeavour worthwhile.

I'm sure some were deliberate but for people like Waters, they're only truly in the moment when they're writing. Once their job is over, they move onto the next project and channel their energy into that. I always compare us fans asking questions like these to creators as though someone asked us about the papers we had to write in school.

https://bleedingfool.com/news/batmangate-dc-writer-posts-damning-proof-matt-reeves-stole-his-script

The tl;dr of it is Chris Wozniak is claiming that Michael Uslan stole basically the entire plot and setup of TB without compensation. He provides evidence of his claims in his YouTube video.

Decide for yourself if he's telling the truth. Honestly, I think the pieces all fit together pretty well. Well enough to merit further investigation anyway.

This will likely only go as far as Steve Englehart's claims about The Dark Knight stealing from his material.

Hollywood people writing comics has produced some pretty mixed results. Esp actors.

At least this one got great art that's very Miller and Janson influence instead of the bland movie tie-in art that's common.

All of this is to say that you raise a good point here. And it's something that doesn't get brought up very often when the Affleck Batman movie gets discussed. There's a very strong argument that Affleck bit off more than he could chew with that movie. Which could be what actually killed it. Or at least contributed to killing it.

That and his drinking problem that he finally had to come to terms with how it was destroying his life. He thought he could still do things he did in his 20's, but those days are long gone. Snyder's decision to cast him as older and weathered Batman since it takes more to convey that sensibility with greying temples. They tried to warn him how this was going to seriously change his career and he stubbornly dismissed the negative side of it, such as the press mainly being interested in his next outing as Batman than whatever film he was promoting. He really didn't handle well that somehow led him back to being with J.Lo. and made Keaton return as Batman. As Adam West's Batman once said, "I'd say the odds against it, would make even the most reckless gambler cringe!"

The movie could've had Mav looking like Vincent from "Collateral" and it would've had no bearing on the film's overall quality.

It would have had a bearing on the movie overall since we're supposed to see that after all these years, Maverick is the same guy as we left him. One of the key factors that I believe audiences really responded to was to see a character like this, first and foremost in a sequel instead of being sidelined for other characters that we don't care about. Having him look like he did in Collateral, which already looked phony enough where it looked like someone just put baby powder in Cruise's hair, would have been a reminder of the time that's passed. Cruise understands what other long overdue sequels failed at, we don't want to be reminded of how long it's been since we've last seen them. Nobody wants to see an old man version of Indiana Jones doing the same things he did 40 years ago or having characters like Han Solo appear just so the new characters can kill them off or empty dramatic reasons so they can just magically appear out of nowhere.

With the latter being rather unexpected by many of us, as, if memory serves, Keaton was fairly consistent in stating that if Tim Burton returned to the franchise, he would likely follow (much like his comments regarding Beetlejuice 2, or like Christian Bale's recent comments about being open to returning to Batman but only with Nolan at the helm). Having Keaton returning as Batman in a "Flash" movie (rather than in a Batman "Part 3" or "Batman Beyond" movie), felt rather odd from the jump, but presumably, there was something there in the script that perhaps we were not seeing. Course the screening leaks started coming in, and ... yeah.

Riiiiight.

Keaton must have gotten the word from Burton that Schwarzenegger got from Cameron that he could feel free to do a movie in the franchise without him. Burton seems to be very reluctant to do a "nostalgia show" by retreading familiar ground on a series that he felt like he was kicked out of, which I'm pretty sure he's not been asked back to anyways. This also explains why the sequel to Beetlejuice is taking so long. If it was something he really wanted to do, it'd be filming already.

I would be more yielding to the notion of Keaton's Batman and the "Burtonverse" being, ultimately, anachronistic and resigned to best remain in a very specific era in time, if there wasn't examples to the contrary with other long-dormant franchises being resurrected, and resurrected successfully. "Top Gun: Maverick" obviously being the best and most recent example. The original, arguably, being one of the notable, and defining films of the 1980's, brought forth into present times, and the end result being simply outstanding! Also, there's "Ghostbusters Afterlife". A franchise that, prior to Nov 2021, hasn't had a proper film released since 1989, but was respectful towards the lore and fans, and whatayaknow, ended up being warmly received by both fans and general audiences alike. What about what Stallone did with 2006's "Rocky Balboa", and 2008's "Rambo"? Both of those particular franchises could have easily been left in the past as cinematic symbols of 1980s (and '70s with Rocky), and it wouldn't have lessened their standing in people's perception of them whatsoever. However, Sly decided to put in a little effort, and yeah, both were successful and more importantly worthwhile endeavors that added positive chapters to their respective franchises legacies. How long was it between George Miller's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", and "Mad Max: Fury Road" again? Yes, of course it was Tom Hardy as Max, but to argue that with some tweaks in the script, "Fury Road" couldn't have starred a aged Mel Gibson Mad Max would be ludicrous. I'm not sure about these days, but Mel was in beast mode as far as being in shape by the mid 2010's with films like "Get the Gringo" and "Expendables 3".

Your provided examples have other factors that ensured their success more than what can applied to this situation. Cruise manicured himself to resemble his 1986 self and probably had to be refrained from going to further with his appearance since he's supposed to be the elder to the rest of the pilots. Keaton has allowed his hair to whiten and most of his roles allow his natural (of any at all) hairline. Cruise wouldn't be caught dead looking like that as Maverick.

The moment in Ghostbusters: Afterlife  with the core Busters reuniting was very forced and undeserving. They had no bearing on the story beside just giving a moment for the audience to cheer for a moment that's already been played out before. I don't need to see Keaton say "I'm Batman" or "Let's get nuts" again when he already did it perfectly. The suit in The Flash looks more less-cumbersome than his previous suits, which could seriously affect Keaton's acting since he used the claustrophobia he suffered from being in the suit for his performance. The returning Ghostbusters just had to jump into their union suits and likely had lightweight packs to maximize comfortability for the aging actors.

Stallone is a whole other beast in and of itself. He writes, directs and recently took on the task of recutting one of his films. Like Cruise, he knows what the audience wants and isn't priming himself to do a personal project, like that Edgar Allan Poe project that he seems to have decided to let go of. It was unrealistic of Affleck to believe that he could effectively do those tasks in his own Batman film and it ultimately didn't happen.

The whole Fury Road experience proves how valuable it was in the original films that they had limitations to work with. I saw no value in Miller finally being able to show someone wasting their universe's precious commodity, gasoline, on someone blaring an electric guitar that spits fire. It looked ridiculous as it sounds but people still ate it up like it was the second coming. Bob Gale mentions how terrible Back to the Future would have ended up if they had gotten their way and the changes improved the final film. I'll gladly take the original Mad Max and Road Warrior over Fury Road any day. A Batman film with the same approach I'm sure would give me the same reaction.

Unfortunately, it takes a little bit of effort, and Warners apparently was more keen on relying on the mere novelty of just having Keaton back in the batsuit for nostalgic purposes (along with propping up the Flash film itself of course), rather than anything remotely resembling a truly 'proper' continuation/conclusion of the Burton films.

Again, that's the cards that have been dealt. Our boy deserved better.

I'm sure Keaton is just fine with whatever they've worked out for him, because he's getting paid and is content with his place in his career. Us fans, on the other hand, have our reservations and expectations that I don't believe can be achieved. I believe a better statement would be "WE deserve better" and not "Our boy."

You deserved better, Keats. You deserved better.

I just hate fundamentally how they're just doing exactly what was being made fun of in Birdman. I had the exact problem with Adam Sandler in Funny People trying to criticize his whole career, yet right after it did exactly what he was parodying. I guess you gotta enjoy the spotlight while it's on you, because Keaton was in a slump with movies like White Noise and Herbie with Lindsey Lohan before Birdman put him on top, which prompted Marvel to hire him for Spider-Man and lead him to do what we thought was the impossible of him reprising Batman.

This whole premise makes me think of the Mark Hamill Trickster from 90's Flash.

Somebody at DC had no idea what fans wanted from this series, it seems.

That someone is Sam Hamm. Joe Quinones has proven himself to be on our level for the appreciation we have for Burton's work. Judging by the work he did for the initial proposal with Kate Leth, it seemed to have been on the desired level, but DC probably thought it was too close for comfort to avoid litigations from Burton and the only leeway was to hire Hamm for the project.

Hamm likes to state that it was the writer strike being the reason why he was replaced by Skaaren, but the circumstances and fax of the matter show that he was replaced before the strike took place. He must have made up this situation to save face as to why he didn't stay onboard when shooting finally took place.

This comic series has proven that Sam Hamm was in similar situation David Goyer was in for The Dark Knight Trilogy in which the director needed a writer that was familiar with the lore and universe of Batman to create something the fans would approve. Burton's initial treatment was sorely based on the Mankiewicz script and with someone like Hamm, you get elements like the inclusion of Harvey Dent and a character like Vicki Vale with a more interesting occupation that possesses better story possibilities, but that mentality makes you more attuned to doing an issue of the comic instead of making a film, which was obviously what Burton and Nolan were interested in.

Hamm has always been very vocal about The Joker being the murder of the Waynes and Alfred letting Vicki into the Batcave, which are criticisms that are adhered to the comics, but are actually great story points and visuals for a film. I've been conducting my own personal research for Warren Skaaren's contributions to the screenplay, a task that he had to also perform on Burton's previous film Beetlejuice and reading his criticisms and suggestions on how to fix the story really did help shape the movie into the one that we know and love today. Hamm's screenplay was very clunky with unclear motivations and the misguided attempt at emulating romantic comedies from the 40's. Of course, he had to deal with the burden of including Robin in his screenplay which was something they had to come up with at the last minute to find out where exactly to place them in the story. Perhaps things would transpire differently if Hamm  did not have that directive at all, but his following track record of only getting work that involved comic adaptations showed that he was unfortunately placed in a box that he couldn't get out of. I'm curious to know if one day will get more details about what the original concept of Batman '89 was supposed to be until Hamm got involved. It perhaps was more attuned to Burton's sensibilities, but that could've been a legality problem as to why that couldn't have been carried through.

I recently became aware of Golden Age character called Harlequin related to the Alan Scott Green Lantern that may have been an inspiration for Prank as well.