|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2023 1:50:54 GMT -5
I always wonder about what Mank said- that he had said to Donner (Or was it the other way around?)- that if they could get the romance to work, that everything else would- and in thinking about and rewatching the film- it really is true. Despite the sometimes silly humor and different tones (though intentional) - the reality of the relationship onscreen (and charm of it) is what gives STM its main core. If the romance had no real weight - then, there still would have been the other neat bits- but definitely a lot would have been lost without the magic generated by not just Reeve and Kidder's chemistry- but how it was written/directed. The balcony scene just had so many layers of charm and humor- someone had remarked how it felt like the nervous energy of a first date, and it comes off that way in a sense. Another thought I'd had was: Donner said he never wanted to do another superhero film, because he lacked confidence he could do it as good as this- but, I would have loved to have seen him try Batman as well. Or Supergirl. Can you imagine? Superman the movie working hinges on the relationships between the characters and how they drive the story. It’s why Man or Steel simply doesn’t work. The characters and their relationships are either secondary or poorly developed and explored. STM does more with Pa Kent in 5 minutes than Snyder ever did on his films. The Reeve Superman sequels didn’t need to bring him back in some stupid dream sequence on a snowy mountain. He worked so well and his relationship with Clark and what he taught him was so on point that it still resonated in later films. If Donner had done another superhero film I’d want something different from Superman. He’d already done that. I would have loved to have see what he found have done with some Marvel characters. The problem is there a generational issue. Donner got Superman because he was part of that first generation of children to grow up with him. It’s why he felt he had to “protect him” from someone else screwing it up. Donner was a great director but I’m not sure he “got” the heroes that came out of the 60’s as well as he got Superman. It was a different era of heroes and stories made for a new generation of young people. I actually would have been fine if he used his same style with Superman towards Batman- With Superman, there were different tones used with the PZ criminals and the Daily planet staff- but for what was done by Donner in SII- it seemed to work out great. What I really enjoyed about Ladyhawke and the first couple of Lethal Weapon movies is that it felt like (to me) a number of Speilberg adventures around that time... beautiful looking films that had a sense of adventure, humor, and romance- but also have some standout scenes that would make it stand out. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 8:06:58 GMT -5
Superman the movie working hinges on the relationships between the characters and how they drive the story. It’s why Man or Steel simply doesn’t work. The characters and their relationships are either secondary or poorly developed and explored. STM does more with Pa Kent in 5 minutes than Snyder ever did on his films. The Reeve Superman sequels didn’t need to bring him back in some stupid dream sequence on a snowy mountain. He worked so well and his relationship with Clark and what he taught him was so on point that it still resonated in later films. If Donner had done another superhero film I’d want something different from Superman. He’d already done that. I would have loved to have see what he found have done with some Marvel characters. The problem is there a generational issue. Donner got Superman because he was part of that first generation of children to grow up with him. It’s why he felt he had to “protect him” from someone else screwing it up. Donner was a great director but I’m not sure he “got” the heroes that came out of the 60’s as well as he got Superman. It was a different era of heroes and stories made for a new generation of young people. I actually would have been fine if he used his same style with Superman towards Batman- With Superman, there were different tones used with the PZ criminals and the Daily planet staff- but for what was done by Donner in SII- it seemed to work out great. What I really enjoyed about Ladyhawke and the first couple of Lethal Weapon movies is that it felt like (to me) a number of Speilberg adventures around that time... beautiful looking films that had a sense of adventure, humor, and romance- but also have some standout scenes that would make it stand out. His real world approach and eye for action would have been great. Gotham may have ended up more like Nolan’s but that’s ok. What I’m not sure about is the tone. The atmosphere. Burton nailed those in his Batman film. Tonally Batman is very different from Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2023 9:14:26 GMT -5
Reeve seems very open to the idea of a crossover with Batman. If Donner had done Batman I wonder if he would have allowed the universes to match enough depending on time frame. His aesthetics changed as well. I’m imagining Lethal Weapon 2’s tone and level of darkness if it also couldn’t be too dark.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2023 11:18:25 GMT -5
Chip in here with me thoughts, chaps!
It's an unfair comparison because they are different genres......but LW2 is much better than Batman 89' IMHO.
Batman 89' had so much hype going into it before release, that it was always going to struggle to live up to said hype in the minds of some(like me!).
But much like it's chief competitor that heady summer , Last Crusade, it ended up being a champ for a lot of folks.
But that hype ended up obscuring stuff like The Abyss and LW2, which had real meat to the bones, IMHO.
I think Donner could have done a better job on all fronts compared to Burton, with Batman, if given the opportunity.
The tone would have been radically different for sure.
I was under impressed with Batman's action sequences ways back then.....they almost seemed quaint compared to what Donner was doing with LW2.
Ok some of the fight choreography was decent in the Church sequence at the end.....but still ways too little for me.
I could say something very controversial and admit that I am still waiting for a definitive Batman film to be made!
Neither Burton at one end of the spectrum......or Nolan at the other, hit the jackpot for me.
But granted....I am in the minority on that one!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2023 12:26:07 GMT -5
Chip in here with me thoughts, chaps! It's an unfair comparison because they are different genres......but LW2 is much better than Batman 89' IMHO. Batman 89' had so much hype going into it before release, that it was always going to struggle to live up to said hype in the minds of some(like me!). But much like it's chief competitor that heady summer , Last Crusade, it ended up being a champ for a lot of folks. But that hype ended up obscuring stuff like The Abyss and LW2, which had real meat to the bones, IMHO. I think Donner could have done a better job on all fronts compared to Burton, with Batman, if given the opportunity. The tone would have been radically different for sure. I was under impressed with Batman's action sequences ways back then.....they almost seemed quaint compared to what Donner was doing with LW2. Ok some of the fight choreography was decent in the Church sequence at the end.....but still ways too little for me. I could say something very controversial and admit that I am still waiting for a definitive Batman film to be made! Neither Burton at one end of the spectrum......or Nolan at the other, hit the jackpot for me. But granted....I am in the minority on that one! Donner didn't mention Batman specifically but he did mention he was offered 'every superhero movie on the block' following STM- but he didn't feel like he was going to top what he did on Superman.... and Mank did do a script (Haven't read it yet)- Burton's Batman had a nice look- but I think the mainstream's association with Batman in the US was only the '66 tv show- so they were blown away by Burton's version.... but I had purchased the script at a con (I did that a lot) prior to the film and was pissed at the revision to who killed his parents (fixed properly in Nolan's)- and generally the script felt all over the place in my opinion. (I did like Batman Returns a lot, though) But- the news was that the script WAS being rewritten constantly during production to include more Jack Nicholson- so.... no wonder it was a mess? In any case- Nolan (especially with TDK)- corrected the story and the character to a 't' in my opinion for most of Batman Begins- and then did a brilliant TDK (the ultimate Batman movie & one of my top ten superhero films)- then did a jaw-droppingly horrible TDKR... but, I do think Donner would have delivered a fantastic Batman equalling the Superman adaptation- IF he wanted to. Given that Superman was a different animal, I think he would have leaned more into The Omen- with Joker, but JUST stay within family friendly borders. WB would have given him the free reign from STM's success--- but I think his own filters would have been Lethal Weapon 2 borders. (If I recall right, LW was rated 'R', but LW 2 rated 'PG'... but I could be wrong - in any case, LW 2 was pulled back in intensity) Maybe Mel would have been Bruce Wayne? Though.... I think probably not. And... Donner didn't want to try. But it's our loss. As is, I'm thrilled we got two of Nolan's Batman films. But- can you imagine if Donner wanted to make Batman and a Batman franchise his own universe? Hopefully it wouldn't have dipped into too much lightness like LW 3 & 4- but.... Done right after STM-SII? Would have been awesome. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 17:32:36 GMT -5
Chip in here with me thoughts, chaps! It's an unfair comparison because they are different genres......but LW2 is much better than Batman 89' IMHO. Batman 89' had so much hype going into it before release, that it was always going to struggle to live up to said hype in the minds of some(like me!). But much like it's chief competitor that heady summer , Last Crusade, it ended up being a champ for a lot of folks. But that hype ended up obscuring stuff like The Abyss and LW2, which had real meat to the bones, IMHO. I think Donner could have done a better job on all fronts compared to Burton, with Batman, if given the opportunity. The tone would have been radically different for sure. I was under impressed with Batman's action sequences ways back then.....they almost seemed quaint compared to what Donner was doing with LW2. Ok some of the fight choreography was decent in the Church sequence at the end.....but still ways too little for me. I could say something very controversial and admit that I am still waiting for a definitive Batman film to be made! Neither Burton at one end of the spectrum......or Nolan at the other, hit the jackpot for me. But granted....I am in the minority on that one! Most of Batman’s problems were at the script level. I think the 1988 writers strike hurt that movie more than we know. I’ve often wondered how much it affected a lot of movies that came out in 1989. A lot of people have similar issues with the writing in Ghostbusters 2 and Last Crusade. As for Batman’s action Burton has never been a guy known for shooting action well. The movie gets by (mostly thanks to its style and production design) but it wasn’t Burton’s strength. Combine that with an incredibly cumbersome and limiting suit and the action and fight scenes were going to have issues. Nolan wasn’t anything special with fight scenes either. I agree that we haven’t seen the definitive Batman movie yet. Many of them do some things incredibly well but in other areas they have their weaknesses. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive Batman actor or performance yet either. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 1, 2023 3:21:54 GMT -5
The strike was over by the time filming began in October of 1988. I’ve often heard Sam Hamm give the strike as an excuse as to why he didn’t stay on once they went into production, but I think that was largely an attempt for him to save face over the fact that he wasn’t asked to return. Warren Skaaren worked for Tim Burton rewriting Beetlejuice and performed a similar job Tom Mankiewicz did on Superman and his arbitration to get screenplay credit went through as he demonstrated that he changed much of Hamm’s original script. I believe the consensus was that Hamm was foregoing decent drama for the sake of being comic accurate, which Burton wasn’t that keen on maintaining. We can see what Burton thought of Hamm’s work when he has his draft for the sequel completely scrapped.
People’s minds do like to change at the drop of a dime. There was a lot of praise for Matt Reeves’ The Batman when it came out but it quickly got turned on it’s face once it was available for home viewing with complaints about its length. It’s not the first or last time similar reactions have occurred but it’s definitely a testament to how the variety of interpretations of Batman creates a broader sense of appreciation of his mythos.
I used to think only The Dark Knight interpretation of the character was the only way to go, but the Nolan movies proved to me that having him be the same kind of character makes him too boring. You need him to go through some development like what was intended to be for Michael Keaton’s Batman had he returned for Batman Forever. Most of that gets muddled since it’s another actor in the role, a mistake made again with Brandon Routh intended to be the same Christopher Reeve Superman. I doubt anything in this day and age will ever warrant being called “definitive.”
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 6:04:26 GMT -5
The strike was over by the time filming began in October of 1988. I’ve often heard Sam Hamm give the strike as an excuse as to why he didn’t stay on once they went into production, but I think that was largely an attempt for him to save face over the fact that he wasn’t asked to return. Warren Skaaren worked for Tim Burton rewriting Beetlejuice and performed a similar job Tom Mankiewicz did on Superman and his arbitration to get screenplay credit went through as he demonstrated that he changed much of Hamm’s original script. I believe the consensus was that Hamm was foregoing decent drama for the sake of being comic accurate, which Burton wasn’t that keen on maintaining. We can see what Burton thought of Hamm’s work when he has his draft for the sequel completely scrapped. People’s minds do like to change at the drop of a dime. There was a lot of praise for Matt Reeves’ The Batman when it came out but it quickly got turned on it’s face once it was available for home viewing with complaints about its length. It’s not the first or last time similar reactions have occurred but it’s definitely a testament to how the variety of interpretations of Batman creates a broader sense of appreciation of his mythos. I used to think only The Dark Knight interpretation of the character was the only way to go, but the Nolan movies proved to me that having him be the same kind of character makes him too boring. You need him to go through some development like what was intended to be for Michael Keaton’s Batman had he returned for Batman Forever. Most of that gets muddled since it’s another actor in the role, a mistake made again with Brandon Routh intended to be the same Christopher Reeve Superman. I doubt anything in this day and age will ever warrant being called “definitive.” You’re forgetting that the script was still worked on AFTER the strike began but before it ended. Hamm claims he didn’t want to do certain things so Burton brought in other writers who did. Writers who probably weren’t bound by the same guild restrictions. By the time the strike was over those changes were already made. Wether Hamm owns up to his own ideas being faulty it doesn’t change that he wasn’t the only one to work on the films script. As for people changing their minds at the drop of a dime…I’m not them. I’m speaking for myself and I’ve never changed my mind on that issue. Batman can be interpreted a lot of different ways. You may have thought differently at one time but I never didn’t. I’ve always understood that part of the characters appeal IS that he’s so malleable creatively. When I say “definitive” I mean in terms of quality and execution not necessarily WHICH interpretation of Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 1, 2023 12:37:00 GMT -5
Charles McKeown and Jonathan Gems were British writers initially brought on to carry on the rewriting process after Hamm was on strike. Their contributions weren’t significant enough to be credited.
With that thought process of acknowledging how malleable the character is, there is no chance at there being a definition of “definitive.” Something I’m looking forward to seeing soon is the new upcoming animated series Batman: Caped Crusader. It looks like they really nailed the initial Bob Kane look and atmosphere. I just don’t want to see the entire series played out like that. I hope that once Robin gets involved, they’ll want to be more like the vagina Sprang era and maybe even get into the Carmine Infantino era. The original Bruce Timm and co. animated series was trying to do it all at the same time and missed an opportunity like the one that is going to be presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2023 15:15:41 GMT -5
Chip in here with me thoughts, chaps! It's an unfair comparison because they are different genres......but LW2 is much better than Batman 89' IMHO. Batman 89' had so much hype going into it before release, that it was always going to struggle to live up to said hype in the minds of some(like me!). But much like it's chief competitor that heady summer , Last Crusade, it ended up being a champ for a lot of folks. But that hype ended up obscuring stuff like The Abyss and LW2, which had real meat to the bones, IMHO. I think Donner could have done a better job on all fronts compared to Burton, with Batman, if given the opportunity. The tone would have been radically different for sure. I was under impressed with Batman's action sequences ways back then.....they almost seemed quaint compared to what Donner was doing with LW2. Ok some of the fight choreography was decent in the Church sequence at the end.....but still ways too little for me. I could say something very controversial and admit that I am still waiting for a definitive Batman film to be made! Neither Burton at one end of the spectrum......or Nolan at the other, hit the jackpot for me. But granted....I am in the minority on that one! Most of Batman’s problems were at the script level. I think the 1988 writers strike hurt that movie more than we know. I’ve often wondered how much it affected a lot of movies that came out in 1989. A lot of people have similar issues with the writing in Ghostbusters 2 and Last Crusade. As for Batman’s action Burton has never been a guy known for shooting action well. The movie gets by (mostly thanks to its style and production design) but it wasn’t Burton’s strength. Combine that with an incredibly cumbersome and limiting suit and the action and fight scenes were going to have issues. Nolan wasn’t anything special with fight scenes either. I agree that we haven’t seen the definitive Batman movie yet. Many of them do some things incredibly well but in other areas they have their weaknesses. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive Batman actor or performance yet either. There was an interview with the screenwriter who came in at the last minute to totally 'fix' Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas"--- but was annoyed that half of it was already finished even with a page one rewrite- so that things had to be shoehorned in.... but had also mentioned it wasn't the first time that problems weren't fixed on a script level on a Burton script before diving ahead. At first, I thought it was psychotic.... to not iron everything out (as much as possible) - but then after listening to endless directors' commentaries on movies- it seems like 'fixing whole scripts on the fly' -while costly- seems more the norm than the exception.  In Batman '89's case..... I forget if it was a Premiere magazine article or other magazine that said the script initially had a lot less Nicholson- until Nicholson made himself more available- then, the script was bent to include more of him- but, the story doesn't really follow that much of a straight line and the story logic isn't really all there with his appearances. I was thrilled with Batman's success.... mostly because it meant the possibility of more superhero films hopefully getting made, but less so for Batman '89 itself. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2023 15:20:57 GMT -5
Charles McKeown and Jonathan Gems were British writers initially brought on to carry on the rewriting process after Hamm was on strike. Their contributions weren’t significant enough to be credited. With that thought process of acknowledging how malleable the character is, there is no chance at there being a definition of “definitive.” Something I’m looking forward to seeing soon is the new upcoming animated series Batman: Caped Crusader. It looks like they really nailed the initial Bob Kane look and atmosphere. I just don’t want to see the entire series played out like that. I hope that once Robin gets involved, they’ll want to be more like the vagina Sprang era and maybe even get into the Carmine Infantino era. The original Bruce Timm and co. animated series was trying to do it all at the same time and missed an opportunity like the one that is going to be presented. When I think of 'definitive' movie or live action adaptation- I think of it as 'up to this point, which one carries the spirit the best of what I liked and felt most faithful to the best parts of it'--- That being the case, Reeve-Donner's Superman is the definitive (for me)- carried with an asterisk to the Singer-Routh Superman- which still doesn't get enough love for trying to bring it forward for Superman. With Batman- Batman Begins doesn't always choose the most favored approach to everything, but to right now- it carries the best elements (and inserts some as well) to the Batman origins, although the last 25 percent of the movie feels not as tight. But TDK for me is 110 percent and goes even further than what I would have wanted for a Batman movie. (Bizzarely, TDKR is -110 percent!) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 16:36:18 GMT -5
Charles McKeown and Jonathan Gems were British writers initially brought on to carry on the rewriting process after Hamm was on strike. Their contributions weren’t significant enough to be credited. They weren’t the only writers brought on board to continue to work on the script though. The bigger issue is the strike affected the series of events during the production and who was involved. If it hadn’t happened things may have gone differently creatively with different rewrites happening. Maybe by someone else. Maybe better. Maybe worse. Maybe no different. You can’t say for sure what would have happened. No one can. Also changes to a script even after shooting can also have a massive impact on a final product depending on what is done. We don’t even know for sure how r they could have been credited depending on the circumstances depending on what their contributions where and where exactly the line to for crediting them would be. Once again you missed the point or didn’t read what I wrote. When I said definitive I’m not talking about creatively or conceptually but in terms of the success of how well it’s executed WHATEVER direction they go in. The creative malleability of the character and what take someone goes with isn’t the main factor there. It’s dependent mostly on the talent level of the people involved, how well they do, and everything lining up to make the best film possible across the board. A great new different version of the Batman concept is still going to lead to a terrible film of the acting, direction, writing, etc. are poor. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 16:43:02 GMT -5
Most of Batman’s problems were at the script level. I think the 1988 writers strike hurt that movie more than we know. I’ve often wondered how much it affected a lot of movies that came out in 1989. A lot of people have similar issues with the writing in Ghostbusters 2 and Last Crusade. As for Batman’s action Burton has never been a guy known for shooting action well. The movie gets by (mostly thanks to its style and production design) but it wasn’t Burton’s strength. Combine that with an incredibly cumbersome and limiting suit and the action and fight scenes were going to have issues. Nolan wasn’t anything special with fight scenes either. I agree that we haven’t seen the definitive Batman movie yet. Many of them do some things incredibly well but in other areas they have their weaknesses. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive Batman actor or performance yet either. There was an interview with the screenwriter who came in at the last minute to totally 'fix' Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas"--- but was annoyed that half of it was already finished even with a page one rewrite- so that things had to be shoehorned in.... but had also mentioned it wasn't the first time that problems weren't fixed on a script level on a Burton script before diving ahead. At first, I thought it was psychotic.... to not iron everything out (as much as possible) - but then after listening to endless directors' commentaries on movies- it seems like 'fixing whole scripts on the fly' -while costly- seems more the norm than the exception. In Batman '89's case..... I forget if it was a Premiere magazine article or other magazine that said the script initially had a lot less Nicholson- until Nicholson made himself more available- then, the script was bent to include more of him- but, the story doesn't really follow that much of a straight line and the story logic isn't really all there with his appearances. I was thrilled with Batman's success.... mostly because it meant the possibility of more superhero films hopefully getting made, but less so for Batman '89 itself. That’s Hollywood for you. It seems absurd to do it that way with that much money on the line but when you look at some of the people involved at the top and their lack of talent, vision, foresight, and an abundance of ego it’s not really shocking. We hear about films being saved in post production but so many films continue to working on the script, even in significant ways, during shooting. How many times have we heard about movies deep into filming without a strong ending pinned down that everyone agrees on? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 16:54:57 GMT -5
Charles McKeown and Jonathan Gems were British writers initially brought on to carry on the rewriting process after Hamm was on strike. Their contributions weren’t significant enough to be credited. With that thought process of acknowledging how malleable the character is, there is no chance at there being a definition of “definitive.” Something I’m looking forward to seeing soon is the new upcoming animated series Batman: Caped Crusader. It looks like they really nailed the initial Bob Kane look and atmosphere. I just don’t want to see the entire series played out like that. I hope that once Robin gets involved, they’ll want to be more like the vagina Sprang era and maybe even get into the Carmine Infantino era. The original Bruce Timm and co. animated series was trying to do it all at the same time and missed an opportunity like the one that is going to be presented. When I think of 'definitive' movie or live action adaptation- I think of it as 'up to this point, which one carries the spirit the best of what I liked and felt most faithful to the best parts of it'--- That being the case, Reeve-Donner's Superman is the definitive (for me)- carried with an asterisk to the Singer-Routh Superman- which still doesn't get enough love for trying to bring it forward for Superman. With Batman- Batman Begins doesn't always choose the most favored approach to everything, but to right now- it carries the best elements (and inserts some as well) to the Batman origins, although the last 25 percent of the movie feels not as tight. But TDK for me is 110 percent and goes even further than what I would have wanted for a Batman movie. (Bizzarely, TDKR is -110 percent!) I think those are some great examples. What makes 1978’s Superman a lot of peoples definitive Superman movie isn’t just the creative direction they took the concept in but the quality of the final product. It’s better written better directed better acted than other versions of the character put on screen. The quality is the key. Even the casting was superior to what we would get later. The movie was good enough to get more viewers and fans to buy in. Same with The Dark Knight. It’s much of the same team behind Batman Begins but a lot of people believe they made an even better film with The Dark Knight. Zack Snyder could have made any version of a Superman movie he wanted but it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. He’s a poor storyteller. A poor actors director. I don’t think he understands fundamental storytelling concepts. OR… he just doesn’t care because that’s not what he prioritizes. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 2, 2023 8:39:30 GMT -5
Of course I read what you wrote. I responded to it. The problem is your questionable usage of the word “definitive.” crazy_asian_man is correctly defining the usage of the term that you’re broadly using.
I would appreciate your expertise on this matter, as I am conducting research project covering the pre-production of Batman ‘89. I would love to hear about these “other writers brought on board” during the strike that you claim to know.
The only real concrete evidence of the strike affecting the crafting of the screenplay was that Hamm and Burton were going up until the wire to figure out how to include Robin into the story, a mandate that was given by the producers. They banged their heads against the walls until they devised a way to include him. Subsequently, there was a question of lowering the budget and the solution to the matter was to completely cut out Robin, despite him being cast.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jun 2, 2023 11:31:15 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion for sure, regarding what constitutes a definitive representation of a character, but also as a film in general.
Timing is another key.
We all love STM(and SII- at least in my case!) not just because of all the elements that you folks have already underlined,but subliminally, also due to the contrast of said film(s) compared to everything else that was out there during the same period(sci fi/fantasy/super hero or any other genre).
With Batman, I would be lying if I did not say that Mat Reeve's version is quite a compelling watch.
If it had come out in 1989, or even as late as 2005, it would have probably been groundbreaking.
As is, in 2022/23, it's a great interpretation.....but it's nothing new from an overall movie going perspective.
Burton definitely pushed a few envelopes in 89'.....but it seems like we all agree there is a degree of uneveness to the whole presentation.
Personally, Keaton's still "my number one guy!", in terms of conveying what I think the idiosyncratic Wayne, juxtaposed against the "in the shadows" Batman would look and behave like.
But I wanted the environment to be similar to what Donner(or quite frankly , Lester too) had done for Supes(in terms of using some real locations).
Don't get me wrong....I actually love the artificial gothic look and ambience that Burton gave to the environment.....but with the entire story or film being set in said environment......a sense of claustrophobia emerged for me.
Maybe that was Burton's intention, but the film felt too monolithic for my likeing.
In the end, Nolan gave the environment, but not the character, at least for me,Bale lacked the psycological charisma of Keaton, ......I know for others it's the other way round!....or as CAM said, they prefer everything Nolan did.
So it's horses for courses!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 12:27:38 GMT -5
The Sam Hamm draft I thought did a pretty good job of including Robin at the tail end--- but I thought - though definitely imperfect - that "Batman Forever" did a great origin for Robin with the circus scene and parts of what followed with him and Bruce.
There's actually enough in "Batman Forever" that I enjoyed as a 'fantasy' version- though I'd probably much prefer a cut minus the campier elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 12:35:22 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion for sure, regarding what constitutes a definitive representation of a character, but also as a film in general. Timing is another key. We all love STM(and SII- at least in my case!) not just because of all the elements that you folks have already underlined,but subliminally, also due to the contrast of said film(s) compared to everything else that was out there during the same period(sci fi/fantasy/super hero or any other genre). With Batman, I would be lying if I did not say that Mat Reeve's version is quite a compelling watch. If it had come out in 1989, or even as late as 2005, it would have probably been groundbreaking. As is, in 2022/23, it's a great interpretation.....but it's nothing new from an overall movie going perspective. ..... In the end, Nolan gave the environment, but not the character, at least for me,Bale lacked the psycological charisma of Keaton, ......I know for others it's the other way round!....or as CAM said, they prefer everything Nolan did. So it's horses for courses! Great point that STM - at that time frame - wasn't just the definitive Superman movie, but the definitive COMIC BOOK movie as well! Also worth noting..... prior to STM- Star Wars: A New Hope was arguably the groundbreaker for 'boys adventure' films as giant box office- prior to that, it was Bond.... and it even got BOND to try to change it up to be more like Star Wars with the bizzare 'Moonraker'! What would have been interesting, is if the Salkinds would have also looked more towards Star Wars for Superman III rather than Richard Pryor for a 'fad to cash in on'--- but then again, I know he had Brainiac and Mxypytlik (Spelling?)- for SIII- so maybe it would have gone more Star Wars?.... but I forget what exactly were the forces that pulled it away from using that script... In any case- Lester would have done silly antics for SIII and not gone for more serious stuff. His heart was just too much into sight gags over serious superheroics. (Again, plastic man or shazam should have been his films instead of the superman series- or the Star Wars Holiday special.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 2, 2023 16:01:58 GMT -5
I’ve often heard the criticism of Superman III lacked the imagination of Return of the Jedi, released at the same time. Lucas could pull off feats like he did having an entire special effects company at his disposal while the Salkinds had to rely on veterans of the business to pull off their works. I believe there is also terms of delivering something at a lower budget than the first two to maximize their profits. Perhaps, if Superman III as it was, was a bigger head, they would’ve felt inclined to spend more money to produce something on the grander, cosmic scale. I think Salkind on the commentary mentioned how this wasn’t designed to be as epic as the first two, but more of an episode.
Ever since I first read that draft on the Internet, I never liked how unimportant Robin’s contribution to the story was. He didn’t really amount to anything since he only appeared in the last fourth of the movie and also gets knocked out cold by Batman when he pursues The Joker in the climax. It made a whole lot of sense later when Hamm revealed those details about how he was shoehorned into it. It felt more organic to have his eventual introduction be in the third film, despite another attempt to include him in Batman Returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 16:46:47 GMT -5
I’ve often heard the criticism of Superman III lacked the imagination of Return of the Jedi, released at the same time. Lucas could pull off feats like he did having an entire special effects company at his disposal while the Salkinds had to rely on veterans of the business to pull off their works. I believe there is also terms of delivering something at a lower budget than the first two to maximize their profits. Perhaps, if Superman III as it was, was a bigger head, they would’ve felt inclined to spend more money to produce something on the grander, cosmic scale. I think Salkind on the commentary mentioned how this wasn’t designed to be as epic as the first two, but more of an episode. Ever since I first read that draft on the Internet, I never liked how unimportant Robin’s contribution to the story was. He didn’t really amount to anything since he only appeared in the last fourth of the movie and also gets knocked out cold by Batman when he pursues The Joker in the climax. It made a whole lot of sense later when Hamm revealed those details about how he was shoehorned into it. It felt more organic to have his eventual introduction be in the third film, despite another attempt to include him in Batman Returns. Ilya Salkind mentioned on the SII commentary how he was having relationship troubles and might have gotten more involved creatively when Lester was doing his thing with SII- I get the feeling he was a bit burned out on Superman and more excited about Supergirl and other projects by then. On the other hand... Why would you NOT want to do an epic for SIII.... unless you just want to turn a profit by that time or see how expensive STM-SII was to make an epic? With Batman & Robin at the tail end.... I liked it because I assumed- 'This is a one and done adaptation'- (Sort of like how Excalibur was)- highlighting as many aspects as it could of the Batman story.... so, with that perspective, I really liked it- especially if most of the film was introducing Batman's origin and Joker's origin and the conflict. At the same time, if a trilogy was approved of, or if it was going to be a back to back Batman series- then, yeah, I would have saved Robin for later as well. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 19:58:48 GMT -5
Of course I read what you wrote. I responded to it. The problem is your questionable usage of the word “definitive.” crazy_asian_man is correctly defining the usage of the term that you’re broadly using. Clearly you didn’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said. I clearly laid out what I meant. I’m not using the term broadly. I’m using it accurately. You’re picking and choosing how YOU you want to interpret it. All the information is out there. Since you’re expert enough to be researching the films production shouldn’t you already know? I didn’t realize you were such a scholar to be undertaking such a project. What research project? Of what type? In association with whom? What are some of your previous works? I’d love to read/watch them. Since you are an expert of course… Missing the point. We’ll never know exactly how things would have turned out if the strike hadn’t happened since we aren’t omniscient. Who knows what scenarios would have played out if things had gone differently. We do know what we got and we do know it had some issues. Unless you’ve got a magic crystal ball that can tell us of things would have gone exactly the same or not. Maybe they would have maybe they wouldn’t have. We don’t know. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:05:29 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion for sure, regarding what constitutes a definitive representation of a character, but also as a film in general. Timing is another key. We all love STM(and SII- at least in my case!) not just because of all the elements that you folks have already underlined,but subliminally, also due to the contrast of said film(s) compared to everything else that was out there during the same period(sci fi/fantasy/super hero or any other genre). With Batman, I would be lying if I did not say that Mat Reeve's version is quite a compelling watch. If it had come out in 1989, or even as late as 2005, it would have probably been groundbreaking. As is, in 2022/23, it's a great interpretation.....but it's nothing new from an overall movie going perspective. Burton definitely pushed a few envelopes in 89'.....but it seems like we all agree there is a degree of uneveness to the whole presentation. Personally, Keaton's still "my number one guy!", in terms of conveying what I think the idiosyncratic Wayne, juxtaposed against the "in the shadows" Batman would look and behave like. But I wanted the environment to be similar to what Donner(or quite frankly , Lester too) had done for Supes(in terms of using some real locations). Don't get me wrong....I actually love the artificial gothic look and ambience that Burton gave to the environment.....but with the entire story or film being set in said environment......a sense of claustrophobia emerged for me. Maybe that was Burton's intention, but the film felt too monolithic for my likeing. In the end, Nolan gave the environment, but not the character, at least for me,Bale lacked the psycological charisma of Keaton, ......I know for others it's the other way round!....or as CAM said, they prefer everything Nolan did. So it's horses for courses! That’s a good point about timing. Most of the previous versions of Batman that worked were released at just the right time to tap into what was going on creatively and culturally. The same movies made at different points might not have been as successful. One of the big problems The Batman had to face is we’ve already seen so much, so many interpretations, some very recently. Also not enough time to let the hungers and anticipation for a new interpretation to grow. There was almost 20 years between West and Keaton. 8 years between Clooney and Bale. The window has been shrinking with every new take. Same with Superman. Now we’ve got several versions of these characters running concurrently. How much of an impact is that having? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:15:24 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion for sure, regarding what constitutes a definitive representation of a character, but also as a film in general. Timing is another key. We all love STM(and SII- at least in my case!) not just because of all the elements that you folks have already underlined,but subliminally, also due to the contrast of said film(s) compared to everything else that was out there during the same period(sci fi/fantasy/super hero or any other genre). With Batman, I would be lying if I did not say that Mat Reeve's version is quite a compelling watch. If it had come out in 1989, or even as late as 2005, it would have probably been groundbreaking. As is, in 2022/23, it's a great interpretation.....but it's nothing new from an overall movie going perspective. ..... In the end, Nolan gave the environment, but not the character, at least for me,Bale lacked the psycological charisma of Keaton, ......I know for others it's the other way round!....or as CAM said, they prefer everything Nolan did. So it's horses for courses! Great point that STM - at that time frame - wasn't just the definitive Superman movie, but the definitive COMIC BOOK movie as well! Also worth noting..... prior to STM- Star Wars: A New Hope was arguably the groundbreaker for 'boys adventure' films as giant box office- prior to that, it was Bond.... and it even got BOND to try to change it up to be more like Star Wars with the bizzare 'Moonraker'! What would have been interesting, is if the Salkinds would have also looked more towards Star Wars for Superman III rather than Richard Pryor for a 'fad to cash in on'--- but then again, I know he had Brainiac and Mxypytlik (Spelling?)- for SIII- so maybe it would have gone more Star Wars?.... but I forget what exactly were the forces that pulled it away from using that script... In any case- Lester would have done silly antics for SIII and not gone for more serious stuff. His heart was just too much into sight gags over serious superheroics. (Again, plastic man or shazam should have been his films instead of the superman series- or the Star Wars Holiday special. The problem with Bond is the franchise became less of a trend setter and more of a trend follower by the early 1970’s. Even before Star Wars they tried to follow the camp fad after it was fading, blaxploitation, sci fi, etc. Even when the film series was on the upswing with movies like Goldeneye and Casino Royale they were still being influenced by other films, filmmakers, and franchises of their eras. In the 60’s everyone else was trying to copy Bond not the other way around. By the late 70’s Star Wars was setting the trends that so many tried to follow. As for the Salkinds they were followers too but didn’t have the vision beyond that to do more on their own. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:17:53 GMT -5
I’ve often heard the criticism of Superman III lacked the imagination of Return of the Jedi, released at the same time. Lucas could pull off feats like he did having an entire special effects company at his disposal while the Salkinds had to rely on veterans of the business to pull off their works. I believe there is also terms of delivering something at a lower budget than the first two to maximize their profits. Perhaps, if Superman III as it was, was a bigger head, they would’ve felt inclined to spend more money to produce something on the grander, cosmic scale. I think Salkind on the commentary mentioned how this wasn’t designed to be as epic as the first two, but more of an episode. Ever since I first read that draft on the Internet, I never liked how unimportant Robin’s contribution to the story was. He didn’t really amount to anything since he only appeared in the last fourth of the movie and also gets knocked out cold by Batman when he pursues The Joker in the climax. It made a whole lot of sense later when Hamm revealed those details about how he was shoehorned into it. It felt more organic to have his eventual introduction be in the third film, despite another attempt to include him in Batman Returns. Ilya Salkind mentioned on the SII commentary how he was having relationship troubles and might have gotten more involved creatively when Lester was doing his thing with SII- I get the feeling he was a bit burned out on Superman and more excited about Supergirl and other projects by then. On the other hand... Why would you NOT want to do an epic for SIII.... unless you just want to turn a profit by that time or see how expensive STM-SII was to make an epic? With Batman & Robin at the tail end.... I liked it because I assumed- 'This is a one and done adaptation'- (Sort of like how Excalibur was)- highlighting as many aspects as it could of the Batman story.... so, with that perspective, I really liked it- especially if most of the film was introducing Batman's origin and Joker's origin and the conflict. At the same time, if a trilogy was approved of, or if it was going to be a back to back Batman series- then, yeah, I would have saved Robin for later as well. I think he’s right. I think they were more concerned with maximizing profits because they saw the diminishing returns coming. That meant Superman III was never going to be any bigger than it was despite Ilya’s early ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 3, 2023 7:03:12 GMT -5
That is a good point about this being treated as a “one and done” sort of deal. It just feels like you’re stacking too many of the cards in one deck trying to tackle both Batman and Robin’s origins in the same movie. I guess you can say that Forever ended up tackling just that but it felt better having that prior history of the first two films to drive that initial subplot of Two-Face saying Batman was “a killer too.” It’s a shame that Keaton at the time was unwilling to participate in the direction Joel Schumacher wanted to take. The upcoming Flash movie will likely give us a better sense of how looser Keaton could’ve played the part in that. What I’ve always heard was that his claustrophobia played a big part in his interpretation of the character with the suit he’s wearing in The Flash, it looks like it was built for his comfort, and that will definitely affect his performance.
Salkind and co. wanted their Superman franchise to print money like the Bond franchise did for Saltzman and Broccoli as those films’ box office intake grew exponentially. They should have also paid attention to how the Bond films didn’t start off with extravagant budgets that killed the profitability of the Superman franchise. You can also factor in the competition by the point they came into the game. They seemed pretty confident that they could beat Raiders of the Lost Ark based on the performance of 1941, but got proven wrong when it outgrossed Superman II despite having a stronger opening weekend. They really should’ve kept these films as Christmas releases instead of summer releases.
The Batman suited the hunger and anticipation I felt after seeing The Dark Knight. Everyone was excited and eager to see this interpretation carry on with the approach they took to portraying the villains. We were all colored, surprised when it was announced that everything would end with The Dark Knight Rises and how the movie literally opened with the detail that Batman outright quit after the events of The Dark Knight. Nolan was trying to wrap everything up too tightly and I guess in retrospect, you can’t blame him after the death of Heath Ledger, but it’s definitely a franchise I would have liked to of seen continue, and the next best thing is going to be whatever else Matt Reeve comes up with.
That’s typically have a response works. The deal is that it’s easier to consider someone like Christopher Reeve to be “definitive” because there are no other factors or interpretations preceding it to contradict it. Reeve’s authoritative performance as Superman was in line with George Reeves. Where he deferred was the interpretation of Clark Kent, a bit of contention depending on who you ask. I personally think that in the Donner scenes of Superman II, Reeve was playing it way too broadly bumping and crashing into doors and failing to place his hat and coat on the rack. At least Lester gave him a bit of smoothness when he casually threw his hat onto the rack. Michael Keaton got a bad rap because he was considered unusual casting. Fans thought it was justifiable means to point out his receding hairline while failing to notice that Adam West had pretty thin hair as well.
Sounds like you can’t back up your own statements and you underestimated who you’re talking to. I’ve collected a lot of script notes, treatments and documents over the years and a big part of that pertains to Warren Skarren’s involvement with the project. I was also working on detailing Mario Puzo’s initial drafts for Superman until Caped Wonder decided to leak them out. I still have more material to present that they apparently didn’t get a hold of. Lesson to learn here is be careful who you smartass here on the Internet.
Your reason is too broad of a concept. Of course things would be different if one element was changed. You have to deal with what happened and not what COULD have happened. This all remains irrelevant because the first draft of the script was completed by 1986. Hamm completed his third draft by the time the strike started and the subsequent drafts were handled by the aftermentioned British writers and once the strike was over, Skarren was brought on to revise the movie to suit the parties involved with production.
|
|
