Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[DiFabio]

Is this a first?

Hell no, we've agreed in the past.

 

[Maglor]

Indeed. It's just extra special when a perceived disagreement can dissipate through clear communication.

 

[haytil]

lol, there is a right answer, and those of us who lived through those movies and in that decade know the truth:

They're the same series and the same continuity. That was always the intent, and the concept of a "reboot" (much less a "soft reboot") wasn't a thing in Hollywood at the time. They were written as such, they were made as such, they were sold as such, and they were discussed as such.

They have the same actors and the same background. They even connect, storywise, and rely upon each other. Bruce trying to convince **** not to seek revenge against Two-Face, because it's meaningless? That whole speech only makes sense in the context of Bruce having found and killed his parents' killer (the Joker) in the first movie.

Now, because the Schumacher films suck and are of far less quality than the Burton films, it's easy to go back and say they're different series - so that one does not taint the other. And in truth, it's fine to personally disregard the films you do or do not like. But it's disingenuous and revisionist to pretend that history or artistic intent is different just because you, in your own head, want to disregard the lousier movies.

To do so would be no different than me saying "I don't like The Dark Knight, but I love Batman Begins - but it's OK, because they're not part of the same series. Rachel is even played by a different actress!"

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Batman Begins is the prequel to Batman 1989. It shows Jack's Joker card at the end!

The Dark Knight is a remake of '89 and the sequel to Batman Returns cuz Fox is like, "it will do fine against Catz". OMG CATWOMAN REFERENCE. Bruce Wayne also references his days as Michael Keaton when he says, "pls halp lucious, I can't turn my head".


Batman and Robin takes place 8 years after TDKR when Broos comes back from retirement and teams up with John Bloke to take on Arnold.



OMG THEY ALL CONNECT.

Poetry.

 

[TheFiend]

It sounds like a lot of us had similar feelings back in 92.

Crazy Batman horror film.

Only now - in the end.. do we understand.

I said it before, Returns is a movie that doesn't give a ****.

A genuinely whacked out Batman film.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jye4ever]

I said it before, Returns is a movie that doesn't give a ****.

A genuinely whacked out Batman film.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

Shreck's hair confirms your statement.

Imagine his hair in 1/6.

 

[Jay1138]

Returns kicks a**! Burton definitely made this in more his style. Danny Elfman was able to go wild with the score, one of his best. Wasn't a repeat of the previous music either.

I think that HT is gonna drag out any preview for these figures for a bit longer. Much as I want them.

 

[sallah]

To do so would be no different than me saying "I don't like The Dark Knight, but I love Batman Begins - but it's OK, because they're not part of the same series. Rachel is even played by a different actress!"

Actually, it is completely different.

The Dark Knight trilogy (regardless if actors changed) is all one series because it is one complete vision from one director- Christopher Nolan. That is his version of Batman, in characters, set, acting, story, etc. When you have one main driving creative force behind all 3 films, separating one out would not be the same thing at all.

Burton's Batman is the first 2 films, just the same as Nolan's is his 3 films and Schumacher's (regardless if he pulled things from Bruton's series) is his 2 films.

They didn't want to make Burton's third Batman since they wanted a "different direction" than what Burton was doing. So they went with Schumacher to get a lighter, more merchandise-friendly take on the character.... Everything was different and lighter, from a completely different creative vision... Separating out those from Burton is in no way shape or form the same thing as removing Dark Knight Rises from the Nolan trilogy.

Sallah

 

[punisher1974]

Actually, it is completely different.

The Dark Knight trilogy (regardless if actors changed) is all one series because it is one complete vision from one director- Christopher Nolan. That is his version of Batman, in characters, set, acting, story, etc. When you have one main driving creative force behind all 3 films, separating one out would not be the same thing at all.

Burton's Batman is the first 2 films, just the same as Nolan's is his 3 films and Schumacher's (regardless if he pulled things from Bruton's series) is his 2 films.

They didn't want to make Burton's third Batman since they wanted a "different direction" than what Burton was doing. So they went with Schumacher to get a lighter, more merchandise-friendly take on the character.... Everything was different and lighter, from a completely different creative vision... Separating out those from Burton is in no way shape or form the same thing as removing Dark Knight Rises from the Nolan trilogy.

Sallaj

Very true. If you look at Keaton's Batman he is very much in pain over his parents death and is Bat**** crazy. I really liked that aspect to his version of the character. The Schumacher version would be more a progression of the Adam West Batman.

 

[DiFabio]

Sallah gets it.

Nothing "revisionist" about it, and we did live through that era of films. I did anyway.

Are there story references to the Burton films, sure, but Schumacher was brought in to make a new version, his version, of the character. He brought in new writers, new artists, new actors, new characterizations, etc. He sought to "sex up" Batman and make a living comic book, very different from the first two films.


Look at the James Bond films with Daniel Craig. Those are considered "reboots" yet actors from the previous series return (like M for instance) are there and they make several references to the older films. Batman Forever is no different.

Fans that don't think the Schumacher films are canon or part of the same universe aren't saying so because the Schumacher films are bad, they're saying so because they're jarringly different in tone and structure. They don't even have similar openings. I don't remember Burton's Batman films opening with crappy computer graphic typography of text flying across the screen, or suit up shots that show off Batman's anatomy and then making a quip before he drives off.

 

[Maglor]

Look at the James Bond films with Daniel Craig. Those are considered "reboots" yet actors from the previous series return (like M for instance) are there and they make several references to the older films.

I absolutely despise that about the new Bond movies. Makes it as confusing as ****.

 

[DiFabio]

Yeah, it's crazy.

I tend to look at each film as it's own entity anyway. Whether it's Batman, Batman Begins, Star Wars, Terminator, Robocop, Bond or what have you, I judge and perceive the film and story based on the the time it was made. There are even discrepancies with sequels where the same cast and crew return. Just look at the differences of the worlds between Batman and Batman Returns.

For the most part, The only series with a concise canon or in film universe is Lord of The Rings in my opinion.

 

[DGTWoodward]

Of course artistically DiFabio and Sallah are both correct...they are totally different, worlds apart in fact. Sadly though, art is not something that makes its way into film making too often these days (and that really is a great shame).

So, I am confused.

I can understand that the argument that it is "one vision, one story and it does not matter who played Rachel" can be used to justify your stance. That makes perfect sense to me, I get it.

However, what I don't get at all is that you seem to be ignoring the fact that it also justifies the 'Pat Hingle played Gordon and Michael Gough played Alfred in all four movies so it too is supposed to be taken as one collective series' approach just as well as it does Nolan's.

As much as folks don't like it, and would prefer it to be different, that's the way it is. It's a cake that only cuts the one way, even by your own reasoning.

 

[sallah]

Of course artistically DiFabio and Sallah are both correct...they are totally different, worlds apart in fact. Sadly though, art is not something that makes its way into film making too often these days (and that really is a great shame).

So, I am confused.

I can understand that the argument that it is "one vision, one story and it does not matter who played Rachel" can be used to justify your stance. That makes perfect sense to me, I get it.

However, what I don't get at all is that you seem to be ignoring the fact that it also justifies the 'Pat Hingle played Gordon and Michael Gough played Alfred in all four movies so it too is supposed to be taken as one collective series' approach just as well as it does Nolan's.

As much as folks don't like it, and would prefer it to be different, that's the way it is. It's a cake that only cuts the one way, even by your own reasoning.

You are both proving and disproving your point here...

The argument that "one vision, one story, and it does not matter who played who" is used to support the fact that all 3 Nolan films are one universe, regardless of the fact that 2 different people played Rachel.... with the flip side being that many actors remained the same (Bale, Oldman, Caine). The people playing the parts don't matter as much to the "vision" being played out. Should Nolan have eliminated Rachel when the actress didn't work out for the second film? Of course not. Nolan found a replacement to continue the vision of what he wanted to tell. This is why actors don't mean quite as much when you are talking about the "tone" and vision of a picture, since they are just tools a director is using to convey what he wants to an audience.

The same logic is applicable to the argument that Burton's and Schumacher's films are separate entities- "One vision, one story, and it does not matter who plays who" plays in quite well here. Does it matter that the same actors played Gordon and Alfred? Not really... since not having them come back wouldn't have changed Schumacher's vision... much the same way that not having Keaton back didn't stop his vision for Batman Forever, nor did having Kilmer gone for Batman & Robin stop that film from happening.

Actors are replacable... or they can stay the same. What matters is what the director envisions as his picture. The people playing the parts are just the brushes he uses to paint it. So actors matter little when separating these things. It is all about the driving force behind them: The director.

Sallah

 

[DGTWoodward]

You are both proving and disproving your point here...

The argument that "one vision, one story, and it does not matter who played who" is used to support the fact that all 3 Nolan films are one universe, regardless of the fact that 2 different people played Rachel.... with the flip side being that many actors remained the same (Bale, Oldman, Caine). The people playing the parts don't matter as much to the "vision" being played out. Should Nolan have eliminated Rachel when the actress didn't work out for the second film? Of course not. Nolan found a replacement to continue the vision of what he wanted to tell. This is why actors don't mean quite as much when you are talking about the "tone" and vision of a picture, since they are just tools a director is using to convey what he wants to an audience.

The same logic is applicable to the argument that Burton's and Schumacher's films are separate entities- "One vision, one story, and it does not matter who plays who" plays in quite well here. Does it matter that the same actors played Gordon and Alfred? Not really... since not having them come back wouldn't have changed Schumacher's vision... much the same way that not having Keaton back didn't stop his vision for Batman Forever, nor did having Kilmer gone for Batman & Robin stop that film from happening.

Actors are replacable... or they can stay the same. What matters is what the director envisions as his picture. The people playing the parts are just the brushes he uses to paint it. So actors matter little when separating these things. It is all about the driving force behind them: The director.

Sallah

These are the kind of high quality conversations that make older (though, as yet, sadly unfulfilled) threads like these still entertaining and relevant.

Great response Sallah, but the artistic vision you are referring to that is so apparent in the Nolan films, was severely hampered and heavily controlled by WB in pretty much all but B/Returns, which would scupper any longed for cohesion in the overall arc such as it is. So what does that leave you to use as a yardstick...?

Well, to begin with (and it never hurts to be a bit obvious) they were the third and fourth films in an already established sequence. I know that this seems to be the very point you are arguing but on a broader and more general scale, they all follow a theme when it comes to titles. Each is a progression on the previous, hence BATMAN, BATMAN...this, BATMAN...that and BATMAN...the other. As much as you may disagree, there is that progression present.

There is common perception. If you asked folks "How many BATMAN films were there in the sequence before Christian Bale took the role?" I'd bet you the answer would be "Four" from the majority, and not "Well there were two by Tim Burton, and there were two by Joel Schumacher" Would the vast majority of film goers even know a Schumacher from a Burton? I doubt it. As I watched them at the movies as they were released, I myself have always considered them to be of the same universe. Yes things look, artistically, vastly different in BF and B&R, but then if you want to use that argument you'd have to separate BATMAN from RETURNS anyway.

There also is (finally) how the movies were sold to the audience in the home entertainment market, as a series of four. They always were as such, and so they always will be.

 

[Ramatuelle]

So actors matter little when separating these things. It is all about the driving force behind them: The director.

I don't think so at all. Ask every Avenger aside from RDJ: I hear Marvel is threatening to replace at least some of them over demands for increases in their actually-quite-modest salaries. RDJ has it made, but none of the rest of them do. This after the blockbuster that "Avengers" was..... Marvel is notoriously cheap and it shows.

Do actors "matter little"? Let's do something like replace Hiddleston as Loki, and see what fans have to say about THAT.

Directors are important, but once fans are invested the actors are important too. With that said, did anyone really care about Katie Holmes' Rachel? Not me.... but that's just me. Holmes is not an attractive woman IMO, always appears like she has been up for the last 72 hours straight and is hungry to boot.

 

[The Iron Koob]

Gyllenhaal aint no better. Nolan had strange taste in women but Hathaway was a good choice.

Also, even I have to admit, it was a series of four. I always refer to the movies as Tim Burton's batman movies or Shumacher's movies just so people I talk to know there's a difference. But they were in the same continuity. That's why Batman Triumphant was going to have Scarecrow and not Joker

 

[Bo Shrek]

I don't know who finds "Gyllenhaal" attractive. She reminds me of "Miss Piggy".
In TDK when Joker crashes Wayne's party for Dent. Joker see's "Gyllenhaal" and says "Well Hello Gorgeous"! That's when I knew "The Joker" was truly crazy!!!

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

I don't know who finds "Gyllenhaal" attractive. She reminds me of "Miss Piggy".
In TDK when Joker crashes Wayne's party for Dent. Joker see's "Gyllenhaal" and says "Well Hello Gorgeous"! That's when I knew "The Joker" was truly crazy!!!

Maggie can scrub up ok sometimes, but I know what you mean.. she's a good actress though.

Katie Holmes on the other hand, is a lightweight in comparison. She's such a cutie though, that I looked right past that.

She did ok FWIW IMO.

 

[sallah]

I don't think so at all. Ask every Avenger aside from RDJ: I hear Marvel is threatening to replace at least some of them over demands for increases in their actually-quite-modest salaries. RDJ has it made, but none of the rest of them do. This after the blockbuster that "Avengers" was..... Marvel is notoriously cheap and it shows.

Do actors "matter little"? Let's do something like replace Hiddleston as Loki, and see what fans have to say about THAT.

Directors are important, but once fans are invested the actors are important too. With that said, did anyone really care about Katie Holmes' Rachel? Not me.... but that's just me. Holmes is not an attractive woman IMO, always appears like she has been up for the last 72 hours straight and is hungry to boot.

That isn't what I am saying at all... What I am saying is that an actor isn't usual the driving force behind the vision of the film (unless of course he happens to also be the director). Actors are usually a director's choice, and therefore a part of his vision. So yes... Without the director's vision, the actor matters little. It is when the director chooses the right actor for a role that magic happens.

Without that directors guiding force and vision though... You can be the greatest actor in the world and just be sitting there treading water. That is why a film is usually only as good as its director. Just about every choice in that movie involves him or her in some way. One mistake, one bad choice in bringing their vision to reality... And it can all fall apart.

Sallah