Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[sallah]

Hot Toys just needs to announce something for this line so we can stop giving the Schumacher films more attention than they deserve in this thread...

Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

I bet Hot Toys confiscates all the damaged Batmobiles, refurbishes them and puts out an all "new" Returns version!

 

[sallah]

I bet Hot Toys confiscates all the damaged Batmobiles, refurbishes them and puts out an all "new" Returns version!

Using that pic would imply too strongly that a Batman Returns figure was coming to put in the driver's seat... Can't have that now, can we? After all, that line was only announced 19 months or so ago. Way too soon for teaser pics... Close it up!





Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

True, true.

I know you're sitting on a stash of photo goodies after seeing that press kit write up entry on batman1989.com. These blew me away,

I saw them before, but never in that quality. Your watermarks were tastefully done too, nothing obnoxious about them. Great stuff.

 

[Ninjaknight]

Imagine a new Hot Toys Returns Batmobile with a Bat-Missile mode!

 

[sallah]

True, true.

I know you're sitting on a stash of photo goodies after seeing that press kit write up entry on 1989batman.com. These blew me away,

I saw them before, but never in that quality. Your watermarks were tastefully done too, nothing obnoxious about them. Great stuff.

Hey, thanks man! I tried my best to keep the watermarking to a minimum... so I am glad to hear it wasn't too obtrusive. You picked some of my favs there too... The "mob" Joker at the table and the 2 behind-the-scenes shots ranked pretty high for me, along with these-





BTW DiFab- Those last 2 are bigger versions than the ones in my blog post if you want to save them.

Sallah

 

[jye4ever]

Ummm

like

WOW

 

[DiFabio]

Yeah, those two are great as well. There are a lot of "shadow" obscured shots of Batman for the first film, the ones that aren't, like the one above, are always cool. Then that Museum one could very well be the take where Joker says, "Well, GO ASK HIM" after the "wonderful toys" line.

As for water marks, years and years ago I went through a phase where I'd obnoxiously put my name all over rare things that I owned. I didn't have any cooth or design sense in how I handled it and didn't even make a logo to boot. Since then I've learned but I have noticed recently that a lot of people do the same thing. Ihate that when the focal point is someone's watermark like, "hey, these are mine" instead of something subtle and highly opaqued.

Like I said, yours are tastefully done. I'm glad you shared them, they're fantastic. Can't wait to see what else you have up your sleeve.



You've seen this one right?

As a kid I always loved that in the comic adaptation but never thought for a second that they actually filmed it.

 

[sallah]

Yeah, those two are great as well. There are a lot of "shadow" obscured shots of Batman for the first film, the ones that aren't, like the one above, are always cool. Then that Museum one could very well be the take where Joker says, "Well, GO ASK HIM" after the "wonderful toys" line.

Yeah, the Batman shot impresses me because he just looks so big and imposing there without the suit appearing to be made up of "fake bulk" (like some of the later bat-suits do). That first suit truly was amazing work. Put that shot side-by-side with a publicity still of Keaton as Wayne and it is like night and day... Literally!

And there's just something about Joker's face in that balcony shot. Again, a testament to the work that went into the film. Never once do I think about it being makeup when I see a shot like that. It is just Joker. Period.

As for water marks, years and years ago I went through a phase where I'd obnoxiously put my name all over rare things that I owned. I didn't have any cooth or design sense in how I handled it and didn't even make a logo to boot. Since then I've learned but I have noticed recently that a lot of people do the same thing. Ihate that when the focal point is someone's watermark like, "hey, these are mine" instead of something subtle and highly opaqued.

I really appreciate that man. I ordinarily don't even watermark stuff, as I feel everybody should get a chance to enjoy this stuff the same way as me.... I only did it this time because it was part of the deal I stated when I purchased the set from the guy- That I not make them available in an unaltered form on the page. I did my best to make them as close to the originals as I could while sticking to that.

You've seen this one right?

As a kid I always loved that in the comic adaptation but never thought for a second that they actually filmed it.

Yep! And I LOVE it. I too thought this scene was great in the adaption and was floored to find out it was actually filmed. Makes you wonder how it would have played out in the film though, since Batman has the cape for the final rooftop scene with the batsignal. If jettisoning the Knox scene made that closing moment happen, it was the right choice... I STILL to this day...even after so many years and hundreds of viewings... get chills at that scene.

But with stuff like this and the photo of the Joker statue being on the Pinewood set turning up fairly recently, it makes you wonder what other secrets are still lurking around from an almost 25 year old movie... Especially given the fact that it has never really gotten a "director's edition" or "DVD deleted scenes" treatment.

Sallah

 

[The Iron Koob]

Well I certainly just saved some photos

 

[kl241]

I bet Hot Toys confiscates all the damaged Batmobiles, refurbishes them and puts out an all "new" Returns version!

I wouldn't mind if they took the damaged ones though and turned them into Batmissiles.

 

[sallah]

Well I certainly just saved some photos

: Here is a link to my blog post with the whole lot if you want to check out more:

1989Batman.com Special Feature:
1989 Batman Press Kit & Publicity Photos

Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

The 25th anniversary is next year, that'd be fantastic if they released an all new DVD/Blu Ray set that included more goodies and an entire deleted scenes documentary.

It'd be even better if they put out a new comprehensive "making of" book for the film.

I won't get my hopes up though with how skimpy Warner Bros. is with their releases. Maybe someday more of these things will be released from the vault.

 

[sallah]

I won't get my hopes up though with how skimpy Warner Bros. is with their releases. Maybe someday more of these things will be released from the vault.

I know of a prototype book that was worked up for the 25th anniversary of '89... It would have been very much like one of the Abrams Books/ Becker Mayer "Vault" books (I worked on their Star Trek one... they are VERY cool if you haven't ever seen one), with loads of removable reproduction memorabilia (like press kit photos... ) and a whole new "Making of" portion.

But sadly, as you alluded, Warner had no interest in pursuing it further. They don't seem like they have any interest in doing anything for the 25th, and don't see any reason to market items for an older superhero film when they have their "new breed" on the horizon.

Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

I have the Batman and Star Wars vault books, they're very nice. I'd love to see one dedicated to Batman '89.

I don't see what Warner Bros. problem is, there's certainly enough interest for it. They even do the same thing with the modern Batman films by keeping most, if not all of the Heath Ledger Joker , deleted scenes and 2008 Dark Knight stuff in general under wraps in their "vaults". I just don't get it, most of this stuff would be easy money and there are tons of dedicated and passionate fans out there that would love to put together such a tribute.

It boggles the mind that out of the 7 Warner Bros. Batman films, only one of them has a portion focused on deleted scenes (Batman Forever). All the others (what little there are) are included in the documentaries with "blink and you'll miss it" sequences that aren't even discussed. I know personally I would have rather have seen the Knox scene than the one with the little girl.

 

[sallah]

It boggles the mind that out of the 7 Warner Bros. Batman films, only one of them has a portion focused on deleted scenes (Batman Forever). All the others (what little there are) are included in the documentaries with "blink and you'll miss it" sequences that aren't even discussed. I know personally I would have rather have seen the Knox scene than the one with the little girl.

Agreed... but I still jumped out of my seat when that scene popped up in the documentary! It was pretty crazy FINALLY seeing a scene I had wondered about since spotting it in the trading card set at 11 years old back in '89...

I honestly cannot believe Warner hasn't ever released them. I think back to how much excitement folks had back in 1997 when the Star Wars Special Edition included deleted scenes from the original trilogy. Everybody went NUTS for that, and it was only a 20 year wait! Batman is pushing 25... Come on Warner! Give 'em up!

Sallah

 

[batfan08]

Warner Bros. are serious **** ups when it comes to the way they handle Batman on home video. I agree with DiFabio that there's so much potential, and they blow it. I want to see deleted scenes, it adds a feel of completion, in my opinion, but they refuse to do it for 89, and they refuse to do it for most of the subsequent films (that ****ty "Dark Knight Trilogy" Ultimate Collector's Edition left me with very little respect for them).

Personally, I would buy the hell out of a "25th anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition of 89 with all of the stuff you guys mentioned, and a Vault book. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand WB's mindset.

 

[haytil]

Do you have the DVD/Blu Ray sets? Look at what the documentary is called for the Batman Forever feature. It's titled, Shadows of the Bat: The Cinematic Saga of the Dark Knight - Reinventing a Hero

Modern-day equivocation is meaningless, you need original source material from the era of the film.

It's just like people who argue that George Lucas always had a "vision" for a Star Wars saga - a trilogy (and later two trilogies, and then three trilogies), just because Lucas has gone back and said that was always his plan - when the fact is that all actual evidence from the era shows "Star Wars" was a one-off, before becoming an evolving series that was constantly changing in intent and scope, rather than being born of any kind of master plan.

Maglor is 100% on point and correct in this manner.

Sorry DiFabio, but with all the mental twisting and contortions you've been going through to try and make your point stick, I hope you don't end up pulling a muscle.

I really appreciate that man. I ordinarily don't even watermark stuff, as I feel everybody should get a chance to enjoy this stuff the same way as me.... I only did it this time because it was part of the deal I stated when I purchased the set from the guy- That I not make them available in an unaltered form on the page. I did my best to make them as close to the originals as I could while sticking to that.

I was going to take you to task for the watermarking, but I guess it wasn't your fault - seems like the guy who gave them to you is a bit of a control freak?

In general, I can't stand when people feel the need to watermark ****, as if they're going to lose out on some fundamental credit or money unless they do (who do they think they're fooling?). If someone wants to share something, for the joy of it and for the fandom, then they should do it unreservedly, rather than staining a historical document with their photoshop graffiti. It adds nothing and often takes away from the image.

 

[sallah]

I was going to take you to task for the watermarking, but I guess it wasn't your fault - seems like the guy who gave them to you is a bit of a control freak?

In general, I can't stand when people feel the need to watermark ****, as if they're going to lose out on some fundamental credit or money unless they do (who do they think they're fooling?). If someone wants to share something, for the joy of it and for the fandom, then they should do it unreservedly, rather than staining a historical document with their photoshop graffiti. It adds nothing and often takes away from the image.

That is usually my stance- Share it unaltered. Let people get the same enjoyment I got.

With these though, the circumstance was that preserving the originals was important to the original owner... which lead me to the watermark decision. It isn't something I usually agree with... But with the alternative being not posting them and nobody getting to enjoy them, I went with it, but I tried to make them as subtle as I could while still being considered "watermarks".

Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

Modern-day equivocation is meaningless, you need original source material from the era of the film.

It's just like people who argue that George Lucas always had a "vision" for a Star Wars saga - a trilogy (and later two trilogies, and then three trilogies), just because Lucas has gone back and said that was always his plan - when the fact is that all actual evidence from the era shows "Star Wars" was a one-off, before becoming an evolving series that was constantly changing in intent and scope, rather than being born of any kind of master plan.

Maglor is 100% on point and correct in this manner.

Sorry DiFabio, but with all the mental twisting and contortions you've been going through to try and make your point stick, I hope you don't end up pulling a muscle.

Go on ebay and grab this,

Schumacher says the same thing in there as well as Akiva Goldsman. In fact, most of the article is them differentiating themselves from what came before. They mention how their Batman doesn't kill (they spend a lot of time on that notion). They mention how different they made "their" Bruce Wayne/Batman from Burton, the comics, and the tv series (even saying the 60s Batman isn't "their Batman"). They use words like "new", "fresh", "reinvent". They talk about how the Batman mythology is constantly changing and how "their Batman" isn't necessarily the original Bob Kane creation, or the 60s show, or Burton or Frank Miller. Hell, take out "Schumacher" and "Goldsman" and that could easily be quotes from 2004 for Batman Begins by Nolan and Goyer.

Here are some direct quotes, wish I had scans.




"The idea that Batman has gone through different incarnations was the jumping off point for Schumacher to take the character in a new direction."

"I approached it this way: the artists and storytellers always pay homage to the past, but create their own comic book and version of the character. That's what I tried to do."

"Joel and I really had some clear ideas about how to let our Batman live again and differently. Our attempt is to revisit the myth in a way that is again different, and yet a little familiar with everything that has come before".

"I think we were pretty strenuous in terms of trying to understand and re imagine and examine the character".

"Schumacher's effort at re-inventing Batman was aided by recasting the lead role. I fantasized about having Val as Bruce/Batman after watching Tombstone while Keaton was in negotiations."







You know what's also in that issue? A "Farewell" to Batman Returns with a dedicated "making of" feature inside.





Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly about Lucas not having it "all in his head" in the 70s. None of that prequel stuff was how it was "meant to be" story wise and even Luke and Leia weren't originally brother and sister. He made it up as he went along.

That has nothing to do with this argument though. Schumacher's movies were his own imagining of the character, re-invented. A "soft reboot", but a reboot nonetheless. Even if the term didn't exist until the 2000s for movies, that is what Warner Bros. and Schumacher had done back in 1994/1995.