Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[sallah]

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.

Totally agreed. The reason it wasn't called a "reboot" back then is because that term wasn't used for movie franchises in the 90's like it is now. "Reboot" as a term in film didn't start being used until the early 2000's, with films like "Punisher" and "Batman Begins". Up until that point, they were just "sequels", regardless of how much or little they had to do with their predecessors.

Nobody would have known what they heck they meant if they said-

"Yeah we have a new Batman movie coming in 1995... It is a reboot of the franchise with a new director, new stars, and a brand new take on the character".

Everybody would have said "what's a reboot?".

But say this...

"Yeah we have a new Batman movie coming in 1995... It is another film in the franchise with a new director, new star, and a brand new take on the character".

...and nobody "bats" an eye. The reason is that reboots weren't a "thing". Sequels were. So regardless of it being a new vision, a new imaging, and whole different direction for movie Batman, it got labeled as a sequel... because that is a term mid-90's audiences understood.

Schumacher's films have VERY clear and major differences from the Burton films and only borrow from their predecessors VERY loosely (you'll also noticed that they aren't numbered... They aren't 3 and 4 in a series, they are "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin", at a time when most sequels were numbered). Had this film come out in 2004 instead of 1995, it most definitely would have been labeled "reboot" in my eyes.

So to me-

Burton-verse: Batman (1989) and Batman Returns
Schumacher-verse: Batman Forever and Batman & Robin
Nolan-verse: Batman Begins, Dark Knight, and Dark Knight Rises

3 separate cinematic Batman universes.

Sallah

 

[DiFabio]

Yup, exactly.


And they refer to it as a "re-invention" ALOT. How is that not a "reboot" in some 90s way? You're re-inventing the wheel, making something a-new, making it your own. If it's such the sequel it is in a canon, continuity "this is the same universe" sort of way, why are Schumacher and Co. so anxious to describe it as it's own thing? "Their" thing? Schumacher even says, "I'm making MY version, my own comic book".

That magazine even mentions how Forever is essentially a remake of Returns.

"For all the scripts attempts at re-inventing the series, the filmmakers have, apparently without realizing it, remade the second film."

Hell, it even mentions that Schumacher had absolutely no intention on bringing Billy Dee Williams back (who was anxiously waiting for the call) and always intended to use Tommy Lee Jones for "his" Harvey.


I don't even get what we're all arguing about here.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

They were cancelled.

Hot Toys figured that the Burton films and Schumacher films were one in the same and decided to develop Batman Forever figures instead.

Coming Soon December 2018

I hope I don't get a damaged blue neon glow, Burtonmobile.

I don't know about all that..

..but I wouldn't mind a BF / B&R themed dart board to tie me over till the Burton stuff is announced; one side with Schumacher's face, & the other Alicia Silverstone's.

 

[sallah]

I don't know about all that..

..but I wouldn't mind a BF / B&R themed dart board; one side with Schumacherl's face, & the other Alicia Silverstone's.

I have said it before, but I actually would be totally in for a Riddler and Robin from Forever... but not until after they are done with '89 & Returns.

Sallah

 

[clot501517]

I'm only really interested in the Catwoman figure & those little commando penguin!

 

[jye4ever]

Sallah

great photos and website link.

you run that joint.

 

[sallah]

Sallah

great photos and website link.

you run that joint.

Thanks jye! And yup... That is my page.

Sallah

 

[Chuck72586]

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.

Yea, I'd love to see a new blu-ray with some more bonus features. The documentary on the original dvd/blu-ray is already pretty good, but there's a pretty glaring omission in the cast interviews with no Michael Keaton. Maybe they could get him and Burton for a chat about the film and maybe a new commentary. Maybe even throw Michael Uslan in there as well. But they really need to try and get Keaton on board for some new interviews.

 

[jye4ever]

Thanks jye! And yup... That is my page.

Sallah

Just amazing, I am excited to go thru it and enjoy all your hard word and dedication, good stuff.

Love Robert Wuhl, sems like such a funny down to earth dude.

Her question of why is "Hollywood so attracted to comic book charaters right now" made me laugh.

She described 2013 so perfectly.

Did you listen to the Entertainment Tonight clip when Mary Hart says: "The movie Batman Begins" its caped crusade when it opens in theaters.

That behind the scenes making clip was epic, great find.

 

[jye4ever]

Yea, I'd love to see a new blu-ray with some more bonus features. The documentary on the original dvd/blu-ray is already pretty good, but there's a pretty glaring omission in the cast interviews with no Michael Keaton. Maybe they could get him and Burton for a chat about the film and maybe a new commentary.Maybe even throw Michael Uslan in there as well. But they really need to try and get Keaton on board for some new interviews.

Keaton is too busy with Robocop.

 

[Chuck72586]

Keaton is too busy with Robocop.

That has to be pretty close to wrapping isn't it?

 

[jye4ever]

That has to be pretty close to wrapping isn't it?

That movie will need reshoots.

 

[Maglor]

Wrong.

Anton Furst's vision. Also nothing flamboyant about it.




Except we're talking about story and continuity.

This beauty doesn't just change from this,

To these,

Overnight. That's sort of insulting.





Well, if "long hood, flamboyant" designs are similar/the same enough, couldn't I say that the Furst Batmobile and Tumbler are both black with pod-like vehicles that emerge from them and that they both reflect a "director's vision"?

1) I'm not saying the '89 Batmobile is flamboyant. Not in the slightest. There will never be a Batmobile that I love as much.

2) I'm saying the Forever (and to a lesser extent the B&R) Batmobiles are flamboyant bastardizations of the Anton Furst version.

I feel this is objectively true. The stretched hood, the basic shape of the fenders, the fins on the rear fender, etc.

You're just being distracted by the lights and the extra fin on top.

The Batman and Robin car is just the next stage in the evolution. It's still got the curved fenders, the long stretch hood, and the cockpit way in the back, but it's mostly it's own thing.

 

[jye4ever]

I took a still shot from one of the video clips on sallah's amazing website:

[URL=https://s1244.photobucket.com/user/lolzcat1/media/image.jpg.html] [/URL]

 

[Cocoboloboy]

2) I'm saying the Forever (and to a lesser extent the B&R) Batmobiles are flamboyant bastardizations of the Anton Furst version.

I feel this is objectively true. The stretched hood, the basic shape of the fenders, the fins on the rear fender, etc.

I've always felt this was true too. It's just really obvious.

 

[Maglor]

DiFabio, I respect your opinion, I really do. I even sympathize with it. I personally enjoy the first two Burton movies way more than the last two Schumacher movies in the series. Just like with Superman III and IV, I'd rather the series ended after the first couple of films than shift so dramatically....and in my personal canon, I can and do often ignore those films.

But my personal canon is different than the quote unquote "official" canon. Dunno if you're a big comic reader, but here's an analogy: just like we are perfectly free to personally ignore comic stories that seem way out of character or even DIRECTLY contradict some details of previous issues by other artists/writers...it doesn't change the fact that they are meant to all happen in the same universe. To take it further, I was trying to make a distiction between "vision" and "visuals" a few times but I think you think I'm only talking about "visuals." They are two different things in the context that I mean here. The style of the Batsuit, the Batmobile, Gotham etc, certainly can help or distract from creating a visual link to the styles that came before. But at ultimately a directors visuals are subjective and just superficial when compared to his vision. And by vision I don't mean how things look at all. Christopher Nolan's vision for The Dark Knight wasn't dependent on Maggie Gyllenhaal looking exactly like Katie Holmes, nor was Jon Favreaus vision for Iron Man 2 dependent on Terrence Howard coming back, even though Col Rhodes/ War Machine is a pretty important character for the story he wanted to tell. And that is what I mean by vision...simply what is left when you strip away all the surface layers, of who plays Batman, how the suit is designed, what the Batmobile or the city looks like. Schumacher's vision for Batman Forever, was to tell a story of a Bruce Wayne, who, consistent with the character progression of the previous films was trying to come to grips with his pain, and in the end, is totally accepting of his status as Batman. In Batman '89 it's something that he "has to do"....In Batman Returns he refers to being Batman and Bruce Wayne as being "split down the center"....and in Batman Forever, (spurred on by the competing interests of mentoring Robin as Batman, and loving Chase as Bruce Wayne---distilled in the final death trap scene) he finally progresses to fully accepting his role as both Batman and Bruce Wayne. "Not because I have to be, because I choose to be."

Batman Forever is actually a pretty solid Batman story that shows real character growth/progression of the same character first handled by Keaton and Burton. With some less "flamboyant" visuals and some better dialogue, and maybe if all the props, sets and costumes looked more like they did in Batman Returns, it might've been much easier for people to see past the surface visuals...to the vision.

This is a beautiful post. I agree with every single word. It reminds me of the reasons I think Forever is actually a decent movie in addition to being the next film in a series.

That said, like you, I prefer the first two films. And as I've said a couple times, when I watch them, I am not thinking about where the character goes from there. On the other hand, when I watch Forever, I like the growth of the character. A friend of mine actually likes Forever the most out of the series because of said growth.

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.




...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.

Yup, exactly.


And they refer to it as a "re-invention" ALOT. How is that not a "reboot" in some 90s way? You're re-inventing the wheel, making something a-new, making it your own. If it's such the sequel it is in a canon, continuity "this is the same universe" sort of way, why are Schumacher and Co. so anxious to describe it as it's own thing? "Their" thing? Schumacher even says, "I'm making MY version, my own comic book".

Those quotes are interesting, but they don't make this an open and shut case.

I'm a sceptic by nature, so I inherently suspect some "quote mining", meaning if I read the whole article, I might get a very different impression than the one you are presenting. Please don't take offense at that, it's nothing personal, it's just the way my mind works.

But lets say those quotes accurately represent the whole gist of the context; does it prove something? Not really. It likely just gives us a glimpse of one directors ego.

 

[Ropen]

If you guys want to discuss which movies you like better, write a book, every time I see a new post I have high hopes of seeing pictures or any confirmation for this line. The wait is killing me. That is all.

 

[haytil]

DiFabio, just look at the language you keep using. "Soft Reboot" and "Loose Sequel." The fact that you have to keep applying qualifiers (soft, loose) to your descriptions - even the need for quotation marks - shows how much you're having to stretch to make your arguments fit.

Either they're part of the same series or not. Either they're sequels or not. Either they're reboots or not.

If it's such the sequel it is in a canon, continuity "this is the same universe" sort of way, why are Schumacher and Co. so anxious to describe it as it's own thing?

Because a bunch of soccer moms got upset that their kids were being exposed to mature movie-making when they saw "Batman Returns," so Schumacher and the studio went out of their way to say "This is different," with the subtext being that it was "kid-friendly."

It was about money, not about artistic intent with respect to which cinematic universe it took place in.

Yes, it was different in tone and design. Nobody's arguing that (so I don't know why you keep pointing that out, as if it somehow bolsters your argument - it does not). But that doesn't mean they aren't part of the same series.

"Batman Begins" is a comic book movie. "The Dark Knight" is an urban crime drama. Same series, different tones.

"Wrath of Khan" is an action movie. "The Voyage Home" is a comedy. "The Undiscovered Country" is a political/cold-war thriller. Same series, different tones.

That magazine even mentions how Forever is essentially a remake of Returns.

"For all the scripts attempts at re-inventing the series, the filmmakers have, apparently without realizing it, remade the second film."

And that should tell you right there that the magazine is not a credible historical source or insight into artistic intent, it's marketing fluff - because nobody in their right mind, back then or today, would be able to make the argument that "Batman Forever" is a remake of "Batman Returns."

(Or even if it was, as you now seem to be arguing, then is it a reboot or not? Because if it's a remake of "Batman Returns," which was the sequel to "Batman," but it's not a remake of "Batman," then that would mean it was part of the same series of "Batman" but not "Batman Returns." Lol. See how ridiculous your arguments are becoming? You're trapped in a web of your own logic)

I don't even get what we're all arguing about here.

We're arguing against the ridiculous statement that "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" were not part of the same movie series as "Batman" and "Batman Returns." It's an historical fact, not an opinion, and everybody knows it, but somehow you refuse to accept it, which shocks me.

Totally agreed. The reason it wasn't called a "reboot" back then is because that term wasn't used for movie franchises in the 90's like it is now. "Reboot" as a term in film didn't start being used until the early 2000's, with films like "Punisher" and "Batman Begins".

The reason it wasn't called a "reboot" wasn't just because that term didn't exist back then - it's because the concept itself didn't either, by any other name. The lack of the term "reboot" isn't just a terminology difference, it's a conceptual difference. There were no such things as reboots back then!

They aren't 3 and 4 in a series, they are "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin", at a time when most sequels were numbered).

Oh, I get it now. So that's why "Batman Returns" is from a different series than "Batman," since it's a reboot, because it's not called "Batman 2."

....Oh...

...oh.....wait....

 

[Burning Saber]

Batman Returns is my favorite Batman film. I loved and still love the very weirdness of it that makes it so different. I have also come to loath the Schumacher films, so I understand wanting to ignore the Schumacher films and consider them separate from the Burton films. But, the cold hard truth is they are connected. If nothing more than because WB perceived them and marketed them as such, then and now. They are the same series, the same franchise and they are considered to be one film with three sequels. Wanting them to be separate and trying to argue them as such is purely down to personal preference.
The differences in the four films (or two sets of films if you'd rather) are no different then when one creative team leaves a comic series and a new one takes over. The same differences that are seen in the films will be seen in the comic. Characters will change, motivations will be slightly different, settings will change depending on the artist and so on. Is this change in creative teams a soft reboot? No. It's a continuation of the same universe no matter how much or how little it may contradict what the previous creative team has established.
Batman Returns wasn't what WB wanted for the Batman franchise at that time so they hired Schumacher to take it in another direction. It wasn't a reboot, soft or otherwise. It was a continuation of the same franchise. Period. Take away the neon overload and the nipples and Forever actually works really well with Batman and Batman Returns (Batman & Robin should just never be mentioned). Had B&R been a better movie or better received that particular era of the franchise would have continued, eventually with another change in directors and creative personnel.
Why does Schumacher talk about the two films he did as his and not part of the Burton films? Because 3 and 4 are his films, he had nothing to do with the Burton films and no one would consider their work part of someone else's; BUT that doesn't change the fact that they are still part of the same franchise. It is no different then George Lazenby taking over for Sean Connery and making a completely different Bond film. Or when Roger Moore ultimately took over for Connery. It was still a continuation of the franchise. Batman to Batman & Robin is one franchise and therefore one continuity. Personally trying to separate them doesn't change that it is and always will be one franchise.

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Too many words..