| Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 12-11-2005 10:23 |
|
Gothamite
Blue Collared Worker
Awards:
None
| 
Posts: 476
Location: Gotham City
Joined: 29.07.05
 |
|
I've often heard people say that Batman Begins is the movie that should have been made in 1989 and that the movie Burton made should have been a sequel. I don't agree with this, however.
If Burton had done a 'training' movie, the audience would be confused when, an hour into the movie, Bruce emerges as a dark, brooding Batman, when the audience was so used to Adam West's silly portrayal. I think the 1989 movie had to made in order to explain just what this 'dark' Batman and his enemies could do. In a lot of ways, I look at 1989 as a 'warm-up' to the majesty of Batman Begins. A lot of people have lost their respect for 1989, saying that is too focused on pop culture and on Nicholson's Joker, rather than on Batman. While this might be true, it is still a great film that I haven't lost any respect for. We definitely wouldn't have Batman Begins if not for Batman 1989.
In the shadows I saw my destiny...
I would seek justice...
I would have my revenge... |
  |
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 12-11-2005 10:35 |
|
Phil
Vigilante
Awards:
|
Posts: 2061
Location: Gotham City
Joined: 30.07.05
|
|
we wudnt even have BTAS if it wasnt for b89. b89 is like the best thing that cud have ever happened. but b&r just messed it up. oh well..we're back on track!
http://batmanytb.com/pictures/thumbnails.php?album=4 |
 |
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 13-11-2005 15:36 |
|
|
Gothamite
Blue Collared Worker
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 476
Location: Gotham City
Joined: 29.07.05
|
|
|
Phil wrote:
we wudnt even have BTAS if it wasnt for b89. b89 is like the best thing that cud have ever happened. but b&r just messed it up. oh well..we're back on track!
At the same time though, if we didn't have Batman and Robin which ruined the original franchise, we wouldn't have Batman Begins. So in that respect, I do have some weird, twisted respect for Batman and Robin. BOF refer to Batman and Robin as Batman Begins' 'father'.
In the shadows I saw my destiny...
I would seek justice...
I would have my revenge... |
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 13-11-2005 17:07 |
|
elvis
Arkham Inmate
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 65
Location: Greece
Joined: 04.08.05
|
|
|
Gothamite wrote:
So in that respect, I do have some weird, twisted respect for Batman and Robin. BOF refer to Batman and Robin as Batman Begins' 'father'.
interesting point of view Gothamite
 |
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 15-11-2005 23:36 |
|
MANVERU
Gotham’s Newest Citizen
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 12
Location: Australia
Joined: 13.11.05
|
|
I honeslty don't think that Batman & Robin had any effect to Batman Begins.
Though I can see you reasons for thinking that.
Alot of non-bat fans really quite enjoyed B&R.
It's certainly watchable, but definetly not the turning point that defined Batman Begins.
 |
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 16-11-2005 14:41 |
|
|
Gothamite
Blue Collared Worker
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 476
Location: Gotham City
Joined: 29.07.05
|
|
It definitely had an affect on Batman Begins. I can't see how it couldn't have. If Batman & Robin had been a success regardless of its stupidity, Schumacher would probably have made a second sequel to Batman Forever, and who knows? Maybe it would have been better, but it would continue a franchise where we hadn't even learned Batman's origin. If Batman & Robin hadn't flopped, the Batman franchise wouldn't have gone into development hell for as long as it did and Batman Begins wouldn't have been made.
In the shadows I saw my destiny...
I would seek justice...
I would have my revenge... |
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 16-11-2005 22:18 |
|
|
MANVERU
Gotham’s Newest Citizen
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 12
Location: Australia
Joined: 13.11.05
|
|
aaaaahhhhhhhhh,
Now I see!!!!
sorry.
|
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 16-11-2005 22:56 |
|
FlaBat
Dark Knight
Awards:
| 
Posts: 1526
Location: Miami
Joined: 24.06.05
|
|
That?s a valid point Gothamite. However, had somebody been thinking they would have used DC to write a Batman Bible were everything that is Batman would be explained. From there a master plan to introduce the characters and follow a predetermined path much like BTAS did.
Instead the film Batman came out and was huge so they tried to repeat, but Batman Returns was too dark so they tried to compensate and made Batman Forever which was lighter, but not light enough to sell toys to the kids so they made Batman and Robin which was not even remotely Batman material.
Batman set the tone in 1989 and had they followed that tone and stayed true to the source they would have done a lot better. The first four films had flaws that would not have been allowed had there been a Batman Bible and one or a team of people that followed it.
Take a look at Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry spelled out exactly the way things were in a Star Trek Bible and it set the foundation for all the followed. This did not happen with Batman. If it had The Joker would not have been the Waynes killer, Batman would not kill, Batgirl would be Barbara Gordon and lot of other things.
Now, Batman Begins gets to set the tone and if the other follow and stay true they should see the same success that it did. We can only hope.
 |
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 17-11-2005 11:35 |
|
Caleson
Dark Knight
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 1631
Location: Rockville, IA
Joined: 24.06.05
|
|
Yeah, that's true that Begins probably couldn't have been made in 1989. They just wanted to reintroduce the character himself and not focus so much on his training and backstory.
Saying Batman & Robin is the father of Batman Begins just doesn't sound right. It's probably true that without a mess like B & R, Begins couldnt have happened, but "father" is just a strange way of putting it.
Not to say the '90s franchise could've entirely redeemed itself from B & R, but the idea for next film Schumacher had planned involved Scarecrow (possibly played by John Travolta) and The Joker's wife, whoever the hell that is. It probably would have darkened Batman up a tad, but would've still been about as goofy and colorful as Forever.
As far as sticking with source material, I feel pretty secure about this new series. These guys have seen what can happen and know how to do this.
 |
  |
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 18-11-2005 13:28 |
|
|
Gothamite
Blue Collared Worker
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 476
Location: Gotham City
Joined: 29.07.05
|
|
The only thing I would have liked about the proposed B & R sequel was the cool title Schumacher was planning to use -BATMAN TRIUMPHANT. I hope they use that title some day.
In the shadows I saw my destiny...
I would seek justice...
I would have my revenge... |
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 18-11-2005 17:35 |
|
|
elvis
Arkham Inmate
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 65
Location: Greece
Joined: 04.08.05
|
|
|
the idea for next film Schumacher had planned involved Scarecrow (possibly played by John Travolta) and The Joker's wife, whoever the hell that is.
i dont think that Travolta was ever a choise and a wife maybe Harley Quinn??!?!
|
|
|
| RE: Why Batman Begins couldn't be made in '89 -
Posted on 23-11-2005 12:03 |
|
|
Gothamite
Blue Collared Worker
Awards:
None
|
Posts: 476
Location: Gotham City
Joined: 29.07.05
|
|
I had heard Harley Quinn was confirmed. Anyway, this is off-topic.
In the shadows I saw my destiny...
I would seek justice...
I would have my revenge... |
|
|
Home
