Were there ever any Tim Burton Two Face concept sketches...

[aussieinnyc]

I have to disagree with this.

A modern re-interpretation of the original source materials might reveal gay undertones. But read in the context of its creation, in the manner and setting in which it was created and originally read, there were no gay undertones (intentional or not) in the original source material.

Things have changed a lot in the last 70 years. What might have looked gay to us now was in fact rather innocent then.

I get where you're coming from, but meant simply if you wanted to put a gay reading on the material that it is very easy to do so, regardless of the author's intentions. I wasn't necessarily implying that at the time Robin was first introduced that there would be widespread application of "queer literature" theory (indeed since I think Robin's youthfulness was originally emphasised I would hope not), and in speaking of the source materials I was actually thinking of the whole comic catalogue right up to the time the movie was made. I'm fairly sure I remember reading somewhere that during the time of the TV series being made they were very aware of how that relationship might look, indeed that was partially the reason for the introduction of Batgirl.

In fact, we're actually in agreement I think - I was taking issue with the statement that Schumacher deliberately empahsised a gay undertone. I was saying that it's only there if you want to see it, just like you were saying it's only there if you want to see it in the comics.

 

[AStar]

Everyone's free to have their own assumptions and opinions - I'll be the last to state otherwise. But now you've gone and put those assumptions in public and, in doing so, implied that a specific person may have acted inappropriately, with racial motivations, without providing a single shred of evidence. That's where it crosses the line from your own personal, internal assumptions to potentially hurtful, unsupported accusations.

I just think you should be careful about that - it doesn't matter how wishy-washy you are about what you've said, the bottom line is that you've made an accusation, and without any evidence, to boot. Not only is that irrational, it's also potentially hurtful.



But why should he have wanted to tamper with casting in a manner so specific as to keep certain minorities in his film? Wouldn't it have been more logical for him to just pick who he wants, regardless of race? Why should he have racial motivations to do anything?

For instance, if it's not really important whether Harvey Dent is black or white (and it's not), then why should he have gone out of his way to replace Billy Dee Williams with another, more talented, more famous, and specifically black actor? Why not just another more talented, more famous actor in general?



Fair enough...but don't forget, you've got Morgan Freeman in the two new movies, Ken Watanabe in the former, and Michael Jai White and Chin Han in the latter. Heroes and villains, major and minor.

Yes to some, but your still missing my point. I never once said or accused Schumacher or anyone else who worked on the film of being racist. I said maybe he didnt think having a Robin or Two-face of another race would set well with longtime/hardcore fans. Im sure you've seen how the fanboys react when things dont go their way when it comes to these superhero films. This was Schumacher first attempt at the franchise (BF) & he wanted to make a statement/mark while playing things safe for the moment; while bringing in long-time fans & new fans!

If you watch those videos I posted, you'll even hear Schumacher mention he was drawing inspirations (character personality, story arc, overall tone, etc.) from a specific period in the Batman comics; one that didnt feature Robin & Two-face with a minority background. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Im sure this "conflict" crossed Schumacher's mind one time or another. As I stated, I wasnt accusing him personally of being racist, but Im sure he did think about how the audience would respond to having those said actors play such characters in the Batman universe.

In all, I apoligize if my comments were offensive to you or anyone else. I guess I should of stated my main points a bit clearer in the beginning. I totally respect your valid opinions & have taken your thoughts & advice to heart. I will be sure to implement them upon stepping into such controversial discussions in the future!

 

[William Shatners Toupee]

Making of Batman Forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haARToOY84Y

Making of Batman & Robin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGHP-7DBNw

Yeah, thanks for the vids! Fun!

 

[Jokes & Bats]

Making of Batman Forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haARToOY84Y

Making of Batman & Robin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGHP-7DBNw

Shudders. Just watched these and eururgghhhh. It's horrifying they talk about how "Forever" was relying on sponsors "from hamburgers to the toothpaste company" - All Joel Schumacher cares about is how all the Mcdonald's merchandise was all gone! If that's how much pride he takes in his films - basing the success of a film on McDonalds sales then thats disgraceful. No one cared about the script or the quality or the fans. Shame because they even talk about how they dismissed the key story of Bruce's parents death as a main plot line. The focus seems to be on lighting and over the top sets and "bigger is better".


I can't even believe George Clonney just said this :

"There were some pages written dealing with his parents being dead again and I said 'You know, he's a thirty-five year old guy who lives in a giant mansion and has billions of dollars and goes out with the most beautiful women in the world and has the coolest toys and is Batman and I don't think anybody is gonna feel sorry for him listening to a guy going *woe is me my parents died when I was four*'

Praise the Lord for Chris Nolan.

 

[aussieinnyc]

Shudders. Just watched these and eururgghhhh. It's horrifying they talk about how "Forever" was relying on sponsors "from hamburgers to the toothpaste company" - All Joel Schumacher cares about is how all the Mcdonald's merchandise was all gone! If that's how much pride he takes in his films - basing the success of a film on McDonalds sales then thats disgraceful. No one cared about the script or the quality or the fans. Shame because they even talk about how they dismissed the key story of Bruce's parents death as a main plot line. The focus seems to be on lighting and over the top sets and "bigger is better".

That's not quite fair - and in fact reinforces my point earlier that people lump the two films together when they are actually very different. He actually pointed out that there were no sponsors who wanted to be involved with "Forever" at the start, that after "Returns" corporations were saying "No one wants another Batman" (and if you watch the "Returns" videos by the same user, that it was a 50/50 split saying that film was too dark/too light, bad/good). The McDonalds example was used to show how positively people were responding to a new Batman movie coming out before it was even released, and then when people started to see some of the previews, that was when sponsors suddenly started clamouring to be involved.

"Forever" was a financial, critical and public success - that's what prompted B&R to be made. They made the choice with the sequel to "take what you did successfully before and do it more and bigger". It's a sound business and perhaps even artistic decision, unfortunately it didn't work.

 

[Jokes & Bats]

That's not quite fair - and in fact reinforces my point earlier that people lump the two films together when they are actually very different. He actually pointed out that there were no sponsors who wanted to be involved with "Forever" at the start, that after "Returns" corporations were saying "No one wants another Batman" (and if you watch the "Returns" videos by the same user, that it was a 50/50 split saying that film was too dark/too light, bad/good). The McDonalds example was used to show how positively people were responding to a new Batman movie coming out before it was even released, and then when people started to see some of the previews, that was when sponsors suddenly started clamouring to be involved.

"Forever" was a financial, critical and public success - that's what prompted B&R to be made. They made the choice with the sequel to "take what you did successfully before and do it more and bigger". It's a sound business and perhaps even artistic decision, unfortunately it didn't work.

its a horribly over commercialised american money making business that is an insult to the orginal material of the Batman stories. Its true of many big budget films now a days. Pirates of the Carib 1 was followed up by 2 horrid films simply to cash in etc etc. I dont think Peter Jackson would have been interested in Macdonalds merchandising sales when he was directing Lord of the Rings. The love and commintment that went into making those films is why they are suberb and are an honour to the orignal Tolkein works. Chris Nolan took the same pride in his Batman films. Im not blaming Schumacher im just saying the whole approach to forver and b+r was hideous.

 

[aussieinnyc]

I can totally respect that you didn't like the final product of "Forever" and "B&R", but since they were created under different circumstances to each other I still maintain your earlier post is unfair criticism - especially when "Forever" at least was in many ways true to a certain generation of Batman comics, and you actually used quotes from the making of B&R video to criticise "Forever". Artistically you may dislike it but that's a different argument. By all means criticise "B&R" as over commercialised but from what I've read and seen that's not the atmosphere in which Forever was created.

On another note, I think you'll find that Peter Jackson was quite concerned with the non-screen aspects of the Lord of the Rings like merchandising, publicity, DVD releases, etc - as any responsible director should be. From my point of view, by the time I got to the end of "Return of the King" I was ready to hunt down Jackson and his editors and cram their slow-motion editing button in the same place that I plan on putting his "speak in an etherial, other-wordly way" direction to any one with "elf" in their character description. It's different strokes for different folks. (Although anyone who thinks B&R is a good piece of film-making needs their heads read)

 

[Jokes & Bats]

I can totally respect that you didn't like the final product of "Forever" and "B&R", but since they were created under different circumstances to each other I still maintain your earlier post is unfair criticism - especially when "Forever" at least was in many ways true to a certain generation of Batman comics, and you actually used quotes from the making of B&R video to criticise "Forever". Artistically you may dislike it but that's a different argument. By all means criticise "B&R" as over commercialised but from what I've read and seen that's not the atmosphere in which Forever was created.

On another note, I think you'll find that Peter Jackson was quite concerned with the non-screen aspects of the Lord of the Rings like merchandising, publicity, DVD releases, etc - as any responsible director should be. From my point of view, by the time I got to the end of "Return of the King" I was ready to hunt down Jackson and his editors and cram their slow-motion editing button in the same place that I plan on putting his "speak in an etherial, other-wordly way" direction to any one with "elf" in their character description. It's different strokes for different folks. (Although anyone who thinks B&R is a good piece of film-making needs their heads read)

I have actually left a large space between talking about forver and b&rso as not to confuse them but you must have missed that. my critiscm of forever is totally backed up with quotes from those making of videos.

with regards to jacksons publicity surrounding LOTR at least it was of benfit to the fans - the extended dvds are brillaint and have pride of place in my collection....a batman forver plastic toy from mcdonalds however does not.

my main argument is they approached forever from a very money minded point of view - with the hope they could cash in on the batman character and yes i understand films have to make money but at least Nolan was driven by the story and the characters and his love of batman and not by wether they would make a batman happy meal.

 

[Corporal Dwayne Hicks]

Forever is the most "comic book" of all the Batman movies in my opinion. While it's not my favourite, it has the best balance of all elements of the six movies and the design is like the comic books come to life.

I remember when it was released it's reception was pretty positive ... it was only when the God awful Batman & Robin was made that people started to turn on it and lump the two together.

 

[EdwardNashton1]

Shudders. Just watched these and eururgghhhh. It's horrifying they talk about how "Forever" was relying on sponsors "from hamburgers to the toothpaste company" - All Joel Schumacher cares about is how all the Mcdonald's merchandise was all gone! If that's how much pride he takes in his films - basing the success of a film on McDonalds sales then thats disgraceful. No one cared about the script or the quality or the fans. Shame because they even talk about how they dismissed the key story of Bruce's parents death as a main plot line. The focus seems to be on lighting and over the top sets and "bigger is better".


I can't even believe George Clonney just said this :

"There were some pages written dealing with his parents being dead again and I said 'You know, he's a thirty-five year old guy who lives in a giant mansion and has billions of dollars and goes out with the most beautiful women in the world and has the coolest toys and is Batman and I don't think anybody is gonna feel sorry for him listening to a guy going *woe is me my parents died when I was four*'

Praise the Lord for Chris Nolan.

 

[DiFabio]

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[dcflake]

Making of Batman Forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haARToOY84Y

Making of Batman & Robin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGHP-7DBNw

I didn't mind Batman Forever. Quite an interesting making of. I've never seen that before.

 

[aussieinnyc]

I have actually left a large space between talking about forver and b&rso as not to confuse them but you must have missed that. my critiscm of forever is totally backed up with quotes from those making of videos.

with regards to jacksons publicity surrounding LOTR at least it was of benfit to the fans - the extended dvds are brillaint and have pride of place in my collection....a batman forver plastic toy from mcdonalds however does not.

my main argument is they approached forever from a very money minded point of view - with the hope they could cash in on the batman character and yes i understand films have to make money but at least Nolan was driven by the story and the characters and his love of batman and not by wether they would make a batman happy meal.

We're just seeing things from different perspectives - the way I understand and see it is the merchandising considerations actually weren't strongly present during much of the creation and filming of Forever, it was only during post-production and pre-release that those elements started to appear. Again, my reading of it is that the success of merchandise on Forever was reflective of public anticipation of the films, rather than the intended primary outcome of making the film. I think the posted YouTube videos reflect this.

I do believe that much of B&R was created with merchandising and money-making in mind. You seem to also be saying that this approach was consistent across the two movies and I disagree. As I said, it's a bit of a different perspectives issue, so we can agree to disagree.

Forever is the most "comic book" of all the Batman movies in my opinion. While it's not my favourite, it has the best balance of all elements of the six movies and the design is like the comic books come to life.

I remember when it was released it's reception was pretty positive ... it was only when the God awful Batman & Robin was made that people started to turn on it and lump the two together.

Yeah, that's my point. I actually don't like Forever all that much myself. The set and costume designs are fantastic but the lighting design (let's use saturated primary colours, put a gobo on everything and throw in some black light for good measure) is diabolically bad. Many of the elements that made it successful when it was released have contributed to it not ageing all that well. You have Jim Carey doing his very traditional Jim Carey schtick, a trending away from realistic cinema to comic book grandiosity (whereas the trend now is towards realistic portrayal in cinema and "graphic novels" as opposed to "comic books") and a move towards making more of a family blockbuster film.

All these elements were right for when it was released, and so I appreciate it as a well-crafted film of its time. "Batman & Robin" made the mistake of trying to replicate it by using those same stylistic flourishes but turned up even further, and with a very commercialised approach. Since there were many similarities in the film's styles, the two end up tarred with the same brush.

 

[EdwardNashton1]

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[CelticPredator]

Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin suck. End of story. They ruined the franchise...but gave birth to Batman Begins....