MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > Should Joel Schumacher had been allowed ...

Should Joel Schumacher had been allowed to make a Batman: Year One film?

posted a year ago by TMC-4 (20160)
18 replies | jump to latest

Especially when it became apparent, that Michael Keaton didn't want to do what would become Batman Forever. I've often heard that when he was first hired to direct the next Batman film after Batman Returns, he really wanted to do an adaptation of the Year One story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Year_One

Batman Forever is in this weird area where it's not exactly a full blown reboot but it isn't exactly a true sequel. It's kind of like the James Bond movies, where you kind of have to take a broad strokes approach or view to its continuity.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) a year ago

A Year One film could be interesting, but it would need a serious tone. If Schumacher wasn't allowed to do that with Batman Forever I don't see that he would have been allowed to do it for Year One.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 4 months ago

In no reality that a 3rd or 4th Batman film was going to be Year One. Stories like Year One are ideal for a first in a series of films, 89 and Returns don't look post Year One. In 89 Batman hadn't been operating for very long and the police didn't believe he was real until the Axis Chemicals incident, Catwoman in Returns was not a prostitute like in Year One, Jim Gordon is nothing like how he was in Year One. People who want to see a sequel with Riddler or Two Face would be put off by it. In anyway Year One was never happening.

[–] MickyMac (3188) a year ago

I refuse to believe his Year One would've happened anyway, prequels and reboots weren't exactly commonplace in Hollywood back then, in the first film the police didn't know Batman was for real until the Axis Chemicals incident and it's implied that he hasn't been Batman for very long.

If you are to survey people who consider themselves real fans of the Burton films they would say a third movie should've had Billy Dee Williams as Two Face with a returning Michael Keaton.

If Joel didn't wanna do a sequel the he shouldn't have agreed to do it but that's the world we live in. It didn't make any sense that WB wanted Joel to make Forever when none of his films are kids films.

[–] TMC-4 (20160) 10 months ago

Well when Joel Schumacher first came on to the project, he naturally assumed that he was going to be working with Michael Keaton. But Keaton when discussing the movie with Schumacher, was didn't like how Schumacher was telling him that it was time for the Batman series to stop being so dark and brooding. That's not absolutely what was said, but that's the basic gist of it. I guess that Joel Schumacher was one of those people who felt that the series got too far into the dark stuff with Batman Returns and it would be in the best interest to scale things back to earth a little.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 10 months ago

Think no one gives a rats' arse if Joel did Year One, you mention it and someone is like "Oh yeah that", it's mostly overshadow by Joel's comments about lighting everything up and came across as somebody who doesn't take himself seriously.

You can be lighter without having the villains be Joker-ish or actors playing themselves as the heroes, The Animated Series was dark without being disturbing or R rated like. If Forever and B&R proves anything going lighter doesn't necessarily make a better film, same as darker doesn't mean a great film.

Real reason Batman Returns was divisive because it was just a generic Tim Burton film with generic Tim Burton everything with Batman character names.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 10 months ago

A Batman film usually has to have a interesting villain like Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Two Face and Ras Al Ghul, all Year One has is normal corrupt officials like Commissioner Loeb which be fine for a regular crime thriller but for a Batman movie main villain not so much, there's nothing interesting about him, since 89 it's an absolute must for a villain from Batman's rogue's gallery to be a main villain for a Batman film.

[–] Tam87 (1218) 4 months ago

No. Batman Forever was a fiasco.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 3 months ago

I don't think Joel would've necessarily made a better film with Year One and Year One feels a few films behind, it would work as a first in a series of films not a prequel we got plenty of those much later in other franchises.

[–] Tam87 (1218) 3 months ago

Schumacher is a great director but he just isn't a good fit for Batman. He had Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Nicole Kidman and Jim Carrey at his disposal, and still made a pig's arse out of it.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 3 months ago

Well not every good director can a quality Batman film, every through he's made dark and gritty films but darker doesn't guarantee a great film, him wanting to do Year One doesn't necessarily mean he would've made a great film.

[–] Tam87 (1218) 3 months ago

True. I can't believe they gave him the Clooney Batman after what happened with Forever.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 3 months ago

At the end of the day Batman Forever did very well at the box office. I'm sure WB were happy.

[–] Tam87 (1218) 3 months ago

I guess. The power of Jim Carry probably made it an extra 100 mill.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 3 months ago

Clooney was just playing himself both as Batman and Bruce Wayne.

Worst they had Akira Goldsman write the film, he wrote Lost In Space one of the worst movie TV remakes ever, The Dark Tower and newer Star Trek.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 2 months ago

Probably isn't that a Batman lover outside of Year One.

Fans probably don't Joel not doing Year One as a massive issue since there's plenty of other Batman stories to do.

[–] mikethemartian (6750) 3 months ago

No. There needed to be a clean break. He directed Falling Down a few years earlier so it isn’t that he was incapable at making a good film. But someone else needed to take over Batman.

[–] MickyMac (3188) 3 months ago

If Joel didn't wanna do a sequel then he shouldn't have agreed to do it. it didn't make any sense that WB wanted Joel for the job when none of his films are kid's films.

[–] MickyMac (3188) a month ago

However there are Frank Miller in Forever not exactly Year One but from The Dark Knight Returns.

Batman changing suits.

A sidekick joins his crusade.

Gets his strength back by going to the cave to confront a bat.

Back to Year One you'll notice it has looks of yellow and purples like Forever and B&R.