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 (19574)
5 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 (11620) 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 (2997) 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 (19574) 5 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 (2997) 5 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 (2997) 5 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.