What If - Batman Movies

My attempt at the popular What If articles

Introduction
We've all seen the movies and have all experienced the carnage that they ensued. The beautifully sleek movies that Tim Burton had once done were quickly dashed with the inception of Batman Forever. From there on, we endured subpar flicks from Joel Schumacher that were more about campiness than quality.

Not one in the same...

My question is what would have happened if Warner Brothers stuck with the formula they already had? What if the final two Batman movies were exactly like the first two?

A Stronger Fan Base
Obviously the downfall of the Batman movie franchise was the loss of Tim Burton and the change in direction that Warner Bros. wanted. From moving from the twisted and more mature look that Tim Burton's films usually garner to a more family oriented look, the movies suffered many fan rejections. Batman Forever wasn't as bubble gum as Batman & Robin, but it housed many aspects that just weren't the same as the first two. I often find myself getting the final two mixed up together just because the movies were too identical in production. Big names were used to cast key characters in both, characters were depicted like they weren't in the comics (Tommy Lee Jones' Two face comes to mind), and they didn't have the grit that the others had. If the fans can connect with the movies as well as they did with Batman and Batman Returns, they have desire to invest in them and build on a strong movie franchise.

True Batman fans

WB unfortunately didn't have the desire to invest on what they already knew was the perfect formula.

The Introduction of More DC Comic Movies
With the success of the Batman films, WB chooses to invest into more DC Comics hero stories. Of course, this is assuming that they seriously develop the movies like they did on BM and BM Returns. WB decides to strike the iron while it's hot and produce movies such as Wonder Woman, The Flash (despite the slumming TV show at the time), Green Lantern, and other great heroes.

We saw this happen in the 2000's with the inception of Batman Begins and Superman Returns. WB contemplates continuing the old Superman franchise, but for the 90's. They cast Nicholas Cage who has been long awaiting for the film to swoop in and play Clark Kent.

This is a real pic. Really.

The movie is a success and further fuels the rest of the lineup in the DC universe, ultimately leading up to a JLA movie. We're seeing this type of thing right now with Marvel's movie franchise. They've done or doing practically every hero movie possible to lead up to The Avengers movie in 2012. I'm not sure how fans are taking this strategy, but I would have loved this idea in the 90's with the DC characters because I was just a kid who was getting into comic books.

The Resurgence of Marvel Movies Starts Earlier
To keep up with the budding DC movie line, Marvel Comics dips its hand into the movie making business a little earlier than 2000. They choose to beat DC to the punch in the superhero team thing and release X-Men. The movie tanks without the proper casting and obvious try at competing with DC. The fans see right threw the whole thing. Marvel soon tries at it with other heroes from their books, but they never seem to live up to the hype as they thought. Spider-Man doesn't break box office records, Daredevil just looks like a B movie from the 80's, Fantastic Four is a fantastic flop at the theaters, Ghost Rider is a success (kidding), and the X-Men Trilogy just doesn't happen.

All is going downhill for Marvel who wind up closing their doors after going bankrupt (which really happens) and cannot find a way to redeem itself. The Bronze Age of Comics dies and will forever be remembered as the time when most comic fans cried. DC is the lone company in the comic world, with some underground publishers (Dark Horse, Image, etc). The rights to Marvel's heroes are bought up like a going-out-of-business sale at the local Circuit City. Things would never be the same.

Batman Begins Isn't Made
DC is having so much success with the first run of Batman movies that there is no need for a Batman Begins picture to be made. Why improve on something that is already successful? I always thought of BM Begins as a movie trying to make up for the bad that had already happened, Joel Schumacher's Batman. Fans and critics hated them, so WB had to fix this problem with a great film done by a great staff who directed a great cast who read from a great script which was written by a great set of writers. Literally, the film dripped greatness, but that wasn't needed anymore. DC is shooting up in the movie making business, so their minds are elsewhere at the time. The priority at the time isn't about another successful Batman film, it's making newer hero movies. So, we start to see movies like Lobo, the Legion of Super-Heroes, and other titles that aren't really the headliners of the DC Universe.

DC finds out the hard way and fans start to reject their movies. Who's gonna go see Matter Eater Lad eat a door on screen? In all honesty, I would like to see it, but it's not number one on my movie going wishlist. The DC era of movie making comes to a halt in the 2000's, but not as bad as Marvel's stint.

No Heath Ledger
This is my saddest point in this What If article. I don't know really how to write this one because it's still a very touchy subject to some people. If Batman Begins was never made, then obviously The Dark Knight wouldn't have been made. In turn, Heath Ledger's legendary role as the Joker wouldn't have graced the theater screen.

I'm not sure how things would have panned out, though. Ledger might still be here with us today, or he might not. Rumors circulated at the time of his death that the stresses he faced during the shooting of The Dark Knight were causing the need for psychiatric help. Many still believe that the fact that he was playing a twisted and cynical character manipulated his mind and caused him to rely heavily on prescription medicines. We all know how well he portrayed our favorite smiling villain, and obviously critics did as well with his winning of the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in 2009.

His family at the Academy Awards

Possibly without his role as the Joker, critics would never take a comic-related movie seriously as they do now. The comic-fans today no longer have to scream for a well made and well acted hero movie. They don't have to worry about people who don't read comics not taking these movies seriously. They are serious, as well as the books. Without Heath Ledger's performance we may have never gained acceptance in a society that is growing up more and more everyday; a society that looks at comics as child's books. We comic fans should all thank Heath for giving us a voice to ask our society, "Why so serious?"

Conclusion
Thanks for reading my article. I'm really enjoying this What If format. I'll try my hand at some others later. Please comment on anything you wish: the subject, some points I might have left out, and anything you found interesting in my article. Special thanks to Echidna64 for making this article style up. Props, man.

Laters!

Comments

GREAT ARTICLE I THINK BATMAN BEGINS WAS THE WORST OUT OF ALL THE MOVIES... I KNOW THEY WENT FOR A COMPLETE CHANGE, BUT I JUST WASNT FEELIN IT

Fun times with these conversations. Thanks for the back and forth and for being cool the whole time. Im hopng my own articles get some reads. I like the community on here. See everyone around. Ive got that one called RYGAR TWICE IN ONE DAY. Show some love!

Thanks to all who have contributed to the comments on this article. Great discussions have been argued. I love seeing some fire out of ya'll. It makes me think that I not only wrote something entertaining, but also thought provoking.

This was a great article. Very interesting

Hey, twilight, some comments of my own, since we're keeping this thing going:

We've talked a lot about special effects, but how many do you really need? Most Batman movies are made with minimal special effects.

For X-Men, you might need more, but I guarantee they could have pulled it off in the 90s if they really were motivated and had the money. The whole reason they do such huge special effects now is because they are cheap and easy to do.

Let's go back even farther and look at an 80s film that, if made today, would probably use a ton of CGI.

"Aliens" stands as one of the best action-flicks of the 80s. Hell, I went to the theater 7 times to see it before I bought it on VHS, I loved it that much. The special effects in that film are still awesome. There's no horrible CGI holding that film back, and it works just the way it is.

George Lucas proved in the 90s that just because you have CGI and can make something "better" doesn't mean that you should (and even then, most would argue whether those changes were needed).

I'm coming around to my point the hard way, which is this: Tons of really great movies have been made in the past with natural special effects. The limitations aren't obvious because the special effects work within the boundries of the story. (Example: In Aliens, they fight tons of aliens, but not all at once, and when they do fight a lot of them, most of the action is off-screen...and it works great...because you don't really notice it).

Finally, in reference to the Freddy Krueger thing, I was merely pointing out that another character had claws in the 80s-90s. I'm sure a special effects guy could have easily created some kind of glove (which appeared like flesh) that could have recreated Wolverine's claws. The two are very related.

Joel Schumacher makes me sad. I have listened to the director commentary's on Batman Forever and Batman & Robin so I know his reasoning but still, it blows my mind that he can go from making great flicks like St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys and my personal favorite of his Falling Down to those Batman movies.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, PROPHET SWORD. Let me take each of your comments one at a time to some kind of rebuttal, but you were right in several areas.

First off, Superman was awesome. You could have pulled off a decent movie with those special effects on XMen. However, would we have looked at it with the same eyes that we now see Superman? That movie was a classic, but I still doubt that anyone making an X-Men movie at that time could have made it work.

Star Wars is awesome and it took years for anything to even remotely touch it. After all, the three prequels more than 20 years later are even seen as inferior. Well said.

JAWS was a mistake that turned out top be a blessing. The mechanical shark was crap and never worked right. The original plan was to have it prominently in the movie, but due to technical and budget issues, it was on screen for only a fraction of the time and that made the movie even better because it seems that what you can't see is often the scariest. JAWS could have been made with no special effects whatsoever and it still would have been a stellar movie.

I wouldnt go as far to say that you can have crap special effects and still have a decent superhero movie. Often, one botched special effect on a superhero movie in an age of message boards and internet can totally destroy a films reputation. Back then, though, in the 80s and 90s you could get by with a little more. Spidermans story was good, but it has also been around since the early 60s and had a fairly solid basis to go on. The acting of the supporting characters, especially the people who played his aunt and uncle, and even Willam Dafoe, lent an awful lot to that movie. The acting was superb and in my opinion that and special effects made the movie.

Freddy Krugers claws were on a glove. Wolverines emerged from under the skin on the back of his hand. There's quite a difference there. Without CGI, I doubt it would have been as believable.

POLTERGEIST is one of my favorite movies. However, you were probably right. I totally let myself go a bit and was thinking of the XMen cartoon where Magneto had the visible energy fields and stuff. Shame on me for not remembering in the movie, it all just moved around on its own. My mistake. it could have been done easily in even the 70s.

I have never seen the CROW, but now I will. I forgot about that movie and my cousin says its one of his favorites. However, even though the Crow was a comic book, it wasnt on the wide scale that XMen, Spiderman, Captain America, or even Howard the Duck was. I never even knew it was a comic first until just a year or so ago. Due to this conversation, though, I'll have to check out the movie. While many people may despise it, the Made for TV GENERATION X movie was decent and I actually own the uncensored cut on DVD now. If you havent seen it, check it out. It has OK special effects but nothing to go crazy over and a decent story. Some of the acting is rusty, but I'd suggest it to any comics fan.

ALSO...thanks to you also for not going too far and for having a good, intellectual conversation. Hope I can keep up!

I like this concept, even though I can see why some would find the whole format to be confusing. I gave up a thumbs up solely on effort, creativety, and Megan Fox as Wonder Woman, even though she dosen't really have the forehead for it. On the other hand, Nic Cage as Superman is such a horrifying thought and has been since it's inception in 1998. To this day I have yet to watch a movie starring Nic Cage, and afterwards say "I'm glad I watched that." Anyway I hope that an adverse effect of your alternate timeline would have involved the release of the James Cameron Spider-Man movie complete with Michael Biehn and Arnold as Doc Ock! That would have been awesome! Oh and some of what you said in some ways did occur. Marvel did license a Fantastic Four movie in 1994, which I think was directed by Roger Corman. They also allowed a Captain America movie starring Matt Salinger, son of writer J.D. Salinger, which is so bad it's hard to find in a bargain bin! Overall your article is a fun piece.

I like the deep discussion going on. Keep it up.

Since we're keeping this civil (which I appreciate), I'm going to disagree with you again.

You're not giving enough credit to the special effects people of the era. Just a decade before, the "Superman" movies astounded us. As the posters said in the 80s: "You will believe a man can fly." And we did.

"Star Wars" came out of nowhere, but I think the special effects (which are over 30 years old) still look amazing after all this time. Some of it hasn't aged well, but a lot of it still looks great.

"Jaws" outdates them all, and that shark is still scary 35 years later.

And none of these movies used CGI at all. An inventive special effects team could create anything.

But, more importantly, what made movies like "Spiderman" good wasn't the effects...it was the story, the directing, and the way it was handled. If you've got that, you can have the crappiest special effects in the world and still have a great movie.

Would Wolverine's claws be believable? Freddy Krueger's were. Looked sharp and everything. I'm sure they could have made them work.

Magneto's powers? What...moving stuff around? There are plenty of old movies where they do that. The haunted room in "Poltergeist" is a good example. And that movie was made in 1982. But, to this day, it still looks realistic.

Movies from the 80s that pulled off good special effects include: Independence Day, Twister, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, Forrest Gump, Jumanji, Casper, and Dragonheart (and all these movies were made before 1996).

And one other point: People always comment that we had one good comic book movie in 90s, and that was "Batman." But, I disagree; because, the "Crow" was freaking awesome.

I'm sorry but Batman Returns was not that good of a movie either. The downfall of the Batman movie series is easily traceable to Burton's follow-up to his very well done Batman. The multiple villains, the cartoonish figure that is the Penguin, and the horrible horrible ending.

PROPHETSWORD: Youre right about Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. I'm sure the movies could have been good, but could you imagine a JLA movie in the 90s where they had Superman and everyone else? Even with the Tim Burton style of Batman keeping on going and making the comic book world a better place for Hollywood, I still don't think that the movies would have been as good. Sure, they would not have been crap, but they wouldnt have been nowhere near as good. Think about this...could they have made Wolerines claws believable or even Magneto's powers? What kinds of things could not have been replicated in the 90s that are present in todays comic book films? Im sure there are several things that just wouldnt work. Angel in X3 wouldnt have worked either I dont think, at least not in the way that it did in the movie.

Hmm, as far as technology being where it was when X-Men was made as compared to the 90s you need to remember that you had never seen a movie that was made 10 years in the future, so what movies looked like in the 90s looked really cool, you see this a lot with all old movies. Heck, look at black and white horror movies, you can see strings and tell it's a rubber monster, but it was scary at the time because no one had seen better. When I was younger I thought it would be cool to take Independence Day back in time when space travel was big in movies and show it to an audience in black and white just to see their reaction. Even before news showed what things blowing up in war looked like, what would people think? I think it would damage every movie made after that.

Point is, the same here, you can take any recent movie that relies heavily on special affects and compare it to a movie made 10 year before that relied heavily on special affects and say 'see, the affects are better, I bet this old movie didn't do well' if you didn't know how well the movie did.

thetwilightgamer wrote:
"I honestly think that the movies would never have been as big due to the fact that they pretty much had to wait until 2000 or so to have the technology to roll on with an X-Men movie. The movies with CGI and computer effects these days are taken seriously but in the 90s, we would have ended up with JLA and X-Men movies in the sense of the crap that was the early FANTASTIC FOUR movie that sucked big time back in the early 90s."

I'm going to disagree with this.

For one thing, your comparison to the Fantastic Four movie is kind of unfair, as I don't believe that movie was ever released. Also, that movie was made on a minimal budget just so that the movie studio could utilize the Marvel licensing (I believe they had to produce a movie within a given amount of time, so they waited until the last minute and threw one together and then shelved it).

Additionally, with the right producers, directors and budgets, superhero movies could have been good in the 90s. After all, Batman was good. And the CGI in the 90s was good if you had the money to invest in it. One need look no farther than Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park as an example of this.

Even though I said that I would give any Batman article I see an automatic thumbs down without even reading it, this one was actually worth a read. Good job.

I honestly think that the movies would never have been as big due to the fact that they pretty much had to wait until 2000 or so to have the technology to roll on with an X-Men movie. The movies with CGI and computer effects these days are taken seriously but in the 90s, we would have ended up with JLA and X-Men movies in the sense of the crap that was the early FANTASTIC FOUR movie that sucked big time back in the early 90s. Also, did you see the lame excuse for NICK FURY AGENT OF SHIELD that was a made for TV Fox movie starring David Hasselhoff? That i what we could have expected if the comics industry would have made a pile of movies in the 90s.

I suppose I should apologize for the d-bag comment, PS, so I do. I may have taken it the wrong way and I'm sorry.

I understand second exodous. I didn't see your comment as rude or anything. I totally agree with you and everyone else's thoughts about possible 90's Marvel movies. I thought it would be fun to see what would happen if they did flop. I stated in my article that I thought Marvel would try and rush into the movie making business, and in turn, produce lower quality movies than they did in the 00's. My view was that they were trying to ride the curtails of DC in making films and unfortunately were underqualified in doing so.

I know in my heart, though, that fans would have gone and seen the movies. It's in our human nature to support comic films. I once watched David Hasselhoff's Nick Fury movie for crying out loud hahaha.

Cosgrove, I wasn't upset and trying to be rude with my comment, just stating what I thought, I should have pointed that out. Right after I posted it I wished I could have edited it(which I do a lot on other forums). I thought it was a great article.

"You can't just assume they would all flop."

/s/
The Interdimensional Regulations Commission
- The foremost authority in how each dimension should be ran.

It was all in good fun. I apologize for my laziness. I could have gone over each Marvel film and said "this one was a success" and "this one failed", but I thought that would be too thorough.

You did help me realize I left out the infamous Spider-Man movie poster with Leonardo DeCaprio and the girl from Unhappily Ever After. I think Hoju used it in his "Retro Redheads" article.

Again, I apologize for assuming that the films would fail and that they would have been poorly casted. It was a cheap excuse to shorten my article. I wanted this one to be a fluffier read, one that's quick and easy but still fun.

Prophet: Apology accepted. You're alright in my book. You always leave some good comments on my stuff. When are we gonna see some more of yours?

Nice Heath Ledger article. Joking, but Marvel would have to be trying to screw up the first Spider Man movie to have had it fail in your alternate universe. Everyone loves Spider Man, old and young. I have to say though that I liked Tim Burton's Batman, but I think the Dark Knight was my fav Batman movie. I recently watched Tim Burton's rendition and I think he did a lot better on the atmosphere of Gotham, maybe it's because it's what I saw when I was a kid, but the Dark Knight affected me psychologically, so it wins.

I made the last comment. Some glitch in the system.

Alright, obviously I know when I'm beaten. People apparently like these articles, so I will apologize if I offended anyone. I just don't feel they are truly retro, but if you all think they're great, who am I to stand in the way of your good time?

To Cosgrove: I apologize. Reading it back, it seemed more snotty than I really intended. And for what it's worth, I hope to read some non-what-if articles from you in the future.

great article cosgrove i always love reading your stuff. is that cop you use the cop from freakazoid? heres a scary what if..?. what if batman and robin received more critical acclaim and earned more money than the dark knight? yeah i know that the money conversion or whatever was different back then but you get my drift. i think that would have quite an impact on how comic movies are made today. something to think about. but to quote the great cosgrove.."be careful what you wish for."

Heinzy: I agree with you. I see it as the dalmationlover syndrom. My very first article I wrote he gave it a thumbs down without even reading it. He said that he hated the subject matter (Batman, again). A lot of users got upset with him, like they are now with one in particular, and he man'd up and apologized. It's a mess to think about, but it really doesn't phase me.

tattooedhusker: I might consider that What If article right after I do the "What If there were no What Ifs". PS: I really don't think we can get out of Memorial Stadium with a win. That's the one game I'm worried about besides the UT game.

Firefist: I'm really a Marvel guy through and through, if that's what you mean. Always have and always will.

Is it just me,or does this seem kinda bias? u tell me.

Here's a what-if, what if PS would quit being a d-bag for one minute? Cosgrove, don't worry about him, most others seemed to enjoy it (including myself). It's kind of a sweet relief from some of the other formats, i.e. top 10 lists. Keep on keeping on, I'll read them.

I too look forward to the Tech game in Lincoln, last year was quite the heartbreaker.

If people know they dont like 'what if' articles, why do they read them?
Baffles me, its like you know you dont like steak and onion sandwiches, but you eat one anyway then complain about it!
I liked this article, ive always been a big fan of Burtons Batman films and to think if he had made forever and robin gets my mind in overtime, they would most deffinatly been less colourful and cutsie-pu.
I think its good that Cosgrove not only looked at how the BM film franchise would've ended up, but also the whole DC v's Marvel film battles too.
I for one would love to see a Lobo film, i cant imagine how they'd make it work without it being rubbish to people unfamilar with the comics and character though.

Thumbs up from me.

Be careful what you wish for Prophet.

What if the Pirates had signed Fidel Castro back in 1955? History is full of "what ifs" Quite honestly,I'd have rather DC remained independent,but I guess that's the way the Dice rolled in our corner of the Multiverse...

Here's a good idea for a "what if" article. What if no more of these articles appear on RetroJunk?

...and there was much rejoicing...

Lyftd: Sorry if there was confusion. Just look at it in the worst case scenario way. Everything craps out after Batman Forever is released for Marvel. It was the 90's and comics weren't doing so well and Marvel almost went under altogether. I went with them failing at everything they tried at in the movie making business which led to their demise. My last two points are self explanatory.

comicfan1985: That's your opinion, but admit it. In some unknown dimension this really happened.

pizzaguy: Thanks. Not my best, but it kinda works. I cranked this one out in 3 hours. Probably could have used one or two more points and a little more research. Though, I wasn't going for accuracy, just humor.

Another quality Cosgrove article! Keep it up man!

To quote Office Space
"I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there."

I know what your saying 100% on batman but as far as the rest... you lost me.

Hoju: Haha, oh mighty Joel. How can we repay thee for crappy movies and saving the future comic world landscape? I respect your and Prophet's view on these types of articles. True, it's not reality, but it's a way to look back and appreciate (Echidna's word) the things that did go the way they did. The events that did transpire are things that I harken back to when I feel detached from my former self, but it's fun to find different occurences that could have happened. Think of it like Doc's timeline he drew in Back to the Future II where reality had skewed into a tangent of an alternate reality. If it's not retro enough for you then I suggest those out there who plan on writing a What If article to include what actually happened to appease those without a little imagination.

Echidna64: Couldn't have said it better myself. I'll be looking forward to your article. I take it it's about superhero movies? Nevermind, I'll just find out in due time.

Great question Cosgrove! A Batman movie directed by Tim Burton, featuring the riddler would truly kick ass! If only, huh? *sigh*

It's interesting because I submitted a new article earlier this week and we came up with some similar conclusions. HINT: I'll just say that I used the same Nicholas Cage picture.

As for ProphetSword, don't knock it bro, the What If? articles are just a different form of creative expression for showing our appreciation for all that which is retro. The problem with the past is that there are a finite number of things to talk about, but the good thing is that there is an infinite way of expressing them.

DC is the lone comic book publisher? Noooooooooo! Now I bow at the alter of Joel Schumacher whose failure saved us all from this sad fate (and the Legion movie-bleh!) I'm with ProphetSword though, these are fun EVERY ONCE AND A WHILE but please don't make them a habit...save it for the forums.

tattooedhusker: Thanks, man. I'll be looking forward to the Tech/Nebraska game in Lincoln next year.

ProphetSword: Ok, dude. You keep doing that. Just my opinion.

These articles are completely ridiculous.

Why assume that Marvel would fail if they moved a little quicker to make their movies? How do you know that the casting wouldn't have been perfect in the 90s? Depending on the actors, it might have been perfect.

We thought the 90s Batman with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson was perfect, but someone showed that the right casting in another era could produce a film equally as good. So, why decide that Marvel would fail miserably had they cast X-Men in the 90s?

Besides which, these articles aren't truly retro, since they chronicle things that never happened. So, it'll be a thumbs down from me every time.

thumbs up from me