Rocketdog2000

Yes, they did.

And with the Batman movies, it's not just the 2 discs that are out of print, it's ALL versions of the 90's movies, including the original single disc releases. In fact, the only Batman movies that are currently in print right now (not counting animated releases) are Batman Begins and the 1966 Batman:The Movie from the TV series.

I've still seen some new around in local stores, so if you want them, just check everywhere you go.

Rocketdog2000

Firstly, WB never fired Burton. He opted out of directing anymore movies after the second one (Batman Returns), and really, almost wasn't going to do that one either, because he didn't feel he had anymore to say on the subject. He was also executive producer on Batman Forever, so don't go blaming everything on Joel Schumacher.

Secondly, Schumacher only derailed the franchise with Batman & Robin. However, much to everyone's surprise (including his own), he actually revived the franchise with Batman Forever - which at the time of it's release in 1995, set the record for biggest movie opening, ever, doing better than the previous two Batman films that Burton directed did. So you can slam on him all you want, but let's at least keep thing in perspective. Personally, I like Forever. Looking back on it now, it certainly comes off as a campy, but I still enjoy it, and I even liked Val Kilmer as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Given the choice, I know I'd watch this before watching Batman Returns. As for Batman & Robin, though, there isn't anything remotely salvageable about it - so, enough said.

Now as for the difference between the darkness in the Burton films, and Nolan's - and really, the just the movies in general - it comes down to this. Like most of his movies, Burton's take place in more of an imaginary setting, and he often tends to go overboard with it, to the point of ghastliness. Nolan's Batman films, on the other hand, are set very much in a real world environment. While they may be darker, they are also more believable, and that's what I think most people really like about them.

MTRodaba2468

Well, I had owned the two Burton SEs for a while now. I went ahead an ordered a copy of the Batman Forever SE for about $22 (it's certainly flawed, but not a bad movie by any means), before prices started to get TOO outrageous.

And while he thought on an on-camera apology by Joel Schumacher does sound tempting, I have no desire to own the Batman & Robin SE.

Rocketdog2000

I only own it because I have the box set, and at the price I got it for at the time, it was cheaper to buy the box than even just two of the movies - so I feel like I got the other two for free, anyway. While I may hardly watch Batman & Robin - except for a good laugh, or to see how to screw up making a Batman movie - the making of documentary, and behind the scenes stuff, is worth seeing, though.

DJariya

The Batman and Robin making of documentary was worthy viewing only because Schumacher and Chris O'Donnell pretty much acknowledged that the film sucked.

toddly6666

When someone says "Shumacher revived the Batman franchise", doesn't that mean that Burton killed it? It makes more sense to say that "Shumacher killed the Batman franchise, and Nolan revived it."

There was a three-year span between Batman Returns and Batman Forever - that's a normal time period between sequels. Was Batman Returns considered a financial failure?

BrandonJF

No. While I applaud someone putting "Batman Forever" in perspective (it's as silly for people to play it off as a failure... just like how people call Ang Lee's "Hulk" or "Mission Impossible 3" "failures"...), it doesn't make much sense to then go and embellish the realities of "Batman Returns".

"Batman Returns" did not do as well as "Batman". However, there was a time when a sequel was not expected to surpass the original in box office grosses. "Batman Returns" was in no way a disappointment and did not "kill" the franchise.

Burton took a producer credit on "Forever", Schumacher directed it, and it ended up doing better than "Batman Returns" (having Jim Carrey in the mix and introducing Robin didn't hurt). Whether or not it is better or worse than "Returns" is totally subjective, but it was not a failure or responsible for killing the franchise in it's current incarnation... that would come with the next movie.

Al_Tahoe

Nope, backordered.

Travis McClain

I recently watched the '89-'97 Bat-flicks with their director commentary tracks. As someone else noted, Warner Bros. did not actually fire Tim Burton; in fact, he had to be talked into even coming back to make Returns. Even though the film was profitable, the "tie-in department" (as Burton refers to it) had a hard time marketing the film's merchandise. Between the hideous Penguin design and the blatantly sexualized Catwoman costume, the kid-friendly merchandise options were limited. In fact, Kenner's Penguin action figure was just a repaint of their Super Powers Penguin; they didn't even try to craft a figure that in any way depicted Danny DeVito's look. It was in this context only that Burton's Bat-films being "dark" was even an issue.

When they made Batman Forever, according to Schumaker, few companies wanted anything to do with the property because no one thought the movie would be successful. He never says it, but when you piece together the two commentary tracks, I think it's quite likely that the main reason no one wanted the Batman license was that those who had latched onto Batman Returns were afraid of another un-marketable movie. He then notes that, after Batman Forever made a ton of money, so many license-seekers signed on for Batman & Robin that they had more control over the movie than he did.

Burton says in his BR commentary that he actually had toyed with the idea of using Two-Face, and specifically states that had he done so, he would not have used Billy Dee Williams. His reasoning was that, in his mind, the Batman films were never supposed to have a great sense of chronology, which is why he took such strides to make Batman Returns resemble as little of Batman as possible.

As for other Bat-cast trivia, I was almost stunned to hear Schumaker account for Warner Bros. resisting Nicole Kidman for Batman Forever because they didn't think she was sexy enough for the role.

My Other Self

I can like Kidman, but I wasn't huge on her in Forever.

I watched a fan recut of Batman Forever a month or two back that pretty much got rid of her scenes (minus some as part of the main story), re-ordering Two-Face and Jim Carrey's parts, and changing the score to Danny Elfman's.

You know what? With these minor changes, it wasn't that bad. Then again, I've always liked Forever 100x more than Returns, but I hadn't seen it in years.

Nothing can save Batman & Robin though. That Batman credit card joke pretty much did it for me.

Mondo Kane

Never heard of this. Interesting.

Grn_Str_Movies

i ordered mine of columbia house too.
the past couple of days it was listed as backordered but just today it began processing.
lets see where that takes me now.



EDIT: I CALLED COLUMBIA HOUSE
and they said that my order shipped out yesterday.
im so happy now.

Al_Tahoe

Yes, I was referring to the 8-Disc Batman Anthology. Mine still shows backordered, but based on Grn_Str_Movies post - maybe you'll still get yours.

Travis McClain

Really? You made it past clicking heels together to activate ice skates? *And* the orbital free fall/surf landing? *And* Uma Thurman's straight-out-of-high-school-drama-club performance? I tip my proverbial hat, 'cause I'd given up on the movie long before the American Express.

My Other Self

I didn't see the movie until it came to HBO and even then felt ripped off.

I gave up as soon as I saw the bat nipples.. I was being facetious.

reverie

I'm glad I picked up the box set a long time ago. As far as "Batman & Robin", I found the best way to tolerate it is to consider it a modern-day Adam West-version Batman. It's certainly no less "zany" than the '60's show. Watching it as a big-budget '60's update helps a little.

cactusoly

the best thing bout the Batman and Robin DVD is the bonus feature with Joel Schumacher apologizing about the movie

xage

I go for the original year 2000 - The Batman Legacy

The boxset was long gone OOP - I think it went OOP around 2004?

Moleman1138

^^^

Snapper crap. I'm going through CH just for this.

xage

And that is precisely the point..

It got DISCONTINUED that early.. therefore the number of production for this release is RARER than the Anthology set (I go for numbers & availability more than content of DVD)

and CH got like gazillion of Anthology sets at their warehouse

LoPan5705

So once again another Batman movie hit theaters and the other dvds hit moratorium. The same thing happened when Batman Begins came out. The Batman Legacy box set was oop and people were wanting to buy all the older dvds. The 2 disc releases will return whenever Dark Knight comes to dvd. Some people must have them now, but just wait and they'll be back in stores later this year.

Grn_Str_Movies

Recieved My Batman: Anthology From Columbia House Today.

Whats The Difference Between The Anthalogy And The Legacy Collection

xage

Anthology can still be bought at around $50 and available in most e-tailers. While Legacy has been long gone OOP .. 4yrs I guess.

Al_Tahoe

Legacy = 4 discs. Anthology = 8 discs.



Name one.

jeffbase34

The 2 discs are apparently back in print. I ordered one new from Amazon for 20 bucks.