Holy Batsignal! WI Orson Welles did "Batman"?

[phx1138]

Since there have been several threads on Welles, & several on the Batman movie franchise, I wanted to offer another spin on it. Suppose Orson Welles makes a 1930s or 1940s version. What effect does that have on the film world? On Welles' career? On the character?

I'm seeing three possible options: before, instead of, or after "Citizen Kane". As I see it, before means it's likely to be a classic to rival "Kane", something akin to Browning's "Dracula". If instead, the same, with the added benefit of preventing Welles' career from hitting the iceberg of Hearst's fury. If after, probably a minor classic that takes a few decades to be recognized, like "Casablanca".

So, any thoughts? Could it influence the likes of Scorsese or Tarantino? Could it lead to, frex, Arthur Penn or Sam Fuller to doing a Batman film in the '60s? Or to the production of, say, a Green Arrow film in the '40s or '50s?

If anyone can offer butterflies that will wipe out the '60s TV series, or replace it with a serious one, so much the better. If it also saves Bruce Lee's career, &/or his life, better still. And if it somehow prevents Arnold & Val Kilmer from coming anywhere near a Batman film...

Extra bonus if it leads to a Batman serial franchise at the time, or a film franchise a bit later.

A special prize if it butterflies the introduction of Robin. (I do hate kid sidekicks. {Except Rick Jones.})

 

[ColeMercury]

This idea is based on a hoax started by Mark Millar about twelve years ago.

But anyway, realistically if Orson Welles ever was to make a Batman movie it would've been a children's film. And it almost certainly couldn't be made before the first OTL Batman serial was made in 1943.

 

[phx1138]

This idea is based on a hoax started by Mark Millar about twelve years ago.

if Orson Welles ever was to make a Batman movie it would've been a children's film. And it almost certainly couldn't be made before the first OTL Batman serial was made in 1943.

"Couldn't"? Or "wouldn't"? I'm less sure National would flat refuse.

I'm also less than certain it would've been aimed at kids. Comics got a "kids only" rep later; at the time, wasn't there a large contingent of immigrant adults reading them? (Yes, maybe that was the strips; in any case, was it enough to get a "bleed-through"?)

 

[DougM]

I wonder if it may have been possible as an immediate follow up to Kane, didn't Wells have a "moment of glory" after Kane?
And Wells tended to think outside the box. Case in point being his war of the world's broadcast.

 

[phx1138]

What I wondered is if he couldn't be intrigued by the obsessiveness of Bruce Wayne & the "Jeckyll & Hyde" aspect of Bats. (Maybe that's a bit too much a '90s view of him.)

Don't forget, GA Bats was very much darker than the SA/post-TV Bats.

 

[thaddeus]

he was associated with The Shadow through radio, always wondered why THAT wasn't a film project (assume the rights? or Welles desire for more "serious" film projects although he did Journey into Fear 1943, that would have been time)

 

[woweed]

If anyone can offer butterflies that will wipe out the '60s TV series, or replace it with a serious one, so much the better. If it also saves Bruce Lee's career, &/or his life, better still. And if it somehow prevents Arnold & Val Kilmer from coming anywhere near a Batman film...

First of all, someone arrest this man for excessive emoticions*
Secondly, that show was awesome. Thirdly...

A special prize if it butterflies the introduction of Robin. (I do hate kid sidekicks. {Except Rick Jones.})

Batman debuted in 1939. Robin debuted in 1940. He is almost as old and integral to the franchise as Batman himself. Not to mention, he offers advantages to the writers like making the fight scenes more dynamic and interesting and giving Batman someone to talk to while fighting. Even the movies give him someone to talk too, just replace Robin with Alfred in his headset.
Also, do you like Jimmy Olsen AKA DC's Rick Jones?

*yes, I recognize the irony in this statement. That's part of the joke.

 

[phx1138]

Robin...almost as old and integral to the franchise as Batman himself. Not to mention, he offers advantages to the writers like making the fight scenes more dynamic and interesting and giving Batman someone to talk to while fighting.

I do know this. I also know Finger wanted a partner because it made the book easier to write.

What he didn't count on was the plague of sidekicks, most famously Bucky. The tacit endorsement of putting kids in harm's way is troubling, too. (I recognize times have changed.<!>emoticon alert</!>) Did that affect the anti-comics hysteria? IDK. It can't have helped.

Robin also shifted the tone of the book. Some of that, I realize, had to do with the "no killing" edict, but IMO Bats was better as a solo act. I suspect Robin was a product of the runaway success of The Big Red Cheese.

Even the movies give him someone to talk too, just replace Robin with Alfred in his headset.

If you insist on a partner, make him a peer. Bolan had Leo Turin; that works for me.

Also, do you like Jimmy Olsen AKA DC's Rick Jones?

I can't speak to a contemporary Jimmy; the ones I've seen have been useless cyphers. Rick was actually necessary to Marvie (much as Billy Batson was), & was more entertainingly-written than any other I've seen. (I was never a fan of Firestorm.) Unlike Robin, or Bucky, or Rick & the Hulk (which was deeply odd)....

that show was awesome

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Prior to Kane, Welles did consider adapting The Shadow into a film. Batman wouldn't be that far off.

 

[Badshah]

It's a misconception that Golden Age Batman was darker than Silver Age Batman. He was only really dark from 1939 to 1940, which isn't a long time at all. And trying to get a darker batman when everybody's conception of him is fairly lighthearted would be misguided at best.

The space between Adam West and Keaton was twenty years and after the darker Batman of the 70s.... Trying to make Batman a darker character when the comics weren't doing that, only a few years into his introduction, would mean the people primarily interested in the character wouldn't get to watch!

In the 40s, Batman isn't a particularly fleshed out character anyways...the Shadow, Zorro etc all have a better pedigree and history where those in charge of their adaptations develop an appreciation of those characters and their evolutions...not so much with Batman in the 40s.

 

[phx1138]

It's a misconception that Golden Age Batman was darker than Silver Age Batman. He was only really dark from 1939 to 1940, which isn't a long time at all. And trying to get a darker batman when everybody's conception of him is fairly lighthearted would be misguided at best.

That really does depend on when the film is made, doesn't it?

And "everybody's conception"? You're presuming he was as well-known in even 1943 as he is now. I'd suggest, if there' a "dark Bats" film in 1943, only four years after his creation, it would be well-received, even by the book's (mostly young male) audience--maybe especially so.

the people primarily interested in the character wouldn't get to watch!

Why do you suppose kids would be kept out? I'm not suggesting "'Batman' meets 'Midnight Cowboy'". (Or even "The Wild Bunch".)

In the 40s, Batman isn't a particularly fleshed out character

Which leaves a lot of room for Welles, then, doesn't it? Enough to butterfly away Robin & the '60s series, maybe. Especially if the film is well-enough received: National could well do what it did with the Batcave, or kryptonite, or Alfred's appearance, & adopt what the film does for the book, & get rid of Robin...

Prior to Kane, Welles did consider adapting The Shadow into a film. Batman wouldn't be that far off.

I hear W. R. Hearst sighing with relief. And Batman fans cheering.

 

[Badshah]

The idea is silly because there would be no commercial value in a Batman movie in the 40s. The serials were made because they were cheap. The whole thing is wishful thinking.

 

[woweed]

Robin also shifted the tone of the book. Some of that, I realize, had to do with the "no killing" edict, but IMO Bats was better as a solo act.

He was only a solo act for just the over a year! Robin has been around longer than any other element of Batman except Alfred and the Bat-Signal.

I suspect Robin was a product of the runaway success of The Big Red Cheese.

Actually, Robin and Bucky both arose because guess what was a common problem during the 40s? Absent Fathers. What with men having to work in factories during the 30s and fight in the war during the 40s,lots of the children who were the audience for superheros didn't have their father at home much or at all so casting the heroes of these books as surrogate fathers to child characters was meant to allow the children to project themselves onto the Sidekick.

It was actually a parody, both of over-the-top comics and overly-serious comic fans. Look at it like that and it's brilliant.

 

[phx1138]

He was only a solo act for just the over a year! Robin has been around longer than any other element of Batman except Alfred and the Bat-Signal.

How long Robin's been around has damn all to do with how good Bats is solo. I much prefer the solo act.

Actually, Robin and Bucky both arose because guess what was a common problem during the 40s? Absent Fathers. What with men having to work in factories during the 30s and fight in the war during the 40s,lots of the children who were the audience for superheros didn't have their father at home much or at all so casting the heroes of these books as surrogate fathers to child characters was meant to allow the children to project themselves onto the Sidekick.

Very possible, & a good reason why the book does a lot better with Robin. It doesn't address the issue of sidekicks being a bad idea for the characters they're paired with. Why not put them in a variation on Teen Titans? (I know, that's a stretch before the Baby Boom...)

It was actually a parody, both of over-the-top comics and overly-serious comic fans. Look at it like that and it's brilliant.

I thought "Get Smart" was funny at the time. I never felt that way about the '60s "Batman", so...

 

[woweed]

How long Robin's been around has damn all to do with how good Bats is solo. I much prefer the solo act.

What i'm saying is there are very few comics where Batman is solo and those that do are very early and star a character we would barely recognize as Batman.

I thought "Get Smart" was funny at the time. I never felt that way about the '60s "Batman", so...

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[Landshark]

This idea is based on a hoax started by Mark Millar about twelve years ago.

Probably licked a hallucinogenic goat.

 

[Vahktang]

Remember that scene in the movies where the hero chases the villain into a hall of mirrors and you don't know who's an image and who's a danger?
That's The Lady from Shanghai.
The story goes that in 1946 Welles needed some quick cash to put on a musical of Around the World in 80 Days as his costumes and equipment had been seized.
He was at the airport, talking to a Studio Head, looking at a paperback book rack and chooses one at random, telling the Head to buy the rights to the book and that he would direct, act and write the movie.
That was how The Lady from Shanghai was made.
Now, imagine that instead of looking at a bookrack he looks towards the magazine rack, where there's Batman costing 10 cents an issue, same as Time and Newsweek, with Two-Face on the cover.
He shrugs and tells the Studio Head to buy the rights to Batman, and he'd write, direct and star.
He's 31 at the time, a good age to be an action actor.
He's never done a real action picture, he'll put his intensity towards that like he does to anything else.
There's Two-Face on the cover, so, Welles can explore the duality of Batman/Bruce Wayne, Two-Face/Harvey Dent and the scene with mirrors still occurs.
With the popularity of this movie, others are done and the whole Seduction of the Innocent does not occur.
The world is a better place and the San Diego Comic Con starts earlier and is even bigger than it is now.

 

[phx1138]

What i'm saying is there are very few comics where Batman is solo and those that do are very early and star a character we would barely recognize as Batman.

And, pray tell what has if we would recognize him got to do with how Welles might handle the character in 1942 or 1943?

What's that supposed to mean?

I thought it was pretty clear. Never a fan of the TV Batman (satire or no).

He was at the airport, talking to a Studio Head, looking at a paperback book rack and chooses one at random, telling the Head to buy the rights to the book and that he would direct, act and write the movie.
That was how The Lady from Shanghai was made.
Now, imagine that instead of looking at a bookrack he looks towards the magazine rack, where there's Batman costing 10 cents an issue, same as Time and Newsweek, with Two-Face on the cover.

You've done it. It's a neat approach, too. It reminds me a bit of how Michael Caine chose his stage name: looking up the street & seeing a marquee for "The Caine Mutiny".

So, Orson as Bruce... Y'know, he's got that mad intensity.

 

[woweed]

And, pray tell what has if we would recognize him got to do with how Welles might handle the character in 1942 or 1943?

I thought it was pretty clear. Never a fan of the TV Batman (satire or no).

In 1943, Robin had already been around for 3 years. You're not Butterflying him away with that POD. Also, I think now we might just be debating Robin's necessity or lack thereof. As for your feelings on 60s Batman, to use one of my favorite jokes, "you're entitled to your completely wrong opinion." Nah, I kid, I kid I admit the show, like Silver Age Batman in general, is something of an acquired taste. Off-topic, one thing I find hilarious? The fact that most of the people complaining about Bat Shark Repellent are the same people who always play the "Batman is always prepared" card in Who Would Win debates.

 

[phx1138]

In 1943, Robin had already been around for 3 years. You're not Butterflying him away with that POD. Also, I think now we might just be debating Robin's necessity or lack thereof.

I'm not looking for Robin's disappearance, just not endless copies of him elsewhere. (Letting him grow up a bit, viz Nightwing, wouldn't hurt, either.)

As for your feelings on 60s Batman, to use one of my favorite jokes, "you're entitled to your completely wrong opinion."

I was trying not to say that.

Off-topic, one thing I find hilarious? The fact that most of the people complaining about Bat Shark Repellent are the same people who always play the "Batman is always prepared" card in Who Would Win debates.

Well, if it's done right... "Batman's never trapped." "I should never go out in the daytime." (Both from JLI, the funniest Bats I've ever seen.)

My thinking was, somebody (Finger? IDK) went a bit batty with naming things...