Is this story about Superman Lives true?

As crazy as that story sounds, I honestly feel there could be some truth to it (this is my first time hearing of it).

I know that Tim Burton hasn't been the same since the 1993 portion of his career. And I know that the creative spirit and leeway he was given on Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, and even Batman also has not been exactly the same ever since.

Maybe he's been on something like a semi-blacklist since then..?

I do know that you don't fool with Warner Bros. They are a vicious mob (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in particular could have been entirely different visually and even atmospherically; it's like Burton just phoned it in). Richard Donner said he would never return to Superman material with them again after the way they treated him during the production of the second film. Charlie Sheen was awarded an undisclosed amount of money in a settlement with Warner Bros. some years back after he too had to lash out against a vicious producer. Prince's ugly bouts with the corporation are also well documented. It's a miracle we got Batman Returns out of them at all. And after WB's disappointment with that film, CatCF was destined for a cautionary approach in development and pre-production with the studio.


As one can see, Tim Burton wouldn't be the first director to catch a temper tantrum with a film studio in a meeting with producers- and especially Warner Bros. These often change the course of a director's career, or, in the case of Tony Kaye or Josh Trank, completely end them.





I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

I'm not going to defend Warner Bros. tactics or anything, but I do think some of the things you said are not quite true. In the case of Richard Donner, his issue was with the Salkinds, who were not Warner Bros. brass, but ran the production through their own production company, and Superman and Superman II were mostly produced at the same time, so when Superman II went back into production to be finished he never came back on. Charlie Sheen may have had some issues, but... Charlie Sheen.... Easy to assume the issues lie with him.

And Burton's issues with the Batman movies, at least while in production, was mainly with dealing with Jon Peters, who also was not a Warner Bros exec, but was producing the material through his own Guber-Peters production company along with Peter Guber. I know he had an issue with Warners after the release of Batman Returns when they didn't want him back for a third film, but generally it seems that most of his issues on Superman Lives were also aligned with Jon Peters.

With Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it seems to be the same situation as Alice in Wonderland, where it was a 'one for you, one for me' situation. He basically was a director for hire in those cases in order to get the same studio to finance is smaller stop motion animated films that he seemed to care about more personally. In both cases the same studio made a huge movie aimed at big box office with a rehash of material they already owned, and then turned around and financed the smaller animated film based on Burton's original material for release within the same year. I don't think that's really a 'blacklist' situation, as much as it seems to just be the way things work for a lot of the big names in the studio system in general.

As for the story in question, I've never heard that anywhere, but for them to suggest a superstar director like Burton, especially at that time, would 'never work in this town again' would be completely ridiculous. Naturally that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, I'm sure empty threats are shouted at people all the time in Hollywood, but he turned around very quickly to make Sleepy Hollow at Paramount, so clearly no threat ever followed through.

Tim has said that the pre-production, filming - post-production on CATCF was the smoothest and best relationships he had with a studio because everyone was on the same page and they didn't force him into doing anything.. and it was them who suggest he cast his good friend Depp which shocked Burton at the time because in the past he has to fight for him.

But other than the falling out after Batman returns and Superman Tim and WB have been good with with each other, WB stepped aside and allowed him to make Sweeney Todd and Dark Shadows the way he wanted, even back in the 90s he was getting WB to buy all sorts of movie rights and talking them into making what he wanted.


The Superman/batman rumor isn't true. WB and Joel was working towards a 3rd Batman film together, and after they pulled the plug on Superman Lives Burton parted ways for a while. Whoever was in charge of WB in the late 90s i don't think still held that position in mid 00s. "You'll never work in hollywood again" didn't happen, But if it did he still went on to make 4 more films with WB, and many with other companys.

Shame they haven't been able to see eye to eye on Beetlejuice recently, but i suspect the Dark Shadows financial loss was a much to play.

I'm sure empty threats are shouted at people all the time in Hollywood, but he turned around very quickly to make Sleepy Hollow at Paramount, so clearly no threat ever followed through. That's why I used the term "semi" for lack of a better one.

Tim Burton clearly hasn't been on a real blacklist over the years, but he most certainly has been on a sort of watchlist with studios since the 90s. I was hoping that with the billion-dollar grossing of "Alice" he might finally be out of it and be allowed to call some of his own shots again. I guess we sorta have indicators of that with his last few films (meaning, "kind of"). But then, I know that him deviating by making the independent Big Eyes packs some meaning. He did this while lots of other bigger projects are flying around with his name suggested or attached. This sends a message where his heart is at, and that he has not truly forgotten artistry amidst everything happening in a complicated industry all about its money.

The mere relationship between the artist in Big Eyes, and her husband, is a direct parallel to the director's relationship to a film studio. It would be a great world if James Cameron owned Terminator, or Tim Burton owned Edward Scissorhands or Beetlejuice, etc. But some other businessman owns the work, because that businessman is the one with the clout to find you the sales, whether you are the artist behind the work or not. Thus the situation depicted in Big Eyes is Burton's indirect expression of the fact that he isn't blind to the relationship between the artist and the business person responsible for selling that artist's work. That it is a true story only ingrains its importance into the context of the industry (obviously motion pictures are far more complicated works than paintings, but the parallel is sound nonetheless).





I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

I was hoping that with the billion-dollar grossing of "Alice" he might finally be out of it and be allowed to call some of his own shots again.

And he has done just that, even before and one Alice.

Tim Burton's production company (Tim Burton Productions) has been involved in all theses films, if there was some semi blacklisting or watchful eye on him they wouldn't be using his company but just hiring him.

But you don't care for his recent movies and therefore assume something's wrong, or someone else is responsible.

But you don't care for his recent movies...I don't know what you're talking about. But reading one pull comments out of one's ass is a signature trademark of IMDB. I've been reading it happen for over ten years now. It never particularly gets old... [thumbs up]

I don't know what you're talking about

BS, ive seen you post on here for years claiming you haven't liked his recent efforts so don't play dumb with me.

Once again... I don't know what you're talking about.


Burton's last three films were awesome. Sorry you don't agree...


But it's been a blast reading you attempt to project your own opinions onto mine. There are psychiatrists at universities who take whatever you can donate. They'll hear you out practically for free. Perhaps you can utilize one of these options and express yourself there..?