We've all heard the rumors of it going to be darker and feature Scarecrow and fear flashbacks bringing back Joker.
If the fifth Batman film was greenlit, would you have given Schumacher another chance? What would you have liked to seen in it?
Personally, I would have loved to have seen his version of Scarecrow. I think it would have been alot more interesting than the extremely watered down, lame "Scarecrow" Nolan gave us. I also think Joel could have given us some intense fear scenes. Look at Lost Boys. He has the ability to do it. I would have liked a darker story, briniging Batman back to the more "gothic" style Burton had created.
It could have gone darker as a reaction to Batman & Robin.
Speaking of fear - my greatest fear is that it could have been even more campy. Besides where else do you go after Batgirl was introduced and Bane had been wasted. i think it was best that schumacher had nothing more to do with the series.
I would have watched the movie, BUT I would have REFUSED to pay for it. I am dead serious. I would have either snuck into the theatre or I would have waited until it came out on DVD to rent it.
He ruined RUINED so much of the Batman canon, and he nearly sank the series.
Thank GOD for Christopher Nolan! LOL
See, my thing is this, and Ive said this on many message boards, I dont hate the Schumacher films. They are not my favorite of the film series by no means, they are ranked 4th and 5th. Its just not my personal image of Batman. Batman Forever was a huge summer blockbuster, Ive called it the first summer action popcorn movie of the franchise. It brought back a rejuvination to the series. At the time the movie goer was looking for this type of film, which is why it was such a hit. It fed off the great success of the animated shows and the ongoing toy lines. Problem was, WB gave in too much to that philosophy when it came to doing B&R. They didnt realy get into touch with what the fanbase really wanted from the Batman franchise, they didnt want to continue down the light hearted path. Forever was accepted because it did bring back the series full force. But rather than to keep the overall dark feel that the Batman films should have, they thought it would be more marketable to go the opposite route. Fearing the "been there, done that" backlash. They just happened to be wrong. Problem was, they took it in such a dramatic change of dirextion, it was just too much for the core fanbase and moviegoer to really give it another chance.
I do have a fear that they would have tried to over compensate and go too dark and broody. However, I would have given it a chance. Batman is too big to kill. It may be afew years longer than what the fanbase would want to wait for something new, but sometimes that is needed. I dont look at it as Schumacher nearly killed the franchise, I look at it as he did what was needed to be done to get the character back on track.
Actually Joel did a great job in Batman Forever
Batman Returns was a screw up a disaster film after Batman Returns came out a lot of people said that the Batman Franchise was dead so I think Tim Burton drove the franchise into the ground with his crap fest Batman Returns. WB wanted a 3rd film but wanted it to be more loyal to Batman and wanted the franchise to get away from that crap that Burton did in Batman Returns. Joel was perfect to get the franchise back on track with his blockerbuster Batman Forever which WB loved Batman fans loved I know some fans didn't but anyone that says Batman Returns is great batman film has no idea what the hell they are talking about. Returns was not a Batman film it was a Burton film with batman characters in it also in returns Batman does not do one thing heroic in forever Batman is very heroic even Bruce Wayne was heroic in forever. Joel's vision was better than Burton's Burton's vision was good in BATMAN 89 but in Returns his vision sucked. Also Batman Forever made a lot more money at the box office than Batman Returns made that just shows you that people liked the 3rd film better than that 1992 crapfest.
U.S. Box Office: Batman Returns - $160,277,476
Batman Forever - $182,548,832
Joel Scumacher did not sink the Batman franchise Tim Burton sank the franchise Joel saved the franchise with Batman Forever. Joel did screw up with Batman and Robin but he did a fantasic job with Batman Forever. Out of the Burton/Schumacher era Batman Forever was the only one that actually stayed loyal to the comics.
Also in my opinion out of the Burton/Schumacher era Val Kilmer was the best Batman Val was more suited for the role than Keaton.
Bob Kane stated in "Cinescape" magazine that of all the actors who played Batman, he felt that Val Kilmer did it the best.
Kane also stated that "Tim has a great vision. Unfortunately he gets so involved with the characterization of the villains, and the scenic backgrounds, that at times he forgets about the story line."
I totally agree with Bob Kane on that Burton was more involved with the Villians in the 2nd film that he did not really care about the story at all. I am so glad Burton didn't do the 3rd film. Joel was very involved with story, Batman, the story of Robin and also the villians but was not completely involved on the villians like Burton was.
Batman Returns was just so dam weird, stupid, and too dam dark, Returns was just not my cup of tea.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Jan 2008, 06:07
Actually Joel did a great job in Batman Forever
Batman Returns was a screw up a disaster film after Batman Returns came out a lot of people said that the Batman Franchise was dead so I think Tim Burton drove the franchise into the ground with his crap fest Batman Returns. WB wanted a 3rd film but wanted it to be more loyal to Batman and wanted the franchise to get away from that crap that Burton did in Batman Returns. Joel was perfect to get the franchise back on track with his blockerbuster Batman Forever which WB loved Batman fans loved I know some fans didn't but anyone that says Batman Returns is great batman film has no idea what the hell they are talking about. Returns was not a Batman film it was a Burton film with batman characters in it also in returns Batman does not do one thing heroic in forever Batman is very heroic even Bruce Wayne was heroic in forever. Joel's vision was better than Burton's Burton's vision was good in BATMAN 89 but in Returns his vision sucked. Also Batman Forever made a lot more money at the box office than Batman Returns made that just shows you that people liked the 3rd film better than that 1992 crapfest.
U.S. Box Office: Batman Returns - $160,277,476
Batman Forever - $182,548,832
22 million more in domestic cash is what the difference between crapfest and blockbuster is?
Let's not forget that between the 3 years of 1992 and 1995 ticket prices also rose some. Probably on average 50 cents, So what? Forever techinicaly made 11 million more bucks for the studio?
I doubt the number of actual "tickets" sold wasn't that big of a difference. Plus Batman Returns was the 3rd highest grossing film of 1992. Look, there is no doubt Forever made more money, and was more family friendly, thus selling more toys. But saying that Returns was some HUGE flop is just simply not true.
Ok, my bad.
Thanx for letting me know. I just decided to join this, site after all my years at BOF.
Not a problem, he was a troublemaker, no loss.
Anyway, welocme to the cave. :)
I would have loved to see this film. From what I have heard it was darker, back to batman's old roots and crossed between Batman89 and Batman Forever.
Good topic i only learned about schumachers batman 5 not that long ago and it seemed pretty interesting and even though i liked batman forever (though it was no where near as great as the first 2 were) i hated batman and robin so i wasn't sure if it would turn out good or not so i looked up as much on it as i could and as people have said it was meant to go back to the darkness of the first 2 and also have scarecrow and harley quinn i really hated nolans 'realistic' scarecrow so this one prob would have had an intire scarecrow suit like most the villans did in the burton/schumacher movies instead of just a lame potatoe sack and would have really intense fear scene as said before so i would have liked to seen it but hey i guess we will never know anyway heres a little of the trivia for you's i thought you might like:
Steve Buscemi was considered for the role of the scarecrow.
Clooney was going to reprise his role as Batman prior to the film's cancellation.
Brad Dourif was considered for the role of the scarecrow.
Robert Englund was considered for the role of the scarecrow.
Jeff Goldblum was considered for the role of the scarecrow.
Jeremy Irons was considered for the role of the scarecrow.
Christopher Lloyd was considered for the role of the scarecrow.
Madonna was reportedly going to play Harley Quinn, who would be the Joker's daughter rather than his lover.
Jenny McCarthy was considered for the role of Harley Quinn.
Jack Nicholson was to reprise his role as the Joker - resurrected as a hallucination in Batman's mind. The fim was cancelled.
Chris O'Donnell was going to reprise his role as Robin, prior to the film's cancellation.
Kurt Russell was considered for the role of batman.
Joel Schumacher was signed on to direct prior to the films cancellation.
Howard Stern was seriously considered for a role prior to the films cancellation.
Jennifer Tilly was considered for the role of Harley Quinn.
For some reason, I believe Schumacher's Batman 5 would have turned out alot better than B&R. Even if B&R was more welcomed than it actually came to be at the box office, I would certainly like to think Joel and company would have had the sense to say, "Ok, this direction worked. But it's time to guide this franchise back towards it's roots".
Plus, just seeing Jack reprising The Joker would have made the film a instant "Must See" with me. ;D
Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 2 Jul 2008, 18:14
Plus, just seeing Jack reprising The Joker would have made the film a instant "Must See" with me. ;D
I sort of feel they would have been putting the Joker in it for the sake of it, which is no way to go.
The script for the batman 5 movie is meant to be floating around somewhere on the internet but i can't find it might just be a rumour.
Steve Buscemi as the Scarecrow... never thought of that. B-TAS's Crane actually looks like him. Great casting thought there! Would have probably worked really well.
Also, Christopher Lloyd is an actor I would have really loved to see in a Burton film.
The Riddler, Scarecrow or Mr. Freeze - all characters that would work with him. So again, great casting choice.
Kurt Russel as Batman would definitely be unusual. Maybe he would have acted out Batman similar to Snake Pliskin.
Also, I remember there was an article back in 1997 / 1998, where it said Marilyn Manson was rumored to portrait the part of The Scarecrow.
Your probably right about Marilyn Manson theres heaps of people that have been rumoured to be playing different roles. At first i kinda liked the idea of Jeff Goldblum but like you that changed when i found out about Steve Buscemi theres just somthing about him that seems right same, for Christopher Lloyd but i think i would also liked to have seen him as the riddler. Mr Frezze was one i always hoped to see in a Burton batman hopefully played by Patrick Stward ;D. Kurt Russell i would have liked to have seen as batman instead of George Clooney returning a more aggressive as you said Snake Pliskin type batman would have worked better with a more darker setting for me its a toss up for Russell version of batman between Snake Pliskin or his Wyatt Earp. As for Harley Quinn i got no clue.
I would have definately paid to see "Batman:The Triumphant". Seriously with all jokes aside. I think Schumacher would have done a great job with his third installment. He had obviously learned his lesson with B&R, so I'm sure he would have made the new film darker.
The Scarecrow could have been a major villain. Nolan did water down the character a bit. If I could remember correctly the scarecrow wore a hat and had his own pet, crow. I think that Schumacher would have used_whoever, to bring that Batman villain to life.
Personally I always thought Johnny Depp would be perfect for the Scarecrow role. Then again, I think Jeff Goldblum would have been good as The Scarecrow.
Yeah, if B & R wasn't a bat-bomb and Shumacher did another one, the series would die with the not so aptly titled Batman Triumphant.
Quote
It was actually stated that Clooney and O'donnell would reprise their roles because they were contracted for another film. "Batman Triumphant" was actually written before B&R was even released. The only real reason it never got off the ground was because of B&R's poor reception.
Yes thats true it talk's about it in this:
"Warner Bros. hired Mark Protosevich to write a script for the fifth Batman film, titled Batman Triumphant, even before the theatrical release of Batman & Robin. Joel Schumacher, George Clooney, and Chris O?Donnell were still contracted for another film. The Scarecrow was to be the main villain and through the use of his fear gas, Scarecrow would cause Batman to confront his worst fear: the return of The Joker. Harley Quinn was in the script and shown as the daughter of Jack Napier.
As of yet, the script hasn?t been leaked online and it is unknown whether or not Jack Nicholson would've reprised his role of the Joker. Due to poor results from Batman & Robin, Triumphant was cancelled and Warner Bros. commissioned more scripts."
I'm also guessing he took his "dark" frustration out on his next film, 8MM. Afterall that film was disturbing, and I bet he wanted to show everyone he could still make a very "dark" film even after B&R.
So I stand by Joel Schumacher. Not for making B&R a kids film. But if he had gone through with making "Batman: The Triumphant" which probably would have been a better film, that people may have liked more than they think they would have. This is why you never say never.
For example; When people were mad at George Lucas for making Star Wars Episode I-II, do you think that stopped him from making Episode III? No. And guess what? he made up for his "mistakes" in the eyes of the people, when he made Revenge of the Sith. So everything happens for a reason, and unfortunately we couldn't see the third Schumacher-Batman film. That's that.
BT would certainly be an "improvement" over B&R, in the sense that it wouldn't have all this camp and much of the colorful neons, but I still think that it would be a simply boring movie. Again, remember the "serious" scenes of BF. Shallow and forced. "Dark", yeah, but an MTV-kind of dark pose. Joel is a fine director, I enjoy some of his work (Flatliners, Lost Boys, Falling Down), but IMO he never had any kind of sensibilities fit for Batman.
If you look at the big picture, it would be worse for 00s Batman films if the series faded away slowly with boring movies instead of stopping at a huge bomb and having this 7-8 year time gap.
Then, again, I might be biased.
I don't know how "Triumphant" would have turned out. Maybe it would have been boring, nobody will ever know. I think the film was planned for a 2001 release. But because of the bombing of B&R, Warner Bros. cancelled just about every Batman film project anyone could think of from that point on. We all know that for 8-years the franchise was missing-in-action, until the torch was passed onto Nolan.
I'm glad Triumphant was not made. Schumacher did not deserve another chance after the awful Batman and Robin. However, I'd have liked to see Nicholson's dream sequences.
I don't know who is the guy that did this, if this was officially published or he drew this for fun or to promote his skill or just for his portfolio etc. "Idle Hours" seems like an expanded universe of the Burton films (all images are in the Fan Art section), and IMO the artwork is simply marvellous.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1202734697.jpg&hash=2fe42ffb0448557ac4b25d3dd1d8bc392410bd1c) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=613) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1202734500.jpg&hash=516f85656b03ed93a6325d8e8c184c1a5ce091d4) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=610) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1202734569.jpg&hash=98cd89d289f23fbc5a9422295e336bd29e22b88b) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=611)
Well, if someone is talented enough on a professional level, he could illustrate some (fan-fic) sequences from those never-made "films" and give them life. A nice "what if..." kind of thing. I know that if I was an artist I'd do some drawings for the fun of it.
They are all here http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?display=2
It is by Thorsten Ebert and it not an official work. As you said it is just to promote his skill.
They are amazing.
The Freeze design as well as the... set design is amazing, and seems to be inspired from the Penguin's "attic" in Returns.
Quote from: silenig on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, 12:29
I don't know who is the guy that did this, if this was officially published or he drew this for fun or to promote his skill or just for his portfolio etc. "Idle Hours" seems like an expanded universe of the Burton films (all images are in the Fan Art section), and IMO the artwork is simply marvellous.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1202734697.jpg&hash=2fe42ffb0448557ac4b25d3dd1d8bc392410bd1c) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=613) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1202734500.jpg&hash=516f85656b03ed93a6325d8e8c184c1a5ce091d4) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=610) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1202734569.jpg&hash=98cd89d289f23fbc5a9422295e336bd29e22b88b) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=611)
Well, if someone is talented enough on a professional level, he could illustrate some (fan-fic) sequences from those never-made "films" and give them life. A nice "what if..." kind of thing. I know that if I was an artist I'd do some drawings for the fun of it.
I first saw these a couple of weeks ago. Couldn't you just die! I love them! It would be brilliant to see something like this realized in the future.
I just came up with another actor who would have fit the role of Crane/ Scarecrow really well:
Bruce Spence
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fmuppet%2Fimages%2F4%2F46%2FBrucespence-battleground.jpg&hash=5d4ee3b60dc07ff88009e28f41610f31491d9988)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0817748/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0817748/)
He just popped into my head because of the Star Wars - Tim Burton actors connection.
Spence played Tion Medon, the Chairman of Utapau in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.
wasn't he in one of the mad max movies as well?
he would have looked great, esp in that picture
Yes, he played the Gyro Captain.
Here's a Behind the Scenes Featurette from Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, with an interview of him. I couldn't find anything of him on YouTube for some reason.
http://www.starwars.com/video/view/000300.html (http://www.starwars.com/video/view/000300.html)
He appears at 04:00.
WOW great thought stork would have made a top Scarecrow great thinking i really like that idea :D.
Apparently Spence is only allowed to join in on the third movie in trilogies: Mad Max 3 (if you can consider that a trilogy), Revenge of the Sith, Return of the King and the Matrix Revolutions. :)
But he was in mad max 2.
Shhh! ;)
Interesting observation, thecolorsblend.
Tim Robbins is also tall, he could have been The Scarecrow.
Quote from: mykbyk on Sun, 14 Sep 2008, 02:02
Marilyn Manson would naturally be a great choice for a dark, scary kind of approach for The Scarecrow. He was considered for Schumacher's third and Batman Begins. I honestly thought he woulda been a much better choice over Cillian Murphy.
Wasnt he rumored for Willy Wonka?
Was Manson around in 97 for Schumachers 3rd?
yeah, Manson was really popular around 97'.
Doesnt seem like he's been around that long. Man, time flies.
i thought schumachers 3rd movie was meant to be released in 2000.
If I remember correctly, it was going to be released in July of 2001.
Quote from: shadowbat69 on Sun, 14 Sep 2008, 22:33
Doesnt seem like he's been around that long. Man, time flies.
If Im correct I believe Mansons band has been around since the early nineties but their first album "Portrait of an American Family" was their first major label debut on Trent Reznors label Nothing/Interscope in 1994.
One thing i have thought of that's never really been talked about is Schumacher's Joker.We know Joker was meant to return in the fear hallucinations, but how would he have done him he always said that he wanted to make him movies nothing like Burton's so would he have used Jack Nicholson again or just hired someone else.
And what would he have acted like, i know it was meant to be going back to the dark roots again but that doesn't hide the fact its still a Schumacher Batman movie.
As much as I loved Jack in the first movie, I think it would have been best to not have him come back. Even if it would have been a good movie, I still would rather remember him from the first.
he would have looked even more like an old man than he did in '89!
Jack may have been 52 when he made Batman but he made a Joker that placed in the list of 100 greatest villians of all time, lasted 20 and survived what was hailed as "the second coming" and all that BS, so he may have been an old man but he's still impressive.
Quote from: Sandman on Sat, 25 Oct 2008, 00:27
Jack may have been 52 when he made Batman but he made a Joker that placed in the list of 100 greatest villians of all time, lasted 20 and survived what was hailed as "the second coming" and all that BS, so he may have been an old man but he's still impressive.
Never said he wasnt impressive no need to defend something that I know we both love, but seriously Im glad we never saw Nicholson as The Joker after 89, it was perfect for the time and that leaves it better!
Yeah as much as i would have liked to have seen how Batman 5 turned out, it would have been better with somone else as The Joker. Can't be that big a deal we had 3 people play Batman thanks to Schumacher.
Quote from: Sandman on Sun, 26 Oct 2008, 23:20
Yeah as much as i would have liked to have seen how Batman 5 turned out, it would have been better with somone else as The Joker. Can't be that big a deal we had 3 people play Batman thanks to Schumacher.
Partly Schumacher, but mostly WB.
Also, the look and tone of this project was probably going to be alot like the OnStar commercials that were shown in the early 2000's, considering that the tone was said to be a cross between 89 and Forever. For those who haven't seen them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xen9Ylz5GoY
I love those onstar commercials, the Burton and Schumacher elements blended together very well, those have good nostalgic feeling to them.
That Riddler does a hell of a Jim Carrey impression.
There's a fanmade DVD case for this movie floating around, i can't seem to find it again atm but all in all it looked pretty good. As great as the new series is i still wonder how this would have turned out.
Is it this one?
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2F1211821329.jpg&hash=4fb431071d3c7c0c88e5bfe8efdbd8efaefce72e)
Yeah thats it awesome ;D. When i first saw it someone told me it was a unrealised Batman movie...that was so mean :(.
Here's another fan made one i just found no where near as good though.
link (http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2493003396_fc54ae3ea7.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/21955904%40N05/2493003396/&usg=__BW8sSJotFfcF0clnYAjjs69iICs=&h=375&w=500&sz=69&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=KOFSmaaWNUnotM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbatman%2Btriumphant%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG)
Just for the fun of it, here's some fan made trailers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4JDS6XWuJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv0wPc_Eq6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MItePA5U4zI
The last one was pretty decent.
Im pretty sure they could've done something good with these ideas, but Im truly glad we got BB instead, it was fresh, new and original compared to just re-hashing the last two franchises together and going with it.
See that's what i don't get, Nolan came on board in 2002-2003 and made his film in 2005 so really there was time for BT to be made and still have the Nolan movie's.
This was meant to be Joel Schumacher's last film and was going come out in 1999-2000 so even if it was a flop or not there was time for it to come out and still have Nolan do his movies and atleast this way Batman could have gone out the way it was meant to be...Dark.
If it was made I feel it would have gotten in the way of what we got with BB, and I would take BB over anything any other director would have given us in place of it. Shumacher had his chance at doing a good bat-film and I feel if after two he didnt succeed he shouldnt have been given a third chance. Honestly after the bad taste left in peoples mouths from B&R it would have been a terrible move for WB to actually invest in something that would be more than a gamble, it would have been a bad business move in general.
Well if Nolan's movie are as truly great as there being made out to be then this shouldn't have been anything against them. WB is all about making money, they couldn't give a flying F about fan's or the Batman series so if they wanted to they would prob have given Schumacher another go because if you really look at it, it would have been his 2nd chance.
Even though it's not the best with the fan's Batman Forever was everything WB wanted, they told him to go lighter and more kid friendly so they make more money esp in things like Fast Food Kid Meals and such, which Batman Returns being the darkest Batfilm made ruined for them, Schumacher just over did it with his next movie.
Not being made no one can say how much money it made but had they made it more dark, it would have lead to much more money bad business who know's.
Its quite obvious that it wouldnt have made much money, it was far too early to shove another batman film down mainstream moviegoers throats, to me its common sense.
True, but the idea of a 5th Batman and a dark one at that to finish off the old series is really interesting to me.
Exactly. It's better to leave on a high note than how it was left. This may be why all four of the original films are ridiculed by some.
Quote from: Sandman on Fri, 21 Nov 2008, 03:52
True, but the idea of a 5th Batman and a dark one at that to finish off the old series is really interesting to me.
I can see your point of view, but at that point I wanted to see anything possible that was different from what had been done with the Schumacher and Burton films, it was time for a fresh new take, and thats exactly what we got.
Quote from: batass4880 on Fri, 21 Nov 2008, 04:10
Exactly. It's better to leave on a high note than how it was left. This may be why all four of the original films are ridiculed by some.
Yeah and it really looked like the film had potentail, but sadly there's no going back whats done is done, but i still love reading all the idea's of what people thought it would turn out. Everyone has there idea of how to make the old Batman series should have gone out on a high.
I just saw John Malkovich on SNL last night and it got me thinking he could have been a really good choice for the Scarecrow in Triumphant. SNL still sucks though. :P
John Malkovich great actor ;D.
I'm glad that Batman Triumphant didn't come into play. I think it would've been stupid!
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Fri, 16 Jan 2009, 15:27
I'm glad that Batman Triumphnat didn't come into play. I think it would've been stupid!
Im curious to know why you think so.
I think it would have made no sense to have the Schumacher Batman films go from dark/silly to OTT campy to Batman Returns dark. I know Forever was made in response to that stupid backlash (damn you soccer mommies who bashed it >:() from Returns, but it was entertaining & had some seriousness & darkness (just not as much as the Burton films). Batman and Robin was OTT & wasn't worthy of a dark follow-up. :P