I'll start and say one down side to Burton leaving is that Keaton would have been better than Kimer any day of the week.
That being said here are some reasons why I think Burton's third film would have been worse than Schumachers first.
1. Interference; this isn't overly Burton's fault but we saw this happen with Waterworld, Super Mario Bros, Batman and Robin, as well as spider-man 3. Studios interfering with their director rarely work out and some directors even fight back and purposely do a shoddy job to show studios how ludicrous their demands translate to. While Schumacher did get interference on this film, Burton likely would have had a much shorter fuse especially having gone through it twice.
2. Jim Carrey- maybe Burton would have cast him any how but it's hard to picture another actor doing better
3. The decline factor- while we all have aspects of Batman Returns we enjoy, it was quite a bit inferior to the first film. The villains are more far fetched, it's less grounded, and the plot holes are apparent. Had there been another drop off, this film would have suffered.
4. Marlon Wayanes as Robin. Marlon may be funny but he is not a a good actor and never did pull off a serious role. He doesn't have the look and it doesn't seem as though he'd have taken any previous Robin mantles (Dick Grayson, jason todd, Tim drake) but rather his own from Burton (titled Robin). I have a real tough time foreseeing this version being better than Chris O' Donnell.
5. Straying from the comics. While Burton took liberties in his first film, Batman Returns strayed from the comics quite heavily with the villains having little semblance and Max Schreck inserted over familiar comic icon Harvey Dent. Given the rumoured Robin treatment, it doesn't seem as though Burton would have gone back to the source material. Joel Schumacher on the other hand was a fan of the comics and did incorporate grass roots in (for instance the scarring of Harvey Dent).
6. Going out on top. While Burtons final Bat film wasn't better than the first, it was at least competent and enjoyable. Schumacher and Nolan left the franchises with many angry fans. The Dark knight Rises underwhelmed fans with it's slow pace, horrid editing, departure from the source material, and overall lack of Batman. Batman & Robin has been heavily criticized. While Batman Returns had it's flaws, it is far less criticized then the other two directors swan songs with the cape and cowl.
7. Ed Wood. This excellent film may have either not happened or not gotten Burton's full attention had he had another bat film in development.
My thoughts on this are that Burton's Batman 3 only really would have worked if a split personality Harvey Dent would have replaced Max Shreck in Batman Returns as a villain. I also liked the redemptive aspect of Batman Forever and I don't know if that would have been there with Burton. So, I kinda agree.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 11:38
My thoughts on this are that Burton's Batman 3 only really would have worked if a split personality Harvey Dent would have replaced Max Shreck in Batman Returns as a villain. I also liked the redemptive aspect of Batman Forever and I don't know if that would have been there with Burton. So, I kinda agree.
I never understood why people thought that Harvey Dent should have filled-in for the Max Shreck part bearing in mind that Dent is meant to start off as a decent, upstanding individual who only becomes evil after his horrific scarring, whereas Max is someone who has always been corrupt and self-serving.
I wanted to make a thread on Harvey Dent in the Burton films saying the same thing as Johnnygobbs. If Harvey had been in Max's role, his scarring wouldn't have had nearly the same dramatic impact since he was avillain to begin with. What makes Two-Face tragic and more interesting is that he was one of the good guys in the beginning. It surprised me to read he was supposed to be in Shreck's role at first.
As for the original question, I'm not glad the third Burton film didn't happen despite all the things that could've gone wrong. I am being subjective here since I like the existing Burton Batman films the best out of all.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 14:10
I wanted to make a thread on Harvey Dent in the Burton films saying the same thing as Johnnygobbs. If Harvey had been in Max's role, his scarring wouldn't have had nearly the same dramatic impact since he was avillain to begin with. What makes Two-Face tragic and more interesting is that he was one of the good guys in the beginning. It surprised me to read he was supposed to be in Shreck's role at first.
As for the original question, I'm not glad the third Burton film didn't happen despite all the things that could've gone wrong. I am being subjective here since I like the existing Burton Batman films the best out of all.
Has it ever been proven that Max Shreck's part was originally meant to be filled by Harvey Dent? I've only seen two drafts for Dan Waters' 'Batman Returns' and both of them feature Shreck but not Dent (although I did read that Waters was toying with the idea of having Dent simply show up for a brief scene and flip his coin in deciding what to do next).
Apart from Dent being a completely different character to Shreck, in terms of the former being an upstanding crusader for justice and the latter being the type of person Dent might go after, it makes no sense in purely practical terms to write Dent out of the story if the original intention had been to include him. Billy Dee Williams makes it clear on the DVD special edition features that he would have loved to have returned to the franchise as Dent/Two-Face, so if an opportunity had existed why was a decision made to write his character out?
And like Edd Grayson I would have liked another Burton Batman film. I think one more would have sufficed in order to allow Burton to complete an unofficial trilogy that would allow him to delve into a sufficient variety of characters. Then again, I couldn't see Burton returning for a third film unless he was allowed to do things his own way, and in view of the mixed response that greeted 'Batman Returns' (which was actually better received critically than its predecessor, but made a lot less money and alienated many family groups and commercial sponsors) I don't think that was a realistic possibility.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 13:03
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 11:38
My thoughts on this are that Burton's Batman 3 only really would have worked if a split personality Harvey Dent would have replaced Max Shreck in Batman Returns as a villain. I also liked the redemptive aspect of Batman Forever and I don't know if that would have been there with Burton. So, I kinda agree.
I never understood why people thought that Harvey Dent should have filled-in for the Max Shreck part bearing in mind that Dent is meant to start off as a decent, upstanding individual who only becomes evil after his horrific scarring, whereas Max is someone who has always been corrupt and self-serving.
It wouldn't have been the exact same character, I believe. He would have been written nothing like Max, well with the possible exception of his Two-Face personality possibly being the one to push Selina out the window.
1. This probably would have been what killed the movie and the franchise might have died right there, because Tim wouldn't have put up with anymore garbage probably. The first time they meddled, "(beep) you, I'm outta here." lol
2. The answer you're looking for is Robin Williams.
3. I fail to see how any of what you said about Returns (except some plot holes) are bad things, and there are definitely a ton of us who think it is definitely NOT quite a bit inferior, but the rest of it, I get. It's hard to make magic once, let alone twice, even if you're Tim Burton. Three times would have been tough but I think he could have done it.
4. I can't tell any of the Wayans apart so idk if I've seen Marlon in anything or not lol (which one had the ABC show, My Wife and Kids? He's the same one in Major Payne, he's funny as hell) so I better skip this one.
5. It defo would have been more "Batman through Tim Burton's eyes" which would have been awesome for some peeps and some would have hated it. I wouldn't have cared back then as long as it was, which is funny since now I'm waiting to see if they f*** up the Suicide Squad movie by going far from the comics lol. If it entertains me and Harley is awesome then I won't worry with it too much though.
6. Again, for me Returns was not all that inferior. Depending on how you look at the movies (they're really two separate kinds of movies, just with a lot of the same characters) in a lot of ways it's better than the first, in others the first is better than Returns. Depending on what Tim went for (I guess a happy medium between the two is what most peeps like to use for theoreticals? and wow Kitty is piling on the smart talk today) I think he could have pulled off a third one just fine. Especially a Michael Keaton vs Robin Williams battle, assuming Robin actually was cast. He would have been so damn good as The Riddler, it breaks my heart that we'll never get to see it. But he would have been brilliant, zany, terrifying, and just totally freaking amazing and probably would have legitimately done for Tim's movie what Heath did for TDK because of his death more so than his performance (which was good but not the performance of the gods that everyone acts like it is). I think, instead of Tim going out on a sour note, maybe he would have gone out with his best (assuming it was his last Bat movie).
7. I never saw Ed Wood so I should probably skip this one too lol. But I get that kind of concern. Maybe if Tim was doing the third Batman, he could have still made the Ed Wood movie after that and still given it his full attention? Idk. I like have no idea about that movie what so ever, when it was produced or anything so yah I'll shut up now.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 14:27
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 14:10
I wanted to make a thread on Harvey Dent in the Burton films saying the same thing as Johnnygobbs. If Harvey had been in Max's role, his scarring wouldn't have had nearly the same dramatic impact since he was avillain to begin with. What makes Two-Face tragic and more interesting is that he was one of the good guys in the beginning. It surprised me to read he was supposed to be in Shreck's role at first.
As for the original question, I'm not glad the third Burton film didn't happen despite all the things that could've gone wrong. I am being subjective here since I like the existing Burton Batman films the best out of all.
Has it ever been proven that Max Shreck's part was originally meant to be filled by Harvey Dent? I've only seen two drafts for Dan Waters' 'Batman Returns' and both of them feature Shreck but not Dent (although I did read that Waters was toying with the idea of having Dent simply show up for a brief scene and flip his coin in deciding what to do next).
Apart from Dent being a completely different character to Shreck, in terms of the former being an upstanding crusader for justice and the latter being the type of person Dent might go after, it makes no sense in purely practical terms to write Dent out of the story if the original intention had been to include him. Billy Dee Williams makes it clear on the DVD special edition features that he would have loved to have returned to the franchise as Dent/Two-Face, so if an opportunity had existed why was a decision made to write his character out?
That's correct, johnnygobbs. I believe "Shreck was originally Harvey Dent" was an IMDB rumor that got spread around as fact, since the only time Dent was in the Daniel Waters draft was in a cameo.
As for a third Burton film, there's no telling what it would've been about or who could've even been the villains of the film. Using Two-Face and Riddler were all Schumacher and the Batchlers' ideas.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, 16:55
That's correct, johnnygobbs. I believe "Shreck was originally Harvey Dent" was an IMDB rumor that got spread around as fact, since the only time Dent was in the Daniel Waters draft was in a cameo.
It's frustrating because I've listened to commentaries and read articles where this rumour has been stated as fact despite all other evidence to the contrary.
QuoteAs for a third Burton film, there's no telling what it would've been about or who could've even been the villains of the film. Using Two-Face and Riddler were all Schumacher and the Batchlers' ideas.
Ah I see. Was Burton ever associated with the third Batman when it was decided to utilise Two-Face and the Riddler? For some reason I assumed he was still on-board when Rene Russo was cast as Michael Keaton's love interest. I also assumed that Keaton jumped ship fairly soon after Burton was given his marching orders.
I actually have a 1993 issue of Empire magazine which suggests that Burton was going to do 'Batman 3' with John Malkovich as a possible contender for the Riddler, before he was kicked off the project and replaced with Schumacher. The same article also states that Warner Bros was still happy for him to make Catwoman with Michelle Pfeiffer at this stage.
I think Riddler was always rumored around town to show up after B89 and was even mentioned at the end of one of Daniel Waters's drafts.
But other than that Empire article you state (which even says that it's "rumored"), there's no substantial evidence that Burton himself was going to use the combo of Two-Face and Riddler or even use Robin in the next movie. These all came from Schumacher and the Batchlers. And Burton's main role for his "producer" credit on the movie was approving the hiring of the new creative team.
After Burton left, Keaton was still attached to play Batman for awhile and the script was written with him in mind, but he left when he was unhappy with the direction things were going. At the same time, Schumacher pursued Robin Williams, but that didn't work out either.
So it's possible that in another world, we would've gotten a Batman Forever with Keaton and Robin Williams, but it still would've been directed by Schumacher and would've been off of the same script as the film.
I'll address some points brought up in the thread;
-I've heard conflicting things about Harvey Dent's roles in Batman Returns and the various stages. I've read that Burton himself scrapped him because he wasn't keen on doing a sequel and wanted it to be as different as possible. One thing which has been confirmed is that Burton had no involvement in the first draft of the script. I have never read any credible source though citing two face being part of a script involving Burton.
-I remember reading articles shortly after returns about Catwoman rumoured to be in the third batman film.
-I think just about any source confirms the Riddler was part of the script from the beginning. While he never read the comics, Burton did watch the TV show and picked the 3 most popular villains on the show. Some would argue the Burton films are a darker parallel of the show more than the comics. The riddler was easily the next most popular character along with Mr. Freeze from the show.
-Perhaps Robin Williams would have played the Riddler, perhaps not. Was he considered by Schumacher? Schumacher seemed to always favour the bigger star and RW was bigger than Carrey who had his big breakout year the year prior to forever (I wonder how many of his films had been released before he signed on for Batman Forever)? I've read unconfirmed sources that Williams was not happy with WB for using him as a ploy to get jack nicholson in the first film. At that stage of his career Williams hadn't played any evil characters but he would shortly thereafter with One hour photo and insomnia.
-I think we can assume that Robin would have made his way into the film as he was a part of each of the first two films at various stages with Marlon Waynes cast in Returns and a Robin toy even being released (though he was white). In the special features for Returns, Burton states his main reason for cutting him was the lack of screentime for Batman. Though if we are to believe he only had 1 villain, it would have been difficult to have two heroes.
-by all accounts, the period of time Keaton and Schumacher were attached at the same time was very limited. What I read was that Keaton had one meeting with Schumacher and decided not to return based on the direction the series was headed.
-the Renee Russo rumours likely confirm Chase Meridian was a part of Keatons script. I do think she is a better actor than Nicole Kidman so that might have made it better although Russo has never been the sex symbol Kidman was at the time.
-the second film was definitely far more of a departure from the comics than the first. No huge characters were created for the first film, Alexander Knox is probably the one with the most screen time. Yes the joker was given a back story but over all he stayed true to his character. Catwoman is not super natural, her background is as a jewel theif and the penguins backstory is completely changed in Returns. I'm fine with Returns as it turned out but it is much less similar to the comics. That being said I'm not sure how far the riddler would have strayed from his counter part besides shaved question mark.
Here's another reason I meant to put in my initial post; REDUNDANCY
Burton did do a good job making his two films as differently as possible but that being said he is a director with a distinctive style. Would his third film have simply been too much? You can say there's no such thing as too much of a good thing but it can happen in the movies. Schumachers humour in the third film was not a big deal to fans but it went way too far in the fourth and he essentially exposed his own flaws. Nolans rep among bat fans seemed to go way down with TDKR and in a way gave people more appreciation for Burton and Schumacher. Obviously Nolan has his own cult of followers who will praise every thing he spits out many people (myself included) got tired of his style. The grit and seriousness was a nice change of pace from Batman and Robin but by the third film it was boring and no fun any more. Had nolan stopped after TDK he would have likely been held in a higher esteem. Likewise for Schumacher after Batman Forever (we've discussed many times how Batman Forever would be much better regarded had Batman & Robin never happened).
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 9 Jul 2015, 10:15
I'll address some points brought up in the thread;
-I've heard conflicting things about Harvey Dent's roles in Batman Returns and the various stages. I've read that Burton himself scrapped him because he wasn't keen on doing a sequel and wanted it to be as different as possible. One thing which has been confirmed is that Burton had no involvement in the first draft of the script. I have never read any credible source though citing two face being part of a script involving Burton.
-I remember reading articles shortly after returns about Catwoman rumoured to be in the third batman film.
-I think just about any source confirms the Riddler was part of the script from the beginning. While he never read the comics, Burton did watch the TV show and picked the 3 most popular villains on the show. Some would argue the Burton films are a darker parallel of the show more than the comics. The riddler was easily the next most popular character along with Mr. Freeze from the show.
-Perhaps Robin Williams would have played the Riddler, perhaps not. Was he considered by Schumacher? Schumacher seemed to always favour the bigger star and RW was bigger than Carrey who had his big breakout year the year prior to forever (I wonder how many of his films had been released before he signed on for Batman Forever)? I've read unconfirmed sources that Williams was not happy with WB for using him as a ploy to get jack nicholson in the first film. At that stage of his career Williams hadn't played any evil characters but he would shortly thereafter with One hour photo and insomnia.
-I think we can assume that Robin would have made his way into the film as he was a part of each of the first two films at various stages with Marlon Waynes cast in Returns and a Robin toy even being released (though he was white). In the special features for Returns, Burton states his main reason for cutting him was the lack of screentime for Batman. Though if we are to believe he only had 1 villain, it would have been difficult to have two heroes.
-by all accounts, the period of time Keaton and Schumacher were attached at the same time was very limited. What I read was that Keaton had one meeting with Schumacher and decided not to return based on the direction the series was headed.
-the Renee Russo rumours likely confirm Chase Meridian was a part of Keatons script. I do think she is a better actor than Nicole Kidman so that might have made it better although Russo has never been the sex symbol Kidman was at the time.
-the second film was definitely far more of a departure from the comics than the first. No huge characters were created for the first film, Alexander Knox is probably the one with the most screen time. Yes the joker was given a back story but over all he stayed true to his character. Catwoman is not super natural, her background is as a jewel theif and the penguins backstory is completely changed in Returns. I'm fine with Returns as it turned out but it is much less similar to the comics. That being said I'm not sure how far the riddler would have strayed from his counter part besides shaved question mark.
Here's another reason I meant to put in my initial post; REDUNDANCY
Burton did do a good job making his two films as differently as possible but that being said he is a director with a distinctive style. Would his third film have simply been too much? You can say there's no such thing as too much of a good thing but it can happen in the movies. Schumachers humour in the third film was not a big deal to fans but it went way too far in the fourth and he essentially exposed his own flaws. Nolans rep among bat fans seemed to go way down with TDKR and in a way gave people more appreciation for Burton and Schumacher. Obviously Nolan has his own cult of followers who will praise every thing he spits out many people (myself included) got tired of his style. The grit and seriousness was a nice change of pace from Batman and Robin but by the third film it was boring and no fun any more. Had nolan stopped after TDK he would have likely been held in a higher esteem. Likewise for Schumacher after Batman Forever (we've discussed many times how Batman Forever would be much better regarded had Batman & Robin never happened).
I've never disliked the Schumacher movies, well except for a sad stage in my life in my teens where I disliked Batman & Robin because everything had to be dark otherwise it was stupid to me.
You know, I came on here to defend Burtons Batman 3, as I think fans deserved a third movie, even though I did like Batman Forever (i was a kid when it came out and loved the hype and thought it was a fun movie and I still do)....But the points you came up with were actually pretty decent on certain ones...
1. Interference; this isn't overly Burton's fault but we saw this happen with Waterworld, Super Mario Bros, Batman and Robin, as well as spider-man 3. Studios interfering with their director rarely work out and some directors even fight back and purposely do a shoddy job to show studios how ludicrous their demands translate to. While Schumacher did get interference on this film, Burton likely would have had a much shorter fuse especially having gone through it twice.
I agree with this one... Once WB knew it could make extra money on the side with merchandising with toys, mcdonalds, shirts, etc - then it became more than just a director's vision - it became a corporate produced film which is everything Burton is against.
2. Jim Carrey- maybe Burton would have cast him any how but it's hard to picture another actor doing better
Disagree with this one... Jim Carrey might have worked for Schumacher Universe, but Burton Universe is a different beast. The answer and the only answer would be Robin Williams. Not only could he convey a serious character, but future projects such as Insomnia and One Hour Photo showed he could be downright CREEPY villain and very great actor... He even was nominated for an Oscar and he would later win an Oscar in 1997.
3. The decline factor- while we all have aspects of Batman Returns we enjoy, it was quite a bit inferior to the first film. The villains are more far fetched, it's less grounded, and the plot holes are apparent. Had there been another drop off, this film would have suffered.
I disagree with this. I have a firm belief Batman Returns was ahead of its time and was very different than the first one, with similar Burton-esque elements that made it great. It wasn't a cookie cutter sequel, it wasn't a remake of the first. It was unique, deep, and extremely artistic. The movies were so different that its hard to compare the two, but still felt Burton Batman so even though a sequel by name and the story did pick up from first one a few years later, it felt extremely original in all aspects and not just a remake of the first one using Penguin instead of Joker.
4. Marlon Wayanes as Robin. Marlon may be funny but he is not a a good actor and never did pull off a serious role. He doesn't have the look and it doesn't seem as though he'd have taken any previous Robin mantles (Dick Grayson, jason todd, Tim drake) but rather his own from Burton (titled Robin). I have a real tough time foreseeing this version being better than Chris O' Donnell.
Disagree here too.... Have you not seen Requiem for a Dream (2000) ?? He pulled off a VERY serious role (with the future Joker might I add) and did it well. He was fantastic. I was one of those who said "Burton wanted a black robin?? i disapprove" - but after seeing Requiem, that changed my mind and he was a great actor and I think the character of Robin is so controversial and hated on as a 'side kick' , the fact Burton would have changed that concept seemed very interesting.
5. Straying from the comics. While Burton took liberties in his first film, Batman Returns strayed from the comics quite heavily with the villains having little semblance and Max Schreck inserted over familiar comic icon Harvey Dent. Given the rumoured Robin treatment, it doesn't seem as though Burton would have gone back to the source material. Joel Schumacher on the other hand was a fan of the comics and did incorporate grass roots in (for instance the scarring of Harvey Dent).
Burton was never a fan of the comics and wanted to make a dark gothic take from the 60s tv show, which he was a big fan of. The roots were comic books, but the source material was actually the 60s tv show and Burton's imagination which made a very interesting film. It could not connect to the Donner Superman World or be in any part of a DC cinematic universe, but the burton batman had its own thing and that was awesome.
6. Going out on top. While Burtons final Bat film wasn't better than the first, it was at least competent and enjoyable. Schumacher and Nolan left the franchises with many angry fans. The Dark knight Rises underwhelmed fans with it's slow pace, horrid editing, departure from the source material, and overall lack of Batman. Batman & Robin has been heavily criticized. While Batman Returns had it's flaws, it is far less criticized then the other two directors swan songs with the cape and cowl.
Agreed... But who knows if Burton's Batman III would have been as good as the first two, then he could have had a perfect trilogy like Lucas of the Star Wars OT or Spielberg Indiana Jones 1-3.
7. Ed Wood. This excellent film may have either not happened or not gotten Burton's full attention had he had another bat film in development.
Agreed. Ed Wood is one of my favorite films of all time. Its so freaking enjoyable... I would still risk a Batman 3 and hope Burton made Ed Wood in 1998 or something.... Or the best scenerio would be Burton makes Ed Wood in 94, skips Mars Attacks and Burton Batman 3 released in 1996 (giving him a four year break from the franchise so he can return FRESH instead of rushed back into it)
But overall, Riddler - good post. Made me think which is what a good post does even if I disagree with a few points.
We should remember that Tim Burton is a very eccentric director who doesn't like to make sequels. After all, he wasn't completely happy with the final product of B89 and wanted to make another Batman film that fits with his gothic, German expressionist sensibilities. That's not a criticism against him or BR of course, but it's an honest observation.
I think the biggest disappointment is not that Burton left, but Schumacher and WB didn't tone down the cheese for the third film they made. If you ignore whatever gripes you have for a moment, Batman Forever does have a plot to admire, where Bruce overcomes his repressed state of mind and unburdened himself over feeling guilty for his parents' deaths that in the end he decides to carry on as Batman as a choice, not out of necessity. At the same time, he might've failed Selina Kyle and Harvey Dent, but Bruce succeeded by preventing Dick Grayson from starting a self-destructive path for vengeance, something that Bruce himself was quite guilty of. Really, the film had a winning premise right there, and it's a shame that it gets a notorious reputation (though it's regarded better than B&R) because of the tone, aesthetic choices and acting the director and producers aimed for.
As for the BR villains: while it's definitely true that DeVito's Penguin was a far cry from the gentleman crime boss of the comics and Pfeiffer's Catwoman was a mentally disturbed femme fatale instead of a thief, let's remember that they're not anymore different to their comic counterparts than what we saw in the recent films too.
A couple of more things I have left to say:
I've heard that Michael Keaton wanted to have the third film to explore Batman's backstory more, but it seems like whether that was an original plan or not is hearsay.
In my opinion, I've never liked the idea of creating a brand new character to become Robin, so I'm not fussed that Marlon Wayans never got to play the part. Give me a real Robin who existed in the comics, whether his name is Dick Grayson, Jason Tood or whoever...or give me nobody at all. Sure, I did like JGL's John Blake, but I don't consider him Robin because Robin happened to be his legal name. That's like creating a new character that's supposed to be Batman because his name is John Batman.
I think Burton is first and foremost a visionary who likes allot of control with his projects. But Batman was always going to have allot of cooks in the kitchen for that first film. There was SO MUCH to prove and overcome regarding public perception of the character. Younger fans may not realize it but at that time the general public only associated Batman with Adam West. That was the only measured project of notable success. Others had grown up watching this hero on cartoons and the Superfriends, but he was mostly an untested license in terms of a serious live-action interpretation like Reeves and Superman. Superman: The Movie was really the standard by which any theatrical superhero franchise would have to stand up to at that point. And that was a pretty lofty goal for a guy wearing a cowl with pointy ears. No one had incorporated molded rubber into a superhero costume for a serious consumer, so there were allot of people who just didn't know what expectation to have.
So with all of the outside pressures from that movie and the hands on guidance from the studios, Burton was not a happy man in his craft at this point. I think he enjoyed some of the experience, but honestly I don't think he ever felt like he was making his own movie. It was very much a measured treatment with lots of people providing an opinion to a modern day interpretation. I think making a sequel was the furthest thing from Burton's mind, when he was finished. But I think Warner Bros knew they had to keep him to maintain the visual elements that had become so critical to this new 'Batman'. So I think they threw allot of money at Burton to come back onboard. But I feel VERY confident in saying Burton likely wanted more of a hand's off approach from the studio as part of that deal. And I think you see that too.
Batman Returns reads much more like a Burton film than the debut movie. It certainly plays more to his visual sensibilities and story telling. But, for me, where it falls off is the cohesiveness of the story. I think Burton had allot of fascinating directions, all of which worked on some level. But it's just my opinion that he never had the time (or quite the inspiration and interest) to flush them out completely. Neither the Catwoman or Penguin origins really felt complete. Their motivations required allot more exposition than what Burton was able to show. The tragic part is Burton had some strong ideas going for each, but he had too many stories to tell which I believe stoked his fatigue and frustration with the project. At some point, I think he quit trying to flush them out and just worked to finish the essential framework of the story. There's just too much meat left on the bone of those characters that he never got into. I believe Catwoman and Penguin would have held up better had they been singular villains in separate movies.
It's easy to understand why Keaton was burned out after the initial sequel because he had virtually nothing to do in Returns. Batman was more movie prop than character and the Bruce Wayne segments felt like reworked ideas from the first film. I think had Burton developed one villain with more Wayne and evolved the two together, he might have had the workings for a good third movie. But I think it's abundantly clear Burton was tired and didn't want to pursue the character any further.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 16:11
It's easy to understand why Keaton was burned out after the initial sequel because he had virtually nothing to do in Returns.
I think that's a little harsh. Penguin, Catwoman and Schreck did have more of the focus, but Bruce/Batman was still prominent to what was going in the plot and how he reflected the villains.
That being said, I always prefer that movies based on comics focus on one main villain only because it allows equal screen time for the hero. So I can definitely understand how you'd prefer Catwoman and Penguin appearing in two separate films, even if I believe BR is the best film for having multiple villains than most superhero films.
From what I heard, Keaton thought Batman shouldn't talk too much in Returns. And he was willing to do an origin film.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 10 Nov 2015, 12:36
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 16:11
It's easy to understand why Keaton was burned out after the initial sequel because he had virtually nothing to do in Returns.
I think that's a little harsh. Penguin, Catwoman and Schreck did have more of the focus, but Bruce/Batman was still prominent to what was going in the plot and how he reflected the villains.
That being said, I always prefer that movies based on comics focus on one main villain only because it allows equal screen time for the hero. So I can definitely understand how you'd prefer Catwoman and Penguin appearing in two separate films, even if I believe BR is the best film for having multiple villains than most superhero films.
No intention to insult the Batman treatment, but Burton certainly had to take up so much film time trying to explain the motivations of other characters, that what little time he had left for Bruce Wayne/Batman served more in a reactionary function rather than a character that was given deeper development. I don't think we learned anything about him at the end that wasn't present in the beginning. And I believe after that film, Keaton was already leaning on getting out of the franchise because he understood the movies were going to service the villains more so than the hero. I don't believe he wanted to take a back seat to that as the lead character in a franchise.
I thought BR was a big improvement over B89 but I didn't like that in both the villains got a lot more of the time and focus and three films in a row like that would have really been too much. A next film where Batman was as brutal as he was in BR may have damaged the perceptions of the character pretty badly, it's almost as or more interesting that BF was pretty true to Batman's dark portrayal in Burton but still made him and the overall tone more lighter and all-ages-friendly heroic.
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 01:50
I thought BR was a big improvement over B89 but I didn't like that in both the villains got a lot more of the time and focus and three films in a row like that would have really been too much.
I don't have a problem with that, especially if the villains in question are interesting. It's not really unique to Burton either, because Bane sure did have a lot of screen time in TDK Rises as well. If a character isn't memorable, usually it's because they don't get enough time to make an impression. I think that's true of Nolan's Catwoman. Nolan's Bane wasn't really my thing, but I admire the direction Nolan went by establishing his threat.
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 01:50
A next film where Batman was as brutal as he was in BR may have damaged the perceptions of the character pretty badly, it's almost as or more interesting that BF was pretty true to Batman's dark portrayal in Burton but still made him and the overall tone more lighter and all-ages-friendly heroic.
I'm not sure if a third Burton would've harmed the character. But I will say that I love Batman Forever, even if Batman's a little too much of a public figure for my liking in parts. The action (dangling from the helicopter, driving up a building, jumping off skyscrapers) is fantastic and exciting. I think Kilmer's Batman would've fit into the Justice League no problems. Keaton slams the Schumacher flicks, but I don't think Forever is as cartoony as he suggests.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 10 Nov 2015, 12:36
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 16:11
It's easy to understand why Keaton was burned out after the initial sequel because he had virtually nothing to do in Returns.
I think that's a little harsh. Penguin, Catwoman and Schreck did have more of the focus, but Bruce/Batman was still prominent to what was going in the plot and how he reflected the villains.
That being said, I always prefer that movies based on comics focus on one main villain only because it allows equal screen time for the hero. So I can definitely understand how you'd prefer Catwoman and Penguin appearing in two separate films, even if I believe BR is the best film for having multiple villains than most superhero films.
You could make the argument that Burton is the only Batman director to have two villains in a film and not get criticized for under-developing either
Two face was under developed in Batman Forever and basically reduced to an extended cameo in the Dark Knight. Mr. Freeze was rushed in Batman and Robin, the Scarecrow wasn't fleshed out in Batman Begins, and Selina Kyle arguably didn't even become Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 04:04
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 10 Nov 2015, 12:36
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 16:11
It's easy to understand why Keaton was burned out after the initial sequel because he had virtually nothing to do in Returns.
I think that's a little harsh. Penguin, Catwoman and Schreck did have more of the focus, but Bruce/Batman was still prominent to what was going in the plot and how he reflected the villains.
That being said, I always prefer that movies based on comics focus on one main villain only because it allows equal screen time for the hero. So I can definitely understand how you'd prefer Catwoman and Penguin appearing in two separate films, even if I believe BR is the best film for having multiple villains than most superhero films.
You could make the argument that Burton is the only Batman director to have two villains in a film and not get criticized for under-developing either
Two face was under developed in Batman Forever and basically reduced to an extended cameo in the Dark Knight. Mr. Freeze was rushed in Batman and Robin, the Scarecrow wasn't fleshed out in Batman Begins, and Selina Kyle arguably didn't even become Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises.
For better or worse, Tim Burton certainly started the trend of Batman movies having 2+ villains. But the difference is that Penguin, Catwoman and Max Schreck are all integral to the plot. Penguin and Catwoman have the most character development and each have something in common with Batman on an emotional level, and you have Schreck fitting in between the two trying to manipulate everybody at large. Whereas most subsequent Batman films tend to have multiple villains either to serve as henchmen for the big bad or - as you say - are simply rushed.
I thought Mr. Freeze was the main villain because we were shown he was doing everything for his love for Nora. Bane, on the other hand, could've been any other regular dumb henchman and didn't need to be there.
Objectively, I can say Anne Hathaway's Selina was closer to the traditional Catwoman than Michelle Pfeiffer. But the problem is her part was uneven because one minute she's a conniving sociopath who doesn't care who she hurts as long as she gets her hands on the Clean Slate, then in the next minute she suddenly becomes a compassionate person. It was supposed to be because she felt guilty that the man she had bankrupted was Batman all along. But considering her disdain for the rich as she expressed in the gala scene, I thought she would've hated Bruce even more because he was donating his time to commit violence as a solution for society's ills instead doing more for charity. In my opinion, it would've made a lot more sense if Selina Kyle was a misguided social crusader who joined forces with Bane in the best intentions to save the poor, but realised she made a terrible mistake and tries to redeem herself.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 02:19
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 01:50
I thought BR was a big improvement over B89 but I didn't like that in both the villains got a lot more of the time and focus and three films in a row like that would have really been too much.
I don't have a problem with that, especially if the villains in question are interesting. It's not really unique to Burton either, because Bane sure did have a lot of screen time in TDK Rises as well.
Probably, and especially Joker in TDK. I still think three times in a row would feel too unbalanced, more appropriate to focus more on the hero (and it would make sense to do that more in the first but the third in a different direction also makes sense).
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Sep 2017, 02:19
If a character isn't memorable, usually it's because they don't get enough time to make an impression. I think that's true of Nolan's Catwoman.
I think the problem was more the actress didn't have enough charisma.
BTW, while Robin Williams could have made a good dark Riddler (if he agreed to, he probably would still be upset over the B89 negotiations) I really liked him in
Jumanji (and that whole film) and it would be a shame if he hadn't done that.