The Ultimate Burton/Keaton/Elfman BATMAN 3 Thread! [PEASE READ]

[The Dark Knight]

A third Burton Batman would've been infinitely better than Nolan's underwhelming John Blake film I'm sure. The Nolan series wasn't ever my ideal cup of tea overall - but I think TDKR really dropped the ball on a wide range of topics and on the whole left me unsatisfied.

In all seriousness, I'd rather imagine what could've been (Burton's unmade third) and leave with good standing, rather than remove all doubt and go on to do something like Rises which leaves a mixed at best reaction.

I don't know what the deal is, but the third film curse continued. I mean, if you really want to get into it, the same DC logo from BB/TDK was gone, as was James Newton Howard who scored with Zimmer for those two films.

Plot points are raised, Alfred says Gotham needs Bruce Wayne not Batman, for example - but at the end he leaves the country and makes another lie (Alfred saying the truth should have its day) about his own death. It was raised in dialogue, just like Alfred's dream at the cafe, but then forgotten about. Narratively it just didn't make sense and I thought what they did sucked. It would have been much, much better if they showed Bruce had recouped his money and served Gotham as Bruce Wayne the philanthropist and his name was looked upon fondly. Not just some guy that apparently died in riots.

I wanted to see Gordon get back together with his family. But alas, he doesn't get any form of closure. Blake's screen-time could have been imparted onto Gordon just as easily, giving him a stronger arc. IMO the movie should have been about moving away from masked vigilantes, but here, we have Batman saying anyone can be Batman. Huh? He won't let copycats be Batman at the beginning of TDK, but all of a sudden he's allowing Blake take on the job? Whether or not he decides to be Batman or some other identity, that's just bizarre to me and goes against what we're told and shown in TDK.

In terms of the way Nolan scripted the movie, what does Bruce's 'death' even mean to him? What does he get out of it? To the world, it was Batman that died towing out the bomb. Bruce could remain in Gotham or leave Gotham just fine. Nobody would blink an eye. Going through with the TDK Returns style ending just didn't make sense and I thought it was stupid.

I still think the best Batman film has yet to be made, but I really doubt they will ever do that. I always keep coming back to B89 and BR. They struck the right balance of comic book/doing your own thing, complex themes but rather simple and easy to follow stories and memorable music.

[riddler]

A third Burton Batman would've been infinitely better than Nolan's underwhelming John Blake film I'm sure. The Nolan series wasn't ever my ideal cup of tea overall - but I think TDKR really dropped the ball on a wide range of topics and on the whole left me unsatisfied.

In all seriousness, I'd rather imagine what could've been (Burton's unmade third) and leave with good standing, rather than remove all doubt and go on to do something like Rises which leaves a mixed at best reaction.

I don't know what the deal is, but the third film curse continued. I mean, if you really want to get into it, the same DC logo from BB/TDK was gone, as was James Newton Howard who scored with Zimmer for those two films.

Plot points are raised, Alfred says Gotham needs Bruce Wayne not Batman, for example - but at the end he leaves the country and makes another lie (Alfred saying the truth should have its day) about his own death. It was raised in dialogue, just like Alfred's dream at the cafe, but then forgotten about. Narratively it just didn't make sense and I thought what they did sucked. It would have been much, much better if they showed Bruce had recouped his money and served Gotham as Bruce Wayne the philanthropist and his name was looked upon fondly. Not just some guy that apparently died in riots.

I wanted to see Gordon get back together with his family. But alas, he doesn't get any form of closure. Blake's screen-time could have been imparted onto Gordon just as easily, giving him a stronger arc. IMO the movie should have been about moving away from masked vigilantes, but here, we have Batman saying anyone can be Batman. Huh? He won't let copycats be Batman at the beginning of TDK, but all of a sudden he's allowing Blake take on the job? Whether or not he decides to be Batman or some other identity, that's just bizarre to me and goes against what we're told and shown in TDK.

In terms of the way Nolan scripted the movie, what does Bruce's 'death' even mean to him? What does he get out of it? To the world, it was Batman that died towing out the bomb. Bruce could remain in Gotham or leave Gotham just fine. Nobody would blink an eye. Going through with the TDK Returns style ending just didn't make sense and I thought it was stupid.

I still think the best Batman film has yet to be made, but I really doubt they will ever do that. I always keep coming back to B89 and BR. They struck the right balance of comic book/doing your own thing, complex themes but rather simple and easy to follow stories and memorable music.

The dark knight was a great film but you could argue it wasn't a great batman film. Actually in all 3 Nolan films the fighting was poorly done, batman is neither a stalker nor as skilled in hand to hand combat. Burton clearly portrayed him as the dark hero lurking in the shadows.

The dark knight rises, like you said the fact that the character who got the most screen time in that film was a character whom wasn't even in the comics or animated series speaks volumes over Nolan's audacity. I know the faithful Nolanites seem to like the 'everything must be grounded' rule but that generally also implies "no fun allowed"

[The Dark Knight]

The dark knight was a great film but you could argue it wasn't a great batman film. Actually in all 3 Nolan films the fighting was poorly done, batman is neither a stalker nor as skilled in hand to hand combat. Burton clearly portrayed him as the dark hero lurking in the shadows.

The dark knight rises, like you said the fact that the character who got the most screen time in that film was a character whom wasn't even in the comics or animated series speaks volumes over Nolan's audacity. I know the faithful Nolanites seem to like the 'everything must be grounded' rule but that generally also implies "no fun allowed"

I agree, riddler. As I said, BB and TDK weren't my ideal cup of tea in terms of approach with the realism and such (they have plot curiosities going on as well) but this one didn't sit well with me at all. It's like Nolan and his team thought they could dish out anything and people would lap it up and take it. He certainly was at that point after TDK's praise.

There's lots of issues I have with it, and I'm going to have to calm down and get it all out in a coherent, clear manner. It's not just "I hate the movie and that's it." I have reasoning behind it. I wanted the movie to be good, but I was very surprised how let down I was. I can understand why Bane was  chosen and I have supported the decision in the past by stating he is the king of his respective field, eg. physicality, and the Joker was the king of chaos. But you know, I thought Bane was boring. They did give him something of a backstory and he shed a tear at the end, but really, I found him too one note. When Dagget calls him pure evil he doesn't deny it.

I know Bane is not The Joker, but Bane had nothing about him. I found him and aspects of the movie too bleak, and his plan reasoning (attacking Gotham during peace time, the LOS only attacked Gotham in BB as it was beyond saving) to be strange as well. Ras would have been rolling in his grave with this mentality. They 'brought it back to Begins' for really no reason at all. They should've moved the plot forward just as TDK did. If they had to have Bane, he could've found the truth about Dent before coming to Gotham, and being his own man - instead of fulfilling Ras Al Ghul's legacy. Which as I said, didn't make sense in the current day context.

[Batman333]

I think the Batman 3 script was a fake that people 'reviewed' it.  As far to my knowledge, Burton was doing meetings with WB before the script was written.   I think when they were searching for a new batman director was when the script was being made.  Then when Joel was brought it, he hired his own script writer to make Batman Forever..

And yes, TDKR was an awful Batman film.  Good fun film, but Batman ?  No..  He should have went full ROBIN in that movie instead of tip toeing around the idea of Robin in the Nolan film.

[riddler]

I think the Batman 3 script was a fake that people 'reviewed' it.  As far to my knowledge, Burton was doing meetings with WB before the script was written.   I think when they were searching for a new batman director was when the script was being made.  Then when Joel was brought it, he hired his own script writer to make Batman Forever..

And yes, TDKR was an awful Batman film.  Good fun film, but Batman ?  No..  He should have went full ROBIN in that movie instead of tip toeing around the idea of Robin in the Nolan film.

Yeah especially with Bruce so reluctant and supposedly injured, it would have been more logical to have a younger protege who could do the fighting and leave Batman to be the brains and detective.

It doesn't seem like Burton got awfully far into the third film. I can't remember where I saw it but there was a morning show interview with Burton while returns was in theatres and even then he seemed reluctant and hesitant on the third film. And while you can say all his films have similar styles he does seem to like to do different things with each film. Even his two batman films were vastly different.

[KeatonisBatman]

I remember hearing that after Batman & Robin (1998-ish) that Warner Bros. wanted to bring Burton back on board for Batman doing a 5th movie with The Scarecrow... does anyone else recall those rumblings?  I remember Keaton being on The Carson Daly show and admitting that he was going to be Batman in Burton's new Superman film (which we know now never came to pass)...

[thecolorsblend]

I remember hearing that after Batman & Robin (1998-ish) that Warner Bros. wanted to bring Burton back on board for Batman doing a 5th movie with The Scarecrow... does anyone else recall those rumblings?

I heard that same stuff and mostly chalked it up to fanboy wishful thinking (Burton was more highly regarded back then). The clear impression I had was that after B&R, WB was, for the moment at least, washing their hands of Batman... which obviously proved to be the case.

I remember Keaton being on The Carson Daly show and admitting that he was going to be Batman in Burton's new Superman film (which we know now never came to pass)...

As far as I can remember that was actually legit. Had Burton actually made the film, apparently Keaton would've had a cameo of some kind as Batman. Can't remember if that was in Kevin Smith's script but I think I read that it was in the Gilroy script and/or the Strick script.

[riddler]

I remember hearing that after Batman & Robin (1998-ish) that Warner Bros. wanted to bring Burton back on board for Batman doing a 5th movie with The Scarecrow... does anyone else recall those rumblings?

I heard that same stuff and mostly chalked it up to fanboy wishful thinking (Burton was more highly regarded back then). The clear impression I had was that after B&R, WB was, for the moment at least, washing their hands of Batman... which obviously proved to be the case.

I remember Keaton being on The Carson Daly show and admitting that he was going to be Batman in Burton's new Superman film (which we know now never came to pass)...

As far as I can remember that was actually legit. Had Burton actually made the film, apparently Keaton would've had a cameo of some kind as Batman. Can't remember if that was in Kevin Smith's script but I think I read that it was in the Gilroy script and/or the Strick script.

I think you're right on both counts. Any 5th batman film rumours seemed to have Schumacher being kept on. I never say any one strong enough to have Burton returning for a solo batman film once forever came to pass.