You can't put Batman mythology into a 3-Film 'Trilogy'...

[Wayne49]

I think the Batman universe is always going to be littered with expectations it can never fulfill. I think no matter who is directing a Batman film, that treatment will always have a limited life span. So much is expected from this franchise and sometimes the public doesn't even know what it wants. But they certainly let you know if you guess wrong in that assessment.

How many times have we've seen a new super-hero franchise take off with exceptional wit and style (coupled to a seemingly endless array of story possibilities) come crashing to earth with the first or second sequel? SO MUCH is made of these films when they do well. And when they find their audience, people drown themselves in overkill. They see the movie six times, buy the t-shirts, play the video game, fight over the toys, get the soundtrack, purchase the $300 deluxe figures from Hot Toys, and finally get the movie on DVD/Blu ray watching it in excess while they debate the finer points on forums. Did I miss anything? Probably quite a bit which is scary. All this for ONE movie. This is why these types of movies don't hang around forever. The public exhausts themselves on them.

The worst part is once the studios get done with the business of celebrating and selling product for the film, which is really the chief reason why these films exist, then you have to contend with the critical mass which is saturated with opinions that are all destined to find disappointment at some point. Fans who watch these movies over and over often make themselves victims of their own obsession.

How many times have we heard the criticism that the latest installment was too much like the previous one? Or when the public loved the effects in the first film, but complained there were too many in the next? The best one is when people complain about too much story when the previous installment was disliked for not having enough. That's the heaven and hell world of franchises. Fans bore themselves by watching these movies too much, but then want a similar experience on the next installment so they can OD on that too. For those reasons, I think a trilogy is the most practical and realistic expectation for any one treatment. Fans are simply unforgiving if there is one miscue in that series, and history has shown they make it far too personal when those miscues occur.

If you look at the history of Batman as a licensed hero for film and movies, the treatments are all successful but wildly contradict themselves at every turn because audiences quickly grow tired of what they claim to "want". The Batman '66 series was so popular it's often mentioned as one of the big three iconic "B's" from the 60's - The Beatles, Bond, and Batman. Yet in less than three years time, the series was quickly reviled and the cast mostly type cast for decades.

When Burton released his iteration of Batman in 1989, he first had to weather the pre-production pressure of fans trying to boycott the project along with a nationwide petition to have him removed for bringing in Keaton for the Batman/Bruce Wayne character. People feared it would touch on the campiness of the '66 television show because of Keaton's association with big hit comedies. When the film was released, the collective base took a deep breath and was relieved...then rejoiced at Burton and Keaton's "brilliance". But with Batman Returns, audiences became "concerned" with the dark and edgy mood so many had demanded be an indelible part of the character's world. Enter Schumacher.

I think one of the underlying reasons why I enjoy the Schumacher films so much is because it forces a segment of diehard fans to face their hero for what he is...pure fantasy. With Batman Forever, Schumacher quickly dipped into the '66 box of ideas and showed the public a snippet of what was "possible". Note this was something the studios had religiously kept from in the first two treatments. Fans and critics rejoiced at the relaxed tone and praised Schumacher for bringing more color and fun to the concept. Many felt he had SAVED the franchise. But with Batman & Robin, Schumacher was relegated to super-hero purgatory for giving the public too much of what he and the studios thought they wanted. Warner Bros gave the franchise a rest while diehards sought professional help. Enter Nolan eight years later...

The Nolan trilogy is without question the most financially successful franchise in Batman's history. The director conceptualized the character while trying to adhere closely to the themes and grittiness of the comics. The public rewarded the franchise with nearly $2.5 billion in worldwide ticket receipts alone. Add in the merchandise and aftermarket DVD/Blu-ray revenue and there's no mistaking what the public was hungry for. But after even all that, fans are beginning to divide over that treatment and so the pendulum is beginning to move again on preference.

The studios are now trying to build a Justice League franchise by teaming up Superman and Batman. Snyder has been brought on board to direct and the "dark and brooding" Batman appears to be in full swing. Studios believe they "know" what the public "wants". So here we are...once again. The public has lapped up a particular treatment for an extended period of time. Warner Bros. is banking the public still wants that, so they are gambling high. The love-hate cycle perpetuates itself in the Batman franchise. So what DO the fans want? I don't think there will ever be an easy answer for that. Because once you think you've got it figured out, that's when the rug gets pulled out from under you. Ask Warner Bros and the directors who have experienced being embraced and reviled for trying to bring this character to life. Why is Batman limited to a trilogy? Well...honestly he only made it there once. Burton did two and Schumacher did two. Yes, we can argue it was on the same story continuum, but when you ask the fans, they tend to break them apart by preference. So the short answer to that question is, it's the fans and general public.

People like Batman in small doses. And when they like the treatment, they celebrate him for all it's worth. But like anything, they suffer from fatigue in celebrating and take a break, often expecting a change up when they get hungry again.  That's the eternal riddle of Batman... You never know whose going to be onboard for the next ride.

[Edd Grayson]

For me, Nolan's films felt just like a small part of Batman, and with plenty of misses and some hits.

[thecolorsblend]

But with Batman Returns, audiences became "concerned" with the dark and edgy mood so many had demanded be an indelible part of the character's world.

The more time goes by, the more I think that popular narrative is an absolute crock. I don't remember parent groups having some sort of huge outcry against the movie or any such revisionist nonsense. The general consensus I recall from the time was a sentiment along the lines of "It's good but nothing will be as good as the original".

Critics adored the crap out of Batman Returns and it came out in a time when sequels were not expected to do remotely similar business to their predecessor(s).

Frankly I think the real outrage against the movie that WB had was they understood that Batman was a merchandising gold mine waiting to happen but even B89 didn't explore the merch factor as deeply as it probably could've. My firm belief is they invented some cock and bull story about people have tantrums over the film's darkness and that's become part of fanboy dogma on the subject. Frankly NOTHING in Burton's movies is as dark as some of the stuff Nolan did. But those movies did crazy business so nobody is likely to complain about it at WB.

[Wayne49]

But with Batman Returns, audiences became "concerned" with the dark and edgy mood so many had demanded be an indelible part of the character's world.

The more time goes by, the more I think that popular narrative is an absolute crock. I don't remember parent groups having some sort of huge outcry against the movie or any such revisionist nonsense. The general consensus I recall from the time was a sentiment along the lines of "It's good but nothing will be as good as the original".

Critics adored the crap out of Batman Returns and it came out in a time when sequels were not expected to do remotely similar business to their predecessor(s).

Frankly I think the real outrage against the movie that WB had was they understood that Batman was a merchandising gold mine waiting to happen but even B89 didn't explore the merch factor as deeply as it probably could've. My firm belief is they invented some cock and bull story about people have tantrums over the film's darkness and that's become part of fanboy dogma on the subject. Frankly NOTHING in Burton's movies is as dark as some of the stuff Nolan did. But those movies did crazy business so nobody is likely to complain about it at WB.

I was finishing up college when this movie came out and was an avid fan of the Batman movies. Rest assured the movie was not the 'darling of critics' like Rotten Tomatoes makes it out to be today. Those critic and "audience" scores are updated annually to fit with current opinions, so the revisionist aspect resides solely on the internet. And I would dare guess the 'audience score' are from kids who were likely not even born when that movie came out. All you have to do is log in and grade it, so you know that's not accurate.

That being said, no one is suggesting the movie was a total bust either. I think there's too much of a knee jerk reaction to those comments, because some want to covet this film a little closer than others. And that's fine to love the movies you like. I don't believe anyone is suggesting differently here. But Batman Returns enjoyed a bigger opening weekend than the original, yet quickly fell off the pace and finished nearly $100 million short of it's predecessor. And lets make one important distinction here. Batman was a big movie for it's day in 1989, but it was not a box office phenomenon like Jaws. So it's not like Batman Returns couldn't compete with the receipts of what Batman did. And while many sequels routinely see a decline in box office returns, a nearly $100 million decline(domestically alone) was a significant drop especially after being the first sequel to an aspiring franchise.  So Warner Bros had every reason to believe they were going the wrong direction.

One can also point to the comments of Schumacher who made it crystal clear that he had to campaign to get Batman Forever made because the industry considered the franchise DOA. So this movie may have found more appreciation over time, but history definitely shows it was an artistic miscue that took the air out of the franchise balloon very quickly in 1992. The studio went a different direction and Forever made $70 million more worldwide, so clearly the new treatment brought audiences back and restored confidence in the franchise.

But ultimately I don't want any of that to derail our topic. Returns is a fine film. I'm pleased it has appreciated over the ensuing decades and I'm glad today's generation embraces it well. I'm not here to stand in opposition of that. But from an historical context, Returns demonstrated that audiences can walk away from a newly celebrated franchise very quickly if not all the right notes are hit. The studio made changes that brought allot of people back. But one film later, they were back out of the game. My point is audiences for Batman are very fickle. Studios are always having to anticipate and even with the advent of the internet, it's still difficult to gauge excitement from several forums (or conventions) as a referendum for how a new treatment will sell to the general public.

[The Laughing Fish]

Frankly NOTHING in Burton's movies is as dark as some of the stuff Nolan did.

I disagree. Nolan's films may have had lots of moments of darkness, but the violence in the Burton's films is more graphic e.g. Catwoman viciously clawing a rapist in the face, Joker laughing as he electrocutes someone to death and mocks their burnt corpse, a bloodied Batman and Joker fight in the cathedral, and so on. People get down and dirty in the Burton films, whereas the violence gets toned down under Nolan and everything looks too clean, i.e cutting out a shot of Lau being burnt alive by the Joker. Only Two-Face's disfigurement was graphic.

But even if we're not talking about violence, the themes in Burton's stuff is pretty grim, e.g. Selina's mental breakdown and Penguin's plot to murder first born babies. But having said that, it's odd that people get horrified by the Penguin's plot, but nobody seemed to noticed that Talia was rescued by Bane when she was likely to get raped and murdered by other prisoners when she was a child.