Did Batman adopt a moral code by the end of the movie?

[Catwoman]

Which would have put it nearly a year after the events of Returns, if the movies follow the same timeline as real life. Oct '93. Unless Forever was supposed to be in Oct '94 which means it would have happened in Oct '92 which means it would have been two months before the events of Return which means Batman wouldn't have been on a long hiatus which means it had to be '93 which means ignore everything I just said. lol.

[riddler]

That's a deleted scene.

Dialogue earlier in the movie makes it clear that this isn't the first time Batman's gone up against Two Face. It's at least the second, fittingly enough.

I'm sure that in the film Batman tells Chase that it was the second anniversary of their first fight when Two-Face did the bank robbery.

Also if I'm not mistaken is it not stated in the film that Harvey escaped from Arkham? Anyhow just because his escape is only in a deleted scene doesn't mean it couldn't have fit into the continuity.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm sure that in the film Batman tells Chase that it was the second anniversary of their first fight when Two-Face did the bank robbery.

Gordon- "Two guards are dead. He's holding the third one hostage. We didn't didn't see this one coming."
Chase- "We should have though. The Second Bank of Gotham on..."
Batman- "The second anniversary of the day I captured him."

[Edd Grayson]

Yes, thank you, colors. I wasn't sure if Batman said the day of their first fight or the day he captured him. And since Two-Face was captured once, we can assume that he did escape from Arkham, riddler, even if the scene was deleted.

We don't know when exactly after the events in Returns was Harvey scarred, so we can only guess how much had passed. I think you must be right, Catwoman, even if there was no official timeline of the films.

[riddler]

Yes, thank you, colors. I wasn't sure if Batman said the day of their first fight or the day he captured him. And since Two-Face was captured once, we can assume that he did escape from Arkham, riddler, even if the scene was deleted.

We don't know when exactly after the events in Returns was Harvey scarred, so we can only guess how much had passed. I think you must be right, Catwoman, even if there was no official timeline of the films.

If we want to argue semantics (and I know you're not Edd but someone above seems to believe it's impossible the two face suit could have arrived in Arkham prior to batman forever) it's certainly possible that Harvey's initial scarring or capture happen prior to the events of returns.

[Edd Grayson]

I see your point, Riddler. If we accept that Forever is in the same continuity as the previous films, and there's evidence for that, Two-Face could've been scarred and captured between the events of Batman and Batman Returns.

Also, it means that Wayne Enterprises and Arkham existed before, but they were not seen.

I wonder why Burton didn't do Arkham, it would have fit his style, but maybe it's a different question to the topic here.

[Dagenspear]

That's a deleted scene.

Dialogue earlier in the movie makes it clear that this isn't the first time Batman's gone up against Two Face. It's at least the second, fittingly enough.

That's not exactly a confirmation that his clothes would be there. If he were to escape, wouldn't he take his clothes with him? His clothes in arkham were the same clothes he wore in the movie. Does he have multiple suits exactly the same hanging around?

I do think that Harvey was locked in arkham, but based on the film and not it's deleted scenes the impression I get is that he'd been escaped for a while, weeks, maybe even months. They don't discuss in the film Harvey having just broken out. The conversation they have sounds like he's been out for a little bit, hence Chase saying that they should have seen this coming.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

That's not exactly a confirmation that his clothes would be there.

You speak words of solemn truth, kemo sabe.

Frankly I think this entire thing is getting waaaaay overanalyzed. Schumacher put those outfits in there as a wink to the audience. It's probably not meant to be analyzed too much.

If he were to escape, wouldn't he take his clothes with him? His clothes in arkham were the same clothes he wore in the movie. Does he have multiple suits exactly the same hanging around?

Would that be so hard to believe?

I do think that Harvey was locked in arkham, but based on the film and not it's deleted scenes the impression I get is that he'd been escaped for a while, weeks, maybe even months. They don't discuss in the film Harvey having just broken out. The conversation they have sounds like he's been out for a little bit, hence Chase saying that they should have seen this coming.

I like that in that it explains why Two Face chose that night to strike. If he can escape from Arkham at will, why wait to escape at all?

And my view of deleted scenes is they don't count. They're maybe useful for some things or interesting to think about. But they're of precisely zero canonical input. So inferring that Two Face escaped weeks or months before the movie starts is totally legit in my book.

[The Laughing Fish]

I see your point, Riddler. If we accept that Forever is in the same continuity as the previous films, and there's evidence for that, Two-Face could've been scarred and captured between the events of Batman and Batman Returns.

Also, it means that Wayne Enterprises and Arkham existed before, but they were not seen.

I wonder why Burton didn't do Arkham, it would have fit his style, but maybe it's a different question to the topic here.

Given that Burton's Batman was not afraid to kill off maniacs, I don't think that Arkham Asylum would've been necessary. The rationale behind Burton's Batman was that it was heavily inspired by the early Golden Age era, where Batman was depicted as being lethal. As a matter of fact, Arkham Asylum didn't even feature in the comics until the 1970s.

[Edd Grayson]

Given that Burton's Batman was not afraid to kill off maniacs, I don't think that Arkham Asylum would've been necessary. The rationale behind Burton's Batman was that it was heavily inspired by the early Golden Age era, where Batman was depicted as being lethal. As a matter of fact, Arkham Asylum didn't even feature in the comics until the 1970s.

Yes, that makes great sense. I thought it was a little amusing that the doctor in Arkham in Batman Forever was called Burton.