is any one glad this third burton film never happened?

[riddler]

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).

[Dagenspear]

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.

[Batman333]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

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. 

[Wayne49]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

From what I heard, Keaton thought Batman shouldn't talk too much in Returns. And he was willing to do an origin film.

[Wayne49]

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.

[Andrew]

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.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

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.