How would Tim Burton portray Batman's other villains, Robin and Batgirl?

[BurtonBegan]

If only he had...

Robin Williams as the riddler playing a role similar to his one in one hour photo would've been incredible.

Billy Dee Lando would have done a much better job of two face, we would've seen something a lot closer to the animated series.

Why didn't they let Burton do more, its a tragedy

 

[Penismightier]

Come on people, Billy Dee's Dent it the first movie was basically scenery that says some generic dialog. Tommy Lee Jones is a much better actor. The real failing of Two-Face falls on Joel Schumacher's shoulders.

 

[Nepenthes]

The point is why to have an element whose essence is wrong for Batman? Being the case, it's much healthy to rule it out than to try to "change" or "control" it.

The element is clearly not wrong for Batman. You can refer to three, count 'em THREE Robins over the ages and an extended bat family of supporting vigilantes for evidence. You think he's wrong for Batman, countless writers and editors disagree. Fortunately you can pick and choose the titles and incarnations you prefer. Likewise a director can pick and choose to include the Robin and depending on his instincts he can make it so the Robin kicks arses through walls, including those belonging to people like you. You think this is impossible, I know. But I also know you are wrong, and this makes me feel good inside. 'The element' has a name; you will learn to respect it.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Would have liked to see what Burton could have done with Scarecrow.

 

[union_jak]

Would have liked to see what Burton could have done with Scarecrow.

I think watching Sleepy Hollow, we could get a good idea of how he'd have tackled it.

Burton's Arkham would have been fantastic, a place really suited to his style.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I was disappointed Burton never used Wayne Enterprises and especially Arkham.

 

[Catman]

I was disappointed Burton never used Wayne Enterprises and especially Arkham.

I'm not disappointed because Arkham was created the year B89 was released. As for Wayne Enterprises...I think Burton was more interested in showing Bruce Wayne as a guy who's just waiting for the batsignal.

[YT]KlYUd1wvE24[/YT]

 

[Penismightier]

I'm not disappointed because Arkham was created the year B89 was released. As for Wayne Enterprises...I think Burton was more interested in showing Bruce Wayne as a guy who's just waiting for the batsignal.

Arkham Asylum first appeared in 1974, in Batman #258 by Dennis O'Neil.

 

[Catman]

Arkham Asylum first appeared in 1974, in Batman #258 by Dennis O'Neil.

I stand corrected. Well...Burton and screenwriter Sam Hamm wanted to go back to the roots so perhaps thats why Arkham was excluded.

 

[Penismightier]

I think it was because The Joker died in the first, Penguin in the second, Catwoman evaded capture by the law. No other major villains were introduced. So who was going to inhabit Arkham?

 

[Catman]

So who was going to inhabit Arkham?

Good point.

 

[El Payaso]

The element is clearly not wrong for Batman.

Is that so? Let's see why...

You can refer to three, count 'em THREE Robins over the ages and an extended bat family of supporting vigilantes for evidence.

Huh?

"Three wrongs make a right"?

You think he's wrong for Batman, countless writers and editors disagree.

And people like Burton, Nolan, Bale and Tim Sale agree.

Yes, people have different opinions.

Now, I have to ask, where the evidence is in this...?

Fortunately you can pick and choose the titles and incarnations you prefer.

And watching those who choose Robin and those who not in movies we can tell a lot.

Burton, Nolan say no.

Schumacher, the 1960's series say yes.

Likewise a director can pick and choose to include the Robin

Yet, in most of cases they won't.

and depending on his instincts he can make it so the Robin kicks arses through walls, including those belonging to people like you.

So they're including me in the next movie?

You think this is impossible, I know.

I think it is quite possible for directors to screw things up.

But I also know you are wrong, and this makes me feel good inside.

If you could prove your points, that will bring you an even better feeling, believe me.

'The element' has a name; you will learn to respect it.

Robin. And no, it doesn't belong to Batman. Maybe in comics it works. Not in movies.

 

[Agentsands77]

And people like Burton, Nolan, Bale and Tim Sale agree.

Well, Sale did change his mind after he saw where Loeb took the character.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, Sale did change his mind after he saw where Loeb took the character.

He did. I didn't.

But I said, it could work in comics.

 

[CFE]

Come on people, Billy Dee's Dent it the first movie was basically scenery that says some generic dialog. Tommy Lee Jones is a much better actor. The real failing of Two-Face falls on Joel Schumacher's shoulders.

I'd have to disagree. Tommy Lee knew what he was doing...

I say Schumacher, Goldsman, MaGregor Scott and Tommy Lee are all collectively to blame for a false interpretation of Two-Face.

Tommy Lee was just following direction, which in turned followed the screenwriting. Apparently Lee and Janet Scott Batchler, and Akiva Goldsman couldn't make anything out of Two-Face's psychology.

First order of business.......oh IDK....read the damn COMIC BOOKS perhaps?

But as far as actors, don't shun Billy Dee. I think he has more potential to be a better actor than Tommy Lee. Plus it's not really fair, since we're comparing Billy Dee's Dent to Tommy Lee's Two-Face. Those are truly two different performances and trying to weigh them against each other isn't fair.

CFE

 

[Penismightier]

I'd have to disagree. Tommy Lee knew what he was doing...

I say Schumacher, Goldsman, MaGregor Scott and Tommy Lee are all collectively to blame for a false interpretation of Two-Face.

Tommy Lee was just following direction, which in turned followed the screenwriting. Apparently Lee and Janet Scott Batchler, and Akiva Goldsman couldn't make anything out of Two-Face's psychology.

First order of business.......oh IDK....read the damn COMIC BOOKS perhaps?

But as far as actors, don't shun Billy Dee. I think he has more potential to be a better actor than Tommy Lee. Plus it's not really fair, since we're comparing Billy Dee's Dent to Tommy Lee's Two-Face. Those are truly two different performances and trying to weigh them against each other isn't fair.

CFE

How does Tommy Lee get blamed if he was just following the direction given to him by Schumacher and the screenwriters? Actors don't have to know the source material necessarily. That's what directors and writers are for, to tell them what to do, you know, tell them their motivation for the scene.

 

[CFE]

You're acting like Tommy Lee had absolutely NOTHING to do with HIS OWN performance...

But again of course, that goes back to what I said earlier. When it comes to a Batman film, everyone needs to start at square 1 and read the damn comic books.

CFE

 

[El Payaso]

How does Tommy Lee get blamed if he was just following the direction given to him by Schumacher and the screenwriters? Actors don't have to know the source material necessarily. That's what directors and writers are for, to tell them what to do, you know, tell them their motivation for the scene.

Still, an actor is rtersponsible for their results and choices also. Someone like T.L. Jones is able to ask for more and better. And in the end, he's able to say, sorry, but I'm a respectable actor and I'm risking to make a fool of myself if things are going to be like this. I say this for Jones but also for Clooney as Batman.

Michael Keaton did it.

 

[Mr. Socko]

TLJones didn't know anything else about Two Face, he wasn't familiar with the character and originally turned it down until his son told him he loved Batman. Tommy Lee signs on, he hears that Riddler will be comical, Jack was comical in the first film, and in the original tv show, all of the villains were over the top so he figures "I'll do the same." Same thing goes for Arnold in B&R. Forever was a massive success, so Arnold signs on and everyone sticks with the "comical villain" formula, as it had been successful every previous time.

When Forever was in production, there had been two other films and the former tv show. The first film had an over the top villain as did the show. Returns went a more dark route and got alot of negative views. I may not have liked it much, but I definitely see why they went that route.

 

[GoogleMe94]

also burton wouldnt have called his third movie "batman forever", he expressed his dislike for that title in that book "burton on burton" where he said that it sounded like something someone would get tatooed on there forearm when they were drunk, lol.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

came cross this site a while back, some pretty interesting stuff
http://www.geocities.com/burtonsbatman3/?20069?20071

 

[ShaneHelms]

God not that dreaded site again.

 

[Two-Face]

"One of the most famous Manip Artists from Super Hero Hype Boards, "BARNEY", decided to do a Tim Burton's Batman Forever Manip. It is located at the artwork section. It probably is the best Batman III manip ever made. Thanks to Barney!"

Go Barney!

 

[Mr. Socko]

Keaton crouched down like a gargoyle in a 50lb rubber suit just doesn't look right.

 

[GoogleMe94]

LMAO!!!!!!! that is hysterical!!!!!