• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

If Burton stayed on for a third movie...

The Chairman

Pimps' Main Prophet
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
18,814
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I know this has been discussed many times before, but I'll bring it up once more. If Burton had done a third Batman film, what would it have been and what would it have been about? I'm not too sure, but I'd bet these things would've been involved:

-Two-Face would be involved, and played by Billy Dee Williams.
-Catwoman would most likely return. One of the reasons I was upset when Burton left was because I felt Catwoman's story needed to be continued.
-Keaton would've taken the role again in a heartbeat.
-Joel Schumacher would not be the scorn of modern cinema he became.
-It would have been the best of the series.
 
ANTHONYNASTI said:
I know this has been discussed many times before, but I'll bring it up once more. If Burton had done a third Batman film, what would it have been and what would it have been about? I'm not too sure, but I'd bet these things would've been involved:

-Two-Face would be involved, and played by Billy Dee Williams.
-Catwoman would most likely return. One of the reasons I was upset when Burton left was because I felt Catwoman's story needed to be continued.
-Keaton would've taken the role again in a heartbeat.
-Joel Schumacher would not be the scorn of modern cinema he became.
-It would have been the best of the series.


I doubt Catwoman would've returned for the third sequel, since BR didn't have continuity, why would there be any in the third one?.
 
this is like the millionth thread about this topic. man it comes back once a month.
 
TheJuice said:
I doubt Catwoman would've returned for the third sequel, since BR didn't have continuity, why would there be any in the third one?.
What do you mean? The Batmobile was the same, it had returning actors, and it took place in the same world. Isn't that continuity?
 
BatJeff7786 said:
What do you mean? The Batmobile was the same, it had returning actors, and it took place in the same world. Isn't that continuity?


What I meant was interms of story. There wasn't continuity in BR, so why would there be in the third sequel?
 
TheJuice said:
What I meant was interms of story. There wasn't continuity in BR, so why would there be in the third sequel?

Vicki Vale was mentioned
 
It's a misconception that Burton wouldn't have used Two-Face. That's why Harvey Dent is in the first movie, to become Two-Face down the line. Burton even considered having Two-Face in one scene of Batman Returns.
 
The Main villian of the movie was going to be TwoFace, ala Harvey Dent
-How i know this? Max Shreck's role in Batman Returns was originally written for Dent, but WB thought Burton's TwoFace was going to be to gruesome for children. The taser for Catwomen was going to cause his burns.

TwoFace would had been play by Billy Dee Williams who only signed on in 1989 b/c he knew his character turns into TwoFace and would be in later sequels. Plus he is a great actor and would had pulled this off nicely.

Catwomen/Selina Kyle was never set to return. Burton wanted us to just know she is out there some where and has "1" life left. She may have returned in a fourth, fifth or spin off if Burton continued that long.

The Riddler (Robin Williams) was in this movie. His character was very dark, unlike Carry. He wasnt in spandex. He was designed to have a dark green suit with one Question Mark on his tie and wore dark Purple Shades. His role in the movie was going to be that of Bruce's shrink, but becomes obsessed with him until Bruce decides that he dont need theorpy and that Edward should leave him alone. This infuriates Edward who sets out to destroy Bruce, but knows he must defeat Batman as well. So he set riddles up all over town for Batman and sends Bruce his own little riddles for him to figure out. But he would not team up with TwoFace. He would be just a distraction for Bruce who is trying to fight/save Harvey.

Gordon got alot more time in this one then the first two together. While his role would not come near Gary Oldman's in Begins, since Gordon was friends with Harvey, he was much more involved this time around, says the writer from Batman Returns.

Dr. Chase Meridan was a character in Burton's movie, played by Rene Russo. She wasnt necessarily a love intrest, but a tease in a game of tag with Bruce/Batman but ultimatley gets deeply involved when Riddler stumbles upon her and see's her as a threat as she helps the police find him and solve his Riddles with Batman.

Alfred was not suppose to die in this one, but rumors of Harvey finding Batman is Bruce (ala end of Batman Returns) and killing Alfred was said to be an option for Burton, but like Michael Gough and his character so it wasnt set to happen.

Harvey Dent/TwoFace was out for revenge for people he felt were "responsible" for his accident and for the way Gotham is today. So Burton was going to have him kill the Mayor, and try to kill Gordon, but only shoots him. TwoFace would also try to kill Bruce/Batman since he knows the truth and would blame him for not saving him and stopping Selina Kyle.

Remember, these are all things that werent set in stone, but we suppose to happen as Burton and company thought ahead and may have even written a rough script somewhere. This was what Burton wanted to do, but WB thought differently.
 
Joker831 said:
The Main villian of the movie was going to be TwoFace, ala Harvey Dent
-How i know this? Max Shreck's role in Batman Returns was originally written for Dent, but WB thought Burton's TwoFace was going to be to gruesome for children. The taser for Catwomen was going to cause his burns.

TwoFace would had been play by Billy Dee Williams who only signed on in 1989 b/c he knew his character turns into TwoFace and would be in later sequels. Plus he is a great actor and would had pulled this off nicely.

Catwomen/Selina Kyle was never set to return. Burton wanted us to just know she is out there some where and has "1" life left. She may have returned in a fourth, fifth or spin off if Burton continued that long.

The Riddler (Robin Williams) was in this movie. His character was very dark, unlike Carry. He wasnt in spandex. He was designed to have a dark green suit with one Question Mark on his tie and wore dark Purple Shades. His role in the movie was going to be that of Bruce's shrink, but becomes obsessed with him until Bruce decides that he dont need theorpy and that Edward should leave him alone. This infuriates Edward who sets out to destroy Bruce, but knows he must defeat Batman as well. So he set riddles up all over town for Batman and sends Bruce his own little riddles for him to figure out. But he would not team up with TwoFace. He would be just a distraction for Bruce who is trying to fight/save Harvey.

Gordon got alot more time in this one then the first two together. While his role would not come near Gary Oldman's in Begins, since Gordon was friends with Harvey, he was much more involved this time around, says the writer from Batman Returns.

Dr. Chase Meridan was a character in Burton's movie, played by Rene Russo. She wasnt necessarily a love intrest, but a tease in a game of tag with Bruce/Batman but ultimatley gets deeply involved when Riddler stumbles upon her and see's her as a threat as she helps the police find him and solve his Riddles with Batman.

Alfred was not suppose to die in this one, but rumors of Harvey finding Batman is Bruce (ala end of Batman Returns) and killing Alfred was said to be an option for Burton, but like Michael Gough and his character so it wasnt set to happen.

Harvey Dent/TwoFace was out for revenge for people he felt were "responsible" for his accident and for the way Gotham is today. So Burton was going to have him kill the Mayor, and try to kill Gordon, but only shoots him. TwoFace would also try to kill Bruce/Batman since he knows the truth and would blame him for not saving him and stopping Selina Kyle.

Remember, these are all things that werent set in stone, but we suppose to happen as Burton and company thought ahead and may have even written a rough script somewhere. This was what Burton wanted to do, but WB thought differently.

Whoa, I didn't know all those details.

On thing I do know is that there is atleast one photo of Robin William's planned Riddler haircut. In the UK's Sky magazine in the mid-90's, pre-Forever, they showed a blurred photo of Williams with the '?' shaved into his head.
 
keaton may have returned, and two-face would have a messed up origin, and miscast if it was billy dee wiliams, still not faithful to the comic, ridler yea little darker and same town but the movie would still have one-liner's and joke's and dark humor, cause wb would stil lwant to make it more for kid's and less dark, and bruce still wouldve been messed up but batman would still be the comic-book/super hero nice batman and not the intense crazy guy killing villian's instead of thinking about justice, which was not even taked about in B89/return's.when did keaton ever talked about bringing joker/pinguin/catwoman to justice? for them to be locked up..and yes kilmer did kill two-face but still, kinda diferent, dont know how, but it is, what i loved about forever was that it was just like a continuation fro ma comic, we know who dent was/what he was and it's about few month's year's? after dent became two-face? so the film was about dent already being two-face and in the loose..i alway's loved batman forever and was my best batman movie and kilmer my best batman/bruce before begin's/bale..
 
Louie_19_Tx said:
keaton may have returned, and two-face would have a messed up origin, and miscast if it was billy dee wiliams, still not faithful to the comic, ridler yea little darker and same town but the movie would still have one-liner's and joke's and dark humor, cause wb would stil lwant to make it more for kid's and less dark, and bruce still wouldve been messed up but batman would still be the comic-book/super hero nice batman and not the intense crazy guy killing villian's instead of thinking about justice, which was not even taked about in B89/return's.when did keaton ever talked about bringing joker/pinguin/catwoman to justice? for them to be locked up..and yes kilmer did kill two-face but still, kinda diferent, dont know how, but it is, what i loved about forever was that it was just like a continuation fro ma comic, we know who dent was/what he was and it's about few month's year's? after dent became two-face? so the film was about dent already being two-face and in the loose..i alway's loved batman forever and was my best batman movie and kilmer my best batman/bruce before begin's/bale..

I think it would have been damn good. Not Begins level, but damn good.
 
you know i've brought a lot of these things up before in the Returns thread...

*cries cause no one pays attention to me*
 
batboyRETURNS said:
There would've probably been no Batman Begins.


Which is LAME.

You mean Begins is lame? I agree. Batman Returns is still the only good Batman film in my mind.

I still can't fathom what was going through Schumacher's mind during the making of those two movies. Almost everything else he's done has been great, but BF and Batman & Robin were practically unwatchable.
 
CoolAsICE said:
You mean Begins is lame? I agree. Batman Returns is still the only good Batman film in my mind.

I still can't fathom what was going through Schumacher's mind during the making of those two movies. Almost everything else he's done has been great, but BF and Batman & Robin were practically unwatchable.
\

Begins is the only film that actually developed it's characters, had an actual focused POV and storyline worth anything. Plus, it was the only one faithful to the comics.
 
JLBats said:
\

Begins is the only film that actually developed it's characters, had an actual focused POV and storyline worth anything. Plus, it was the only one faithful to the comics.

Returns was the better crafted film. Better acting and scripting. No one in Begins even came close to matching Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman performance.
 
B89 was good but lets not go insane and pretend that Returns was anything but a cool subtitle. BR might not even be better than Forever because both films are so far from being good movies that no one has even taken the time to analyze them.
 
CoolAsICE said:
Returns was the better crafted film. Better acting and scripting. No one in Begins even came close to matching Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman performance.

Better script? So, BB should've made the villains the main focus like BR did? Then what's the point of making it a BATMAN movie?
 
UltimateJustin said:
B89 was good but lets not go insane and pretend that Returns was anything but a cool subtitle. BR might not even be better than Forever because both films are so far from being good movies that no one has even taken the time to analyze them.

both films are so far from being good movies no one has even taken the time to analyze them

LOL. Most film fans consider Batman Returns a far superior movie to B89. It has some flaws, but overall it's a great film.
 
CoolAsICE said:
Returns was the better crafted film. Better acting and scripting. No one in Begins even came close to matching Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman performance.

Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine.

All academy award worthy. The difference is, they weren't hamming it up.
 
CoolAsICE said:
both films are so far from being good movies no one has even taken the time to analyze them

LOL. Most film fans consider Batman Returns a far superior movie to B89. It has some flaws, but overall it's a great film.

I generally like BR, but looking at it analytically? It gets it's ass handed too it.
 
JLBats said:
I generally like BR, but looking at it analytically? It gets it's ass handed too it.

By B89? No way.

I've only seen BB once, and that was when it premiered. So I'm going to reserve some judgment until I see it again......but I was majorly disappointed in it. It seemed very Hollywood-ish and pretentious to me.......and just not very entertaining overall.
 
CoolAsICE said:
By B89? No way.

No, in general, as a FILM. Yes, it is different. That doesn't make it good.

I've only seen BB once, and that was when it premiered. So I'm going to reserve some judgment until I see it again......but I was majorly disappointed in it. It seemed very Hollywood-ish and pretentious to me.......and just not very entertaining overall.

It wasn't very Hollywood to me. It was dark, it had actual themes and was very talky and existential.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"