What if Tim Burton Continued with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin

[ALP]

Tim Burton's BATMAN FOREVER would've had the same sense of gothic fantasy as SLEEPY HOLLOW - no doubt he would redefine many things on his way there, for one thing it wouldn't be in the winter (so I'm thinking lots of thunder and lighting and graveyards for optimum effect). I'm willing to bet my hat that he would've made a Robin-centric film (to appease the reaction from the last film of being too 'non-family-friendly' in a "wait till you see what I do to the kid!") He's always been a poet of childhood. Seeing a young (8-9 year old) Dick Grayson haunted by monstrous figures in the aftermath of his parent's murder - set within the gothic castle-like shadows of Wayne Manor, with a BatMan in the midst (the contrast between the bright, colourful circus and the dead, black and white Wayne manor compelling him for that red costume?) God I could just die.

Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne, much older and fatherly now, reflecting his pain through Grayson's? I'm looking at ROBIN'S RECKONING from the animated series with a much more detective-oriented storytelling with that bald Riddler with a pet rat, and a Harvey Dent who goes over the edge with an actual split-personality disorder (rather than a lapse in morality from Nolan-verse). Who knows? Maybe an insight into Burton's Asylum (to compare dark, gothic castles). I can't think of the female lead though.

And the classic batmobile ONE MORE TIME! TO ELFMAN'S MUSIC!

Sigh, one could really just die. I miss the old days.

While these are nice ideas and Burton may be or once was a poet of childhood, he clearly had absolutely no interest in Robin. He repeated over and over that Batman was a loner and Robin did not fit. And while he may make soft mushy crap now, in the early 90s Burton was not the type of filmmaker to appease others due to complaints about what he did.

 

[ghostrider92]

I just think WB didn't want Marlon Wayans. He was a nobody at the time the Burton movies were out.

um Marlon Wayans played on In Living Color with his brothers and sister from 1990 to 1995

and how could Marlon be a be a nobody when his In Living Color co star
jim carey played The Riddler in batman forever .

 

[cryptic name]

Nolan's franchise? Nolan is the current director, but it's not HIS franchise. WB isn't gonna stop after three movies. They'll simply do a 4th with another director and offer Christian Bale a lot of money to return.

unless the rumors about a television series are true

 

[aspie3000]

Well bane wouldn't have been a secondary character poison ivy probably would have looked beutiful but scary,and Mr freeze had all of the potential in the world.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Didn't Burton plan on using the Scarecrow in the third movie?

The way I understood it, it was Scarecrow and Man-Bat.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but Schumacher could actually have delivered a very good Batman film. He'd done dark and serious: The Client, A Time to Kill, Phone Booth and Falling Down. If he had taken the idea of a Batman film seriously, he may have been a great director.

 

[GothamAlleys]

The way I understood it, it was Scarecrow and Man-Bat.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but Schumacher could actually have delivered a very good Batman film. He'd done dark and serious: The Client, A Time to Kill, Phone Booth and Falling Down. If he had taken the idea of a Batman film seriously, he may have been a great director.

I know, when I saw BF I couldnt believe that Schumahcer is the guy that did the CLient, which was a terrific film which I really enjoyed. The problem was that Joel never did and still doesnt treat Batman seriously and thinks of it as dumb entertainment for kids. His constant line throughout the years is "its just a comic book"and "its just Batman"

 

[Two-Face]

He even says "comic book movie" a lot in his Commentary of BF. I read somwhere that he wanted to do Batman: Year One and that would been serious movie.

 

[Spoonman]

He even says "comic book movie" a lot in his Commentary of BF. I read somwhere that he wanted to do Batman: Year One and that would been serious movie.

Going by Schumacher's body of work I feel confident that he was capable of delivering a really good and serious Batman film. There is a part on the B&R commentary were he says that after Forever success, naively if you will, he believed that WB would let him do Batman: Year One, which was going to be in his own words "a much darker, smaller and younger kinda film". As we all know WB didnt want to go that route. I am sure that if WB line of thought was like it is right now in the Nolan era Schumacher would've taken the opportunity to make a dark and serious film, I guess the executives of WB of today are not the same dinasours of the 90's.

 

[El Payaso]

Could've, would've, should've.

 

[Spoonman]

Could've, would've, should've.

Not that I am not aware of that, but I still think is worth mentioning, in a Batman Movie discussion forum no less.

 

[ALP]

In the end B&R was a good thing to happen. It made WB wake up and smell the coffee.

Would you guys have rathered one BF, one B&R followed by a brilliant reboot? OR one BF followed up numerous other mediocre hits exactly like it. Had Batman & Robin been just like Batman Forever and did just as well in the box office, Schumacher would have only made more and more Batman films and WB very well may have stuck with that formula for years to come.

Schumacher was going to make Batman Triumphant and also wanted to do Year 1. Who knows how many mediocre Batman films he would have put out had B&R not been the disaster that it was.

 

[Ponyboy]

To me it seems like Burton said everything Batman he had to say with B89 and BR.

that might be true... Although Burton himself said he would've gone on to do a 3rd one, but he got the not so subtle hint that the execs didnt want him to do a 3rd one. It's a shame because there was much more to explore. Especially Bruce's relationship with Alfred (that was expanded on only slightly in Batman Forever)... I think we would have had a much more wacky Batman Forever if Burton was left to his devices. It also makes me wonder if he'd had ever brought back Pfeiffer's Catwoman at some point...

 

[The Joker]

Burton thinks Batman '89 is boring. So I don't think he would have minded another stab at Batman.

 

[The Demon's Head]

Does anyone know where I can find Lee and Janet Scott-Batchler's script, which introduced a psychotic Riddler accompanied by a pet rat?

 

[Ponyboy]

They won't let it out... I've asked them. Although there might be some version of it floating around online, but they won't willingly pass it out.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Burton thinks Batman '89 is boring. So I don't think he would have minded another stab at Batman.

But if so, that has more to do with the pacing or action, not the character himself. The character he introduced was definitely to his liking because he used the same kind of disturbed, isolated guy with a split personality in the sequel. The difference in the sequel was that we focused even more on his split persona and pain, and he evolved because he started opening and wanted a normal life. So having said that, I think Burton already said everything there was to say with this version of the character

 

[returntovoid]

I think Tim Burton would have ended his Batman films with the third film and resolve things that were unresolved in Batman Returns. I doubt he'd do a fourth film, that would be redundant.

 

[Ponyboy]

I don't think he'd do a fourth Batman film if it were... say... taking over a series. But taking The Dark Knight Returns material and doing that, he might. I think he took that and the Killing Joke and used that as inspiration for his first movie. Who knows? I think it's more likely that Keaton would return than Burton.

 

[The Joker]

But if so, that has more to do with the pacing or action, not the character himself.

How do you know that? Did he specify that somewhere?

The character he introduced was definitely to his liking because he used the same kind of disturbed, isolated guy with a split personality in the sequel. The difference in the sequel was that we focused even more on his split persona and pain, and he evolved because he started opening and wanted a normal life. So having said that, I think Burton already said everything there was to say with this version of the character

Sorry dude, but personally I think Burton showed even less interest in Batman in the sequel, and focused even more heavily on the villains, this time on two of them rather than one. Like with the Joker, Burton spent more time delving into the villains rather than Batman himself.

Regarding your remark about him wanting a normal life, I thought his wanting to be with Vicki and tell her his secret showed that he wanted a normal life with her. We learn in the sequel that it was her not him that bailed on their relationship because she couldn't handle his duality.

On a side note, since this is a Batman Forever related thread, I never liked the line Bruce says in Forever to Alfred, when they're discussing the possibility of him being with Chase, he says "I've never been in love before, Alfred".

Nice slap in the face to Vicki there. I was never entirely convinced he was in love with Selina. I think he just empathized with her more because she was a conflicted mask wearer, too.

 

[Ponyboy]

jamesCameronOn definitely has a point there, though. Keaton did seem slightly less tortured in the 2nd film... He had stopped his parents killer. He was still brooding, still a bit weird (sitting alone in the dark)... which was great... But he definitely was embracing his knight for Gotham/Bruce Wayne/public persona side of his personality in fighting Max Shreck...

So while there WAS a focus on the villains in Returns... Batman/Bruce Wayne definitely did change. I think Keaton was a little more funny the 2nd time around as well, especially the scene with Alfred where he's trying to get him to explain to Selina where's he's gone off to.

The big mistake I think any of the Batman films have made have been putting more than one villain in them. Batman's villains are so great, just as complex as he is... so to slap two villains in one movie cheapens them a little in my opinion. I like what Nolan did by building up Dent into Two-Face... but I think it was a real shame that he's (supposedly) dead.

 

[The Joker]

Fighting Max Schreck? They had two brief scenes of a bit of witty banter. It's a shame they didn't show him actually fight Max like he said he would. I'd have liked if they actually showed some of Bruce Wayne's power and influence in Gotham.

Yeah, he was less tortured in Returns, but then he had less material to work with. There's an interview somewhere with Keaton which I must dig up where he specifies that he wasn't as satisfied with his material in Returns as he was in Batman '89.

 

[Ponyboy]

hey you're preaching to the converted! haha... I wish Keaton had had more screen time. He's my favorite Bruce Wayne/Batman. I do think he had a little more in Batman Returns than he did in Batman... but I haven't been pedantic enough to count his screen time.

Sure he took on Max Shreck, to some degree. He didn't use his Bruce Wayne persona in the first film to do anything similar (other than the festival at his house)

All that said, I think if they had done a 3rd film with Keaton they would've expanded more on the Batman character... I think that's probably what excited Keaton about doing another one? But if I recall, he bowed out not long after he saw what Schumacher was doing with the story.

 

[returntovoid]

I was never entirely convinced he was in love with Selina. I think he just empathized with her more because she was a conflicted mask wearer, too.

I highly disagree.

It was the most convincing relationship that Batman/Bruce Wayne has had with the love-interest out of all Batman films, IMO.

 

[Spoonman]

Does anyone know where I can find Lee and Janet Scott-Batchler's script, which introduced a psychotic Riddler accompanied by a pet rat?

I may still have the link / copy (I dont remember well), I will check when I arrive home. Oh and after reading the Batchlers draft I will like to debunk previous misconceptions about the development of the script between the Batchlers and Akiva Goldsman, Akiva did not camped out the script or anything like that really.

Akiva Goldsman draft is better than Batchlers draft IMO, yes, I went there! Let me clarify that I am comparing script with script (not with the way Akiva's draft ended up on screen). Dialog is way better in Akiva's believe it or not, which shouldn't suprise you because the script itself is much better than what ended on screen, specially the characterization of Two Face and his dynamic with Riddler (Two Face being the darker and more violent villian while Riddler was more of a mind-game).

And lastly, I think the biggest improvement Akiva did over Batchlers draft is the Robin story and his relationship with Bruce. Long story short, in Batchlers version Bruce accepts Robin as a partner earlier in the story with way less drama about it. If I liked something about Forever was precisely the parallel story between Bruce and Dick Grayson and how reluctant Bruce was to accept Dick Grayson on following his path. All things considered I think the Batchlers version is worth a read.

 

[The Joker]

All that said, I think if they had done a 3rd film with Keaton they would've expanded more on the Batman character... I think that's probably what excited Keaton about doing another one? But if I recall, he bowed out not long after he saw what Schumacher was doing with the story.

Which is a shame to some degree, because for all his faults, Schumacher is the first director to put the focus primarily onto Batman in the movies. The whole storyline of Bruce dealing with the demons of his parents death, turning to Chase for help in dealing with his emotional pain, seeing his pain mirrored in Dick Grayson, the whole obsession Nygma had with Bruce, Two Face being obsessed with Batman etc. Everything was just revolving around the Bat.

I highly disagree.

It was the most convincing relationship that Batman/Bruce Wayne has had with the love-interest out of all Batman films, IMO.

I'm not saying their relationship wasn't convincing, I'm saying I don't think Bruce was actually in love for her. They knew each other a few days at most, had one brief date, and then found out she was a psycho in a cat costume.

Like I said, I think he empathized with her more than actually being in love with her. I don't believe Bruce wears his heart on his sleeve so easily. In Batman '89, he spent a whole evening connecting with Vicki, sharing childhood stories with Alfred, and they ultimately ended up making love. That's the highest level of intimacy he's had in any of the Batman movies. Yet Keaton's Batman is often labeled a loner, when none of the other Batman's have connected with a stranger like that in such a short space of time.