Would you swap Forever and B&R for Burtons Batman 3?

[Rockbottom]

This might sound like a stupid question since most of you will think yes straight away, but im just interested to see if you would considering it would probably mean losing Begins too. But if there was Batman 3, then theres a chance they could of been a Batman 4 and 5 too.

 

[CFE]

Now knowing what would become of the franchise, absolutely!

True we wouldn't have Begins if not for what Schumacher did, but my curiosity overpowers that.

CFE

 

[CConn]

Honestly, I think I'd stick with BF and B&R. I mean, I really wasn't pleased with BR, I like BF, and horribleness of B&R did bring us BB, so I think it worked out for the best.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Another franchise killer would've come along I'm sure eventually; I pick yes.

 

[Bat Attack]

Hell yes. That would be a dream come true!

 

[dr.strange]

i think if batman begins was the starting point back in 1989, the franchise would be better off.think of how developed certain characters would be.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

without a doubt.

 

[Robin91939]

Honestly, I think I'd stick with BF and B&R. I mean, I really wasn't pleased with BR, I like BF, and horribleness of B&R did bring us BB, so I think it worked out for the best.

I agree. Although, if Burton were to give us more of what Batman great in his version of Batman Forever and less of what what Batman Returns bad, then I'm more that interested to see what he had in mind. Although, I predict a The Batman looking Riddler, who wasn't totally in character, and a Two-face that- actually I think Burton could have pulled Two-Face off if he were to us him. I think that the Joker, Two-Face and Scarecrow were the villains that Burton could have done the best with....god knows why he tried his hand at Penguin.

But for the poll, no. But I would like to hear what he had planned- officially from him- for Batman 3. It would be cool to have a one director, directed trilogy for Batman, with continuity.....but- we'll have that in about 5 years.

-R

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I don't think Burton had anything left to say about Batman. Artistically, he had finished.

 

[CFE]

I don't think Burton had anything left to say about Batman. Artistically, he had finished.

I disagree. Remember that discussion in the "Should Batman Kill?" thread about the dramatic arc Burton's films had set in place for Batman?

How Batman discovering the Joker was the murderer of his parents sent him into a darker state, where he'd be willing to kill. Then in "Returns" he realizes that Catwoman is going down the same road with wanting to kill Max Shreck so Batman tries to redeem her but doesn't?

Yes, Schumacher continued it slighty with Batman finally able to redeem someone, that being Robin, from killing Two-Face. But I think Burton would've handled it better.

Plus I'm far more interested in how Billy Dee Williams would've approached Two-Face than what Tommy Lee gave us.

CFE

 

[gregtestagent]

Burton has already proven himself twice with this. I can definitely stand another , but why would he ever do a third film? out of all his films, the Batman movie is the only ones he's done a sequel for.

 

[Mr. LOL]

I say "No" for two reasons ... the franchise was moving closer to Burtonman as opposed to Batman ... and the MAJOR reason would be that we'd have never got the Joker again like we are today.

 

[CrazyDavey]

Well, I say no. I have to admit, I did like Batman Forever. And it was thanks to Jim Carrey that I started to get interested in Batman (I was 12 when BF came out). If it was Tim Burton, It would probably have taken me a little longer to become a fan (even though I love the Burton films now).

I also say no, because without Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, we wouldn't have gotten Batman Begins (the best Batman movie ever!) and Christian Bale (the best Batman actor ever!)

 

[dude stannis]

Yes. Hell, I'd sacrifice Begins as well for Burton's 3, 4 and 5.

 

[dude stannis]

I don't think Burton had anything left to say about Batman. Artistically, he had finished.

Ah but you forget. Batman is a comic book character, with every arc that completes itself a new one begins.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't have to even think about it. Yes.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Most definately, Burton's Batman 3 would kick ass!

 

[Noir]

Burton's plans for Batman 3 were so god awful I'd survive with Forever and B&R.

Think of it like this, If fans basicly riot because the joker has a giant cut smile making him have an ungodly huge grin (as he is most often portrayed)

...Think of what people would do with a black Two-face, could you imagine Lando-face?


Plus the Riddler was supposed to be a very gothic figure with question marks shaved into his head and acting all cyber-punk (Atleast the Riddler in The Batman is kinda cool)

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[The Shredder]

Ultimately, yes.

I would agree to give up BF, and B&R for Burton's third Batman film. The only reason I would even hesitate slightly, is because I do enjoy BF. As it is a much darker film than everyone gives it credit for being, but unfortunately it gets lumped right in there with B&R. However, as much as I like BF, I would be most willing to sacrifice the film in order to have a Burton Bat-Trilogy. Admittedly, "Batman 3" would be akin to Burton's Batman Returns which Burton had much creative control and direction over, which I'm sure would have caused some concern with a certain group of fans, but on the other hand Returns is liked by a very good majority of Batman fans, so that might not necessarly be a bad thing in of itself.

 

[Two-Face]

I voted no because we wouldn't have BATMAN BEGINS in the first place.

 

[CConn]

Ah but you forget. Batman is a comic book character, with every arc that completes itself a new one begins.

I don't quite think Kevin was talking about storyarcs. You can always come up with a new story. What he was talking about is the artistic and psychological analyzation and statement Burton made about Batman.

I think Kevin's saying, in B89 and BR, Burton had completely encapsulated his vision and interpretation of Batman and his world, and thusly, there would nothing new to show or delve into in a third film.

That said, I really don't know if that's true. I mean, Burton DID want to make Batman 3. Maybe there was some other aspect of Batman he had yet to get into.

 

[El Payaso]

Burton's plans for Batman 3 were so god awful I'd survive with Forever and B&R.

Are there any sketches about it? I mean, since you seem satisfied with nipples and butts close-ups.

Think of it like this, If fans basicly riot because the joker has a giant cut smile making him have an ungodly huge grin (as he is most often portrayed)

...Think of what people would do with a black Two-face, could you imagine Lando-face?

The same they did for a black Kingpin or a black Commissioner Loeb?

That said, I can-t care less for what fans could have said or thought.

Plus the Riddler was supposed to be a very gothic figure with question marks shaved into his head and acting all cyber-punk (Atleast the Riddler in The Batman is kinda cool)

Fans insists to watch the actual movie before critizising Ledger Joker's look. At least I'd need a blurry pic of that "cyber punk" Riddler to do the same.

 

[BatMatt]

absolutely

 

[Rockbottom]

Plus the Riddler was supposed to be a very gothic figure with question marks shaved into his head and acting all cyber-punk (Atleast the Riddler in The Batman is kinda cool)

From what i understand, those were just drawing board notes/idea's, they weren't definitely going to be used.

I think that the Joker, Two-Face and Scarecrow were the villains that Burton could have done the best with....god knows why he tried his hand at Penguin.

He didn't, he edited the Penguin to fit his style and most people agree it makes for a much more interesting character.