is any one glad this third burton film never happened?

[riddler]

I'll start and say one down side to Burton leaving is that Keaton would have been better than Kimer any day of the week.

That being said here are some reasons why I think Burton's third film would have been worse than Schumachers first.
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.
2. Jim Carrey- maybe Burton would have cast him any how but it's hard to picture another actor doing better
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.
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.
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).
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.
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. 

[Dagenspear]

My thoughts on this are that Burton's Batman 3 only really would have worked if a split personality Harvey Dent would have replaced Max Shreck in Batman Returns as a villain. I also liked the redemptive aspect of Batman Forever and I don't know if that would have been there with Burton. So, I kinda agree.

[johnnygobbs]

My thoughts on this are that Burton's Batman 3 only really would have worked if a split personality Harvey Dent would have replaced Max Shreck in Batman Returns as a villain. I also liked the redemptive aspect of Batman Forever and I don't know if that would have been there with Burton. So, I kinda agree.

I never understood why people thought that Harvey Dent should have filled-in for the Max Shreck part bearing in mind that Dent is meant to start off as a decent, upstanding individual who only becomes evil after his horrific scarring, whereas Max is someone who has always been corrupt and self-serving.

[Edd Grayson]

I wanted to make a thread on Harvey Dent in the Burton films saying the same thing as Johnnygobbs. If Harvey had been in Max's role, his scarring wouldn't have had nearly the same dramatic impact since he was avillain to begin with. What makes Two-Face tragic and more interesting is that he was one of the good guys in the beginning. It surprised me to read he was supposed to be in Shreck's role at first.

As for the original question, I'm not glad the third Burton film didn't happen despite all the things that could've gone wrong. I am being subjective here since I like the existing Burton Batman films the best out of all.

[johnnygobbs]

I wanted to make a thread on Harvey Dent in the Burton films saying the same thing as Johnnygobbs. If Harvey had been in Max's role, his scarring wouldn't have had nearly the same dramatic impact since he was avillain to begin with. What makes Two-Face tragic and more interesting is that he was one of the good guys in the beginning. It surprised me to read he was supposed to be in Shreck's role at first.

As for the original question, I'm not glad the third Burton film didn't happen despite all the things that could've gone wrong. I am being subjective here since I like the existing Burton Batman films the best out of all.

Has it ever been proven that Max Shreck's part was originally meant to be filled by Harvey Dent?  I've only seen two drafts for Dan Waters' 'Batman Returns' and both of them feature Shreck but not Dent (although I did read that Waters was toying with the idea of having Dent simply show up for a brief scene and flip his coin in deciding what to do next).

Apart from Dent being a completely different character to Shreck, in terms of the former being an upstanding crusader for justice and the latter being the type of person Dent might go after, it makes no sense in purely practical terms to write Dent out of the story if the original intention had been to include him.  Billy Dee Williams makes it clear on the DVD special edition features that he would have loved to have returned to the franchise as Dent/Two-Face, so if an opportunity had existed why was a decision made to write his character out?

And like Edd Grayson I would have liked another Burton Batman film.  I think one more would have sufficed in order to allow Burton to complete an unofficial trilogy that would allow him to delve into a sufficient variety of characters.  Then again, I couldn't see Burton returning for a third film unless he was allowed to do things his own way, and in view of the mixed response that greeted 'Batman Returns' (which was actually better received critically than its predecessor, but made a lot less money and alienated many family groups and commercial sponsors) I don't think that was a realistic possibility.

[Dagenspear]

My thoughts on this are that Burton's Batman 3 only really would have worked if a split personality Harvey Dent would have replaced Max Shreck in Batman Returns as a villain. I also liked the redemptive aspect of Batman Forever and I don't know if that would have been there with Burton. So, I kinda agree.

I never understood why people thought that Harvey Dent should have filled-in for the Max Shreck part bearing in mind that Dent is meant to start off as a decent, upstanding individual who only becomes evil after his horrific scarring, whereas Max is someone who has always been corrupt and self-serving.

It wouldn't have been the exact same character, I believe. He would have been written nothing like Max, well with the possible exception of his Two-Face personality possibly being the one to push Selina out the window.

[Catwoman]

1. This probably would have been what killed the movie and the franchise might have died right there, because Tim wouldn't have put up with anymore garbage probably. The first time they meddled, "(beep) you, I'm outta here." lol

2. The answer you're looking for is Robin Williams.

3. I fail to see how any of what you said about Returns (except some plot holes) are bad things, and there are definitely a ton of us who think it is definitely NOT quite a bit inferior, but the rest of it, I get. It's hard to make magic once, let alone twice, even if you're Tim Burton. Three times would have been tough but I think he could have done it.

4. I can't tell any of the Wayans apart so idk if I've seen Marlon in anything or not lol (which one had the ABC show, My Wife and Kids? He's the same one in Major Payne, he's funny as hell) so I better skip this one.

5.  It defo would have been more "Batman through Tim Burton's eyes" which would have been awesome for some peeps and some would have hated it. I wouldn't have cared back then as long as it was, which is funny since now I'm waiting to see if they f*** up the Suicide Squad movie by going far from the comics lol. If it entertains me and Harley is awesome then I won't worry with it too much though.

6. Again, for me Returns was not all that inferior. Depending on how you look at the movies (they're really two separate kinds of movies, just with a lot of the same characters) in a lot of ways it's better than the first, in others the first is better than Returns. Depending on what Tim went for (I guess a happy medium between the two is what most peeps like to use for theoreticals? and wow Kitty is piling on the smart talk today) I think he could have pulled off a third one just fine. Especially a Michael Keaton vs Robin Williams battle, assuming Robin actually was cast. He would have been so damn good as The Riddler, it breaks my heart that we'll never get to see it. But he would have been brilliant, zany, terrifying, and just totally freaking amazing and probably would have legitimately done for Tim's movie what Heath did for TDK because of his death more so than his performance (which was good but not the performance of the gods that everyone acts like it is). I think, instead of Tim going out on a sour note, maybe he would have gone out with his best (assuming it was his last Bat movie).

7. I never saw Ed Wood so I should probably skip this one too lol. But I get that kind of concern. Maybe if Tim was doing the third Batman, he could have still made the Ed Wood movie after that and still given it his full attention? Idk. I like have no idea about that movie what so ever, when it was produced or anything so yah I'll shut up now.

[BatmAngelus]

I wanted to make a thread on Harvey Dent in the Burton films saying the same thing as Johnnygobbs. If Harvey had been in Max's role, his scarring wouldn't have had nearly the same dramatic impact since he was avillain to begin with. What makes Two-Face tragic and more interesting is that he was one of the good guys in the beginning. It surprised me to read he was supposed to be in Shreck's role at first.

As for the original question, I'm not glad the third Burton film didn't happen despite all the things that could've gone wrong. I am being subjective here since I like the existing Burton Batman films the best out of all.

Has it ever been proven that Max Shreck's part was originally meant to be filled by Harvey Dent?  I've only seen two drafts for Dan Waters' 'Batman Returns' and both of them feature Shreck but not Dent (although I did read that Waters was toying with the idea of having Dent simply show up for a brief scene and flip his coin in deciding what to do next).

Apart from Dent being a completely different character to Shreck, in terms of the former being an upstanding crusader for justice and the latter being the type of person Dent might go after, it makes no sense in purely practical terms to write Dent out of the story if the original intention had been to include him.  Billy Dee Williams makes it clear on the DVD special edition features that he would have loved to have returned to the franchise as Dent/Two-Face, so if an opportunity had existed why was a decision made to write his character out?

That's correct, johnnygobbs. I believe "Shreck was originally Harvey Dent" was an IMDB rumor that got spread around as fact, since the only time Dent was in the Daniel Waters draft was in a cameo.

As for a third Burton film, there's no telling what it would've been about or who could've even been the villains of the film. Using Two-Face and Riddler were all Schumacher and the Batchlers' ideas.

[johnnygobbs]

That's correct, johnnygobbs. I believe "Shreck was originally Harvey Dent" was an IMDB rumor that got spread around as fact, since the only time Dent was in the Daniel Waters draft was in a cameo.

It's frustrating because I've listened to commentaries and read articles where this rumour has been stated as fact despite all other evidence to the contrary.

As for a third Burton film, there's no telling what it would've been about or who could've even been the villains of the film. Using Two-Face and Riddler were all Schumacher and the Batchlers' ideas.

Ah I see.  Was Burton ever associated with the third Batman when it was decided to utilise Two-Face and the Riddler?  For some reason I assumed he was still on-board when Rene Russo was cast as Michael Keaton's love interest.  I also assumed that Keaton jumped ship fairly soon after Burton was given his marching orders.

I actually have a 1993 issue of Empire magazine which suggests that Burton was going to do 'Batman 3' with John Malkovich as a possible contender for the Riddler, before he was kicked off the project and replaced with Schumacher.  The same article also states that Warner Bros was still happy for him to make Catwoman with Michelle Pfeiffer at this stage.

[BatmAngelus]

I think Riddler was always rumored around town to show up after B89 and was even mentioned at the end of one of Daniel Waters's drafts.

But other than that Empire article you state (which even says that it's "rumored"), there's no substantial evidence that Burton himself was going to use the combo of Two-Face and Riddler or even use Robin in the next movie. These all came from Schumacher and the Batchlers. And Burton's main role for his "producer" credit on the movie was approving the hiring of the new creative team.

After Burton left, Keaton was still attached to play Batman for awhile and the script was written with him in mind, but he left when he was unhappy with the direction things were going. At the same time, Schumacher pursued Robin Williams, but that didn't work out either.

So it's possible that in another world, we would've gotten a Batman Forever with Keaton and Robin Williams, but it still would've been directed by Schumacher and would've been off of the same script as the film.