Sounds like a weird question, right? Let me explain.
One of my nitpicks I used to have for Batman Returns was that it had little continuity with the first film. Turns out, I was looking at it the wrong way (though you can't blame me, it was marketed as a sequel). I recently found out that Burton wanted the second installment to be a different retelling of Batman lore. It's a strange hybrid in that Burton went into it with the intention of setting it apart from the first, but had a few pieces of continuity added in to make it technically part of the same series.
So the question is, would Burton's Batman 3 have been a sequel to Batman Returns, or another standalone installment? It's been said that the first film was much of an experiment for Burton, and Returns found him more comfortable in the universe (it's much more Burton). Think he'd re-envision Batman again?
Since there's not much information to go by other than hearsay, I think it's rather likely that Burton would've re-visioned Batman again. Let's not forget that he's not the type of director who is too fond of doing sequels from an artistic point of view, and would rather do a completely new film. After all, if Burton had to be convinced by one of the scriptwriters to add a few nods to the first film then how likely is it that he'd make Batman 3 a direct sequel to BR?
I'm really not sure how Michael Keaton's Batman could have returned anyway. After all, he was framed and never cleared at the end of Batman Returns. Surely his days as a police-sanctioned, 'legitimate' crime-fighter were over.
I don't know about that. The end of the movie showed a Batsignal light up in the sky, which I always thought that Batman had been exonerated of the Ice Princess's murder off-screen.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, 00:15
I don't know about that. The end of the movie showed a Batsignal light up in the sky, which I always thought that Batman had been exonerated of the Ice Princess's murder off-screen.
How do you think that was possible?
In all honesty, that's the only logical reason I could think of. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense to me if Batman was still wanted for the murder of the Ice Princess. What other logical reason is there for the police to light the Batsignal up in the sky? If Batman still hadn't been cleared of any wrongdoing by that stage then I'd imagine the Batsignal would've been destroyed and discarded by that stage.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, 01:39
In all honesty, that's the only logical reason I could think of. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense to me if Batman was still wanted for the murder of the Ice Princess. What other logical reason is there for the police to light the Batsignal up in the sky? If Batman still hadn't been cleared of any wrongdoing by that stage then I'd imagine the Batsignal would've been destroyed and discarded by that stage.
Sure, but I see it one of two ways. Perhaps the murder hadn't been cleared and Gordon was trying to call Batman in to help clear his name, or the Red Triangle Circus Gang members who Batman had prevented from kidnapping Gotham's first-born had been rounded up and made to confess to the Penguin's various wrongdoing in order to get a lighter sentence, after all the Poodle Lady was present at the kidnapping, and the other gang members sabotaged the Batmobile.
What I most certainly would not feel comfortable is an ending where the police were happy to cooperate with Batman without having first established the actual murderer of the Ice Princess. >:( If a cloud of suspicion still hung over him I'm sure there would be many people who'd take issue with his presence.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, 02:35
Perhaps the murder hadn't been cleared and Gordon was trying to call Batman in to help clear his name,
I don't think Gordon would be allowed to do that at that stage. Unless Batman has clear evidence to prove his innocence, how is he going to appear on the rooftop somewhere when he's accused of committing first-degree murder?
You know, Batman Returns and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm both have identical endings. Both endings only allude to Batman being cleared of any wrongdoing without a scene that actually tells us beforehand. We don't get to have a scene where it's announced that Batman is innocent, but the Batsignal lighting up in the sky must mean he got his name cleared. It's a bit of shame that we didn't get a scene similar to the altered ending of BR's comic adaptation; where the Mayor and Gordon look up at the Batsignal knowing that Batman will continue to protect Gotham despite wondering if he'll ever forgive the city for being wrongfully accused of murdering an innocent victim.
But for argument's sake, even if Batman wasn't cleared by the end of both films, I'd still say neither would be as bad as, for example, Batman taking the blame for murders he didn't commit to protect a disgraced DA, while the Joker sits by in his jail cell in silence despite knowing what the DA did and allows Gotham to rid itself of crime for the next eight years. ;)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, 03:14But for argument's sake, even if Batman wasn't cleared by the end of both films, I'd still say neither would be as bad as, for example, Batman taking the blame for murders he didn't commit to protect a disgraced DA, while the Joker sits by in his jail cell in silence despite knowing what the DA did and allows Gotham to rid itself of crime for the next eight years. ;)
My only issue with that is that after eight years no one has caught Batman (even though the number of Gothamites capable of assuming the role of Batman is fairly limited, and Coleman Reese has strong information as to Batman's identity which, now that the Joker has been apprehended he is perfectly at liberty to share with the authorities). I'd like to think that if Batman was still a suspect in the Ice Princess's death the police wouldn't be sitting idly on their hands for eight years (and I know Gordon knows otherwise in the case of 'The Dark Knight' with respect to Batman's 'guilt', but surely the families of the various victims, not to mention the mayor and the public at large, would be clamouring for justice). >:(
I never thought about the Returns ending haha; but doing so now I really think the original ending would have made much more sense.
Or if they had done both, like you have Gordon and the Mayor looking at eachother and asking if he'll ever forgive them? Then it cuts to Bruce finding the cat, pans up and the light hits and Catwoman raises her head.
In terms of whether or not they would allow Batman to return after what had happened, I dont think it'd have mattered - the next film would most likely been another chapter in the Batman series, like another comic story. I doubt much attention would have been paid to making it all connect together tbh, but it were, I could just see it being a case of Batman having even less to do with Gordon, maybe that would have been why he enlists the help of Robin eventually?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, 01:39
In all honesty, that's the only logical reason I could think of. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense to me if Batman was still wanted for the murder of the Ice Princess. What other logical reason is there for the police to light the Batsignal up in the sky? If Batman still hadn't been cleared of any wrongdoing by that stage then I'd imagine the Batsignal would've been destroyed and discarded by that stage.
True, and really, even if Batman wasn't cleared, it wouldn't matter to him anyway. Keaton's Batman wasn't what I would call police sanctioned per se. He kept a distance between himself and practically everyone else. He gave them the batsignal...aaand that's about it. There was minimal dialogue and minimal interaction. His only message was via a letter, saying I'll always be here looking out for your safety. Keaton's Batman was always going to do whatever he wanted.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, 02:40
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 29 Mar 2015, 01:39
In all honesty, that's the only logical reason I could think of. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense to me if Batman was still wanted for the murder of the Ice Princess. What other logical reason is there for the police to light the Batsignal up in the sky? If Batman still hadn't been cleared of any wrongdoing by that stage then I'd imagine the Batsignal would've been destroyed and discarded by that stage.
True, and really, even if Batman wasn't cleared, it wouldn't matter to him anyway. Keaton's Batman wasn't what I would call police sanctioned per se. He kept a distance between himself and practically everyone else. He gave them the batsignal...aaand that's about it. There was minimal dialogue and minimal interaction. His only message was via a letter, saying I'll always be here looking out for your safety. Keaton's Batman was always going to do whatever he wanted.
I agree with this. Batman would presumably have carried on. But if he was still wanted by the police, they ran a risk using the Bat-signal, and he ran a risk going into Gotham since they'd presumably have a warrant for his arrest.
But no way were the police going to work with Batman unless he'd been cleared of the murder! I'd be sickened if they did. >:(
I've often heard of critics complain how Batman is too lethal in BR especially, but I think in a way that would realistically fit his psychological profile. Let's face it, in the real world, a vigilante like Batman would never gain any co-operation from the cops under any circumstances. Furthermore, Batman doesn't answer to anybody. He has no legal jurisdiction or authority to do the things he does i.e. taking evidence from crime scenes, assaulting and interrogating suspects. Sure, later Golden Age/Silver Age and maybe even some of the Bronze Age comics show that Batman was formally deputized as a law enforcer, but not nowadays. In reality, if Batman were to exist, he'd be considered a wanted criminal under the eyes of the law. Which is why in a way I'm rather comfortable that he doesn't interact too much with the police in the Burton films. It makes me wonder if critics would applaud Burton for applying realism if he had abandoned the Batsignal altogether and have Batman remain an outlaw throughout his series. :-\ Not that I wish it would happen of course: the lack of Batsignal would make the film less imaginative.
Quote from: Seantastic on Sun, 31 May 2015, 22:48
In terms of whether or not they would allow Batman to return after what had happened, I dont think it'd have mattered - the next film would most likely been another chapter in the Batman series, like another comic story. I doubt much attention would have been paid to making it all connect together tbh, but it were, I could just see it being a case of Batman having even less to do with Gordon, maybe that would have been why he enlists the help of Robin eventually?
Do you mean while Batman is still mistaken as a fugitive or after he's proven innocent? In any case, his association with Robin under such circumstances is quite a good idea.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, 09:53
Quote from: Seantastic on Sun, 31 May 2015, 22:48
In terms of whether or not they would allow Batman to return after what had happened, I dont think it'd have mattered - the next film would most likely been another chapter in the Batman series, like another comic story. I doubt much attention would have been paid to making it all connect together tbh, but it were, I could just see it being a case of Batman having even less to do with Gordon, maybe that would have been why he enlists the help of Robin eventually?
Do you mean while Batman is still mistaken as a fugitive or after he's proven innocent? In any case, his association with Robin under such circumstances is quite a good idea.
Well thats the thing, it'd depend on what route the film actually went, but either way I think it'd work.
Like IF the police were after him, then he might feel he needs someone for general help, he adopts Robin and goes from there. Or it could've worked how it did in Forever and Dick would have found the batcave and then just pushed to help.
I dont know, but remember, in terms of Batman being a fugitive, Gordon did yell to his men not to fire; so that clearly shows that Gordon had trust in Batman, even at such a time, so were the police REALLY against Batman?
I guess the one thing that Returns is missing is that one wrap-up scene where everything is laid-out, setting up the what was presumably already happening sequel :/
Oh well, its still the best film ever made!!
I've seen this story being shared a lot recently:
http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/michael-keaton-wanted-to-make-a-third-batman-movie-as-a-prequel/
Not exactly confirming Burton's vision, but Keaton's input was always welcomed and I'd imagine it'd be utilized.
The articles mention the parallels between the supposed story and Batman Begins, which would have given us a much different Batman movie a decade in advance. Obviously, it would've been tough to deliver an origin story as a third entry. Personally, I love the introduction and brief backstory we were given in the first film. Though I think the supposed backstory plot has more in common with The Mask of the Phantasm, coincidentally released the year after Returns, and directly influenced by Burton's films. Again, MotP was able to deliver a backstory plot in the thick of Batman: The Animated Series' run, and was able to seamlessly incorporate it into the plot. Had Batman 3 taken a cue from this, I could totally see it working.
This more pertains to the dark knight rises because Nolan actually does establish batman copycats but it can never be proven that the murderers of the ice princess and harvey dent were THE batman and not some copycat. The ice princess fell from a great distance away from any credible witnesses, very easy to raise reasonable doubt on the basis that the man in the bat suit could have been an imposter intended to frame Batman. Or that the princess was pushed. LIkewise with the Dent murder, why couldn't Gordon say it was an imposter or even make up a fake description of a person who doesn't exist? Or heck why couldn't they hide or destroy the body?
Even with Gordon blaming Batman, that wasn't a reason to give up being Batman. Bruce Wayne could have easily argued he took up the batman mantle after the 'original' one went away.
Back to the topic I don't think it would have; they were already thinking third film during the production of the second film and remember that Burton vetoed having Harvey Dent in the Shreck role likely because he wouldn't want to overly connect the second and third films.