Back in 1989, Tim Burton gave us Batman, one of his most enduring and stylistic movies — long before the superhero craze kicked off in earnest. A few years later, the director avoided the typical lousy sequel with Batman Returns, which expanded on the fully realized world of Gotham and added some unforgettable performances of classic characters.
Fast forward a couple decades, and artist Joe Quinones wanted to revisit the "Burton-verse" for a Batman comic miniseries. Though the idea sadly never came to fruition, Joe released his concept art for all of us to drool over and scream at the sky about what could have been.
Take a look at a Burton-inspired Gotham after Batman Returns in Batman '89!
The Artwork Is Seriously Incredible
This cover is enough for me to mourn the fact that this series doesn't exist.
Quinones wrote on his own blog about how he and comic book creator Kate Leth would have tackled such a beloved Batman design:
We would have seen the return of Selina Kyle/ Catwoman as well as introductions to ‘Burton-verse’ versions of Robin, Barbara Gordon/Batgirl, Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy. It also would have showcased the turn of Billy Dee Williams’ Harvey Dent into Two-Face.
I think we can all agree: More of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman is always welcome.
Perhaps, most interestingly, Quinones and Leth would have branched into characters that Burton didn't bring to the screen (instead, these were adapted by different directors).
Their reimagined designs fit in with the more gothic and stark universe from the first two movies.
I always support more Harley Quinn in everything, especially if she's still jester-inspired.
Looking floral, fecund and fatal.
Yeah, that's definitely not Alicia Silverstone.
Though I've got a soft spot for Tommy Lee Jones's interpretation of Two-Face for the camp factor alone, a more brutal view of Harvey Dent's descent into half-madness would be fascinating.
That pout is unmistakably Michael Keaton's and I would have loved to see him back in action.
Would you have liked to read Batman '89?