The 1989-1997 Bat films never really had a strong sense of continuity with each other. Obviously, a lot of if had to due with the changing actors playing Batman and the vastly differences in directing styles of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. Even in "Batman Returns", Tim Burton didn't want it to be too much of a direct sequel to "Batman '89". They were basically, like the James Bond films, where all of the films although containing similar elements and standard formula, are at the end of the day, self-contained.
I've been thinking about this all day. The animated "Batman: Gotham Knight" anthology film is supposedly meant to take place in-between the events of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight". "X-Men: The Official Game" was meant to serve as a bridge between "X2" and "X-Men: The Last Stand".
A proposed (rough) timeline of events during the gap of "Batman Returns" and "Batman Forever":
*Batman/Bruce Wayne comes to the conclusion that he know longer wants to kill out of vengeful rage (hence, him telling Dick Grayson not to follow down his path in wanting to kill Two-Face) as seen in "Batman '89" and "Batman Returns". Possibly, his experience with Catwoman (who wanted to kill her "creator", Max Shreck just like Batman wanted to kill his "creator", the Joker in "Batman '89") is the starting point to this change of tune. Also, maybe Shreck (in a rare selfless act) being willing to sacrifice himself in order to save his son (for whom the Penguin was planning to kill as well as all the other first born children of Gotham) had enough of an effect on Bruce to want "save" his surrogate son, Dick Grayson".
*Batman is fully cleared of the Ice Princess' murder that Penguin framed him for in "Batman Returns". Although, the Batsignal already popped up at the end of "Batman Returns".
*The new Batmobile is created (possibly because the Penguin found blueprints to the original one).
*The panther Batsuit is introduced. It could be explained that Bruce likes to modifiy the suits in order to improve mobility (as was the case with the "Batman '89" suit vs. the "Batman Returns" suit) and make him more imprevious to attacks (a la Catwoman using her claws to puncher his chest plate). Maybe Bruce took some time to travel (to places like Greece or Japan like he said in "Batman '89") to clear his head after the events of "Batman Returns" and became inspired by the statues of the Greek gods (like Joel Schumacher implied as the inspiration behind the Batsuits).
*With Carl Grissom and Joker dead, Sal Maroni becomes the new crime boss of Gotham (leading up to his trial and him throwing acid in Harvey Dent's face).
*Why does Gotham City look so different in "Batman Forever" when compared to the Burton films, well maybe there was an earthquake (a la the "Cataclysm" storyline in the comics).
I think the real answer is that Schumacher went out of his way to distance himself from Burton's work... whether that was his own choice or WB's insistence is, as ever, up for discussion.
As for thematically tying the films together, one could argue that Batman learned his lesson about killing in BR, and BF is the culmination of that. He's ready to be a mentor because he'd made a lot of mistakes himself.
I don't completely buy a non-killing Batman but you could make this work if you were determined enough to try.
I honestly wouldnt want there to be. ???
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 12 Jul 2008, 21:46
tying the films together, one could argue that Batman learned his lesson about killing in BR, and BF is the culmination of that.
He didn't kill anyone "important" to trigger such a change. Only henchmen, and we don't even see them die on-screen.
There was also the scene when Nicole Kidman's character tells Batman that she heard he had a thing for whips and leather, obviously referring to Catwoman so that relates to Returns. Myself, I don't like to connect these two films either and purely just of of interest as Returns is a far more dark and mature film whereas Forever went down the kids film route, which I thought ruined it. Plus I think Robin ruins the Batman franchise but thats just me.
I've always been for completely seperating these films. These films having connection to each other should be minimal.
Quote from: Batman on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, 14:37He didn't kill anyone "important" to trigger such a change. Only henchmen, and we don't even see them die on-screen.
Killing someone important isn't the only way to accomplish said change. He saw the self-destructive choices Catwoman was making and how they mirrored his own and decided to make a change... and that was apparent even before credits rolled on BR. Batman told Shreck that he was going to jail. Had it been Batman from earlier on in BR, I have no doubt he would've let Selina kill him or else done the job himself.
I love that whole scene between Shrek and Catwoman. "A half pint. I'm talking gallons" LOL
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, 17:30
I've always been for completely seperating these films. These films having connection to each other should be minimal.
I agree. I like that this website is primarily centred around the two Burton and Nolan films. They are the only decent Batman films, in my opinion. I'm sure many of you are with me on this.
Abosolutely ;D
I can't even tie the Burton & Schumacher films together. Burton's films followed on his view of Batman & the "Dark Knight" comics, & they came out perfectly. Batman Forever is just so different. Examples include a neon Gotham, campiness, different Batmen, too many unrealistic aspects of Batman, goofy villians, a ****-of-a-doctor for a love interest, corny dialogue, & just a brighter overtone all together (it's literally brighter, too).
I don't think I could even connect B & R w/ Forever. Everything that was bad in Forerver just gets worse. One huge reason is B & R's version of Bane. He went from being the cunning strategist who was in top human physical condition & becomes a super skinny convict who would be transformed into a green-skinned giant barely capable of human speech & becomes Poison Ivy's dumb muscle. Definitely one've the worst ways to bring a villain into a movie!
Recently I wrote a response to a topic pretty much similar to what the title says. If possible, I would like to hear from other members if you agree w/ what I say or if you don't. I like to hear what my fellows think. :)
I think the only tie that was mentioned in Forever was the "...skin-tight vinyl and a whip?" remark made by Chase Meridian which was about the Catwoman.
Also the Wayne murder flashbacks were somewhat similar to what was done in '89.
DICK--"You're parents weren't killed by a MANIAC!" BRUCE--"Yes they WERE!"...reference to the Joker.
I know that in the script for Forever, Bruce considers retiring, one reason being that Jack Napier/Joker is dead.
What's strange about the Wayne's murder was that the killer didn't have an accomplice, like Jack Napier had Bob back in BATMAN. You'd think they'd have the decency to have an accomplice? ???
True, I never thought about that. The killer, though in the shadows, was definitely Napier.
BTW Batass, do you think that it's hard to connect Forever w/ B & R? I mean Forever had its campy moments, but B & R is just OTT! Three examples are a jokey Bruce/Batman, antagonists more cheesier than the ones from before, more & more colorful lights, & Barbara Wilson (I still can't believe she's suddenly related to Alfred)!
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 04:28
BTW Batass, do you think that it's hard to connect Forever w/ B & R? I mean Forever had its campy moments, but B & R is just OTT! Three examples are a jokey Bruce/Batman, antagonists more cheesier than the ones from before, more & more colorful lights, & Barbara Wilson (I still can't believe she's suddenly related to Alfred)!
Actually I never gave it much thought because the movie(B&R) was such a huge joke to begin with but I'd have to say both yes and no.
YES because of the Schumacher tone and the way things were done.
NO because at least Forever was more zany than stupid and had some dark serious themes.
Forever is still entertaining to watch as a Batman film. I only see B & R as an homage to that goofy 60's show, but it's actually hilarious.:D
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 05:07
Forever is still entertaining to watch as a Batman film. I only see B & R as an homage to that goofy (& evil) 60's show, but it's actually hilarious...
The 60's show as actually closer to the original comics than some will admit. Aside from the fact that it wasn't dark and was campy it was alot like the comics of the late-40's and early-50's IMO. You're entitled to your opinion though. :)
Thank God Dennis O' Neil & Neal Adams brought back 'The Dark Knight" image. Adams is also the one responsible for the current look of Batman's logo. Before, it was just the black bat that was on the other suits in a yellow elipse. Adams made the bat look menacing.
My favorite emblem is the Anton Furst design--
http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=2232
It looks as if it could be a coat and arms for an army IMO.
Furst's emblem is iconic. I love how it shines in all of its glory! 8) But my favorite is Welch's, with all of that snow being blown by the wind. It's EPIC! ;D
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 14:26
Furst's emblem is iconic. I love how it shines in all of its glory! 8) But my favorite is Welch's, with all of that snow being blown by the wind. It's EPIC! ;D
I believe that emblem is actually Furst's design with ice and snow. You're right though, it does rule! 8)
Maybe you're right, but Furst didn't work on Returns. Also, I believe Furst's emblem was made w/ a computer, whereas Returns has an emblem that looks man made. Still, I love his Gotham City! ;D BTW Batass, did you really get your name from TF's monologue in his 1st scene? From what I recall, doesn't he say "Counting on the winged avenger to deliver you from evil?"
Did Furst do the B89 logo?
From what I've read, yes he did.
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 16:23
Maybe you're right, but Furst didn't work on Returns. Also, I believe Furst's emblem was made w/ a computer, whereas Returns has an emblem that looks man made. Still, I love his Gotham City! ;D BTW Batass, did you really get your name from TF's monologue in his 1st scene? From what I recall, doesn't he say "Counting on the winged avenger to save you?"
He didn't say it in the film, it was only in the script:
40 WIDER 40
Witness the rakishly handsome profile of HARVEY TWO-FACE
DENT, the other side of his face hidden in shadow.
TWO-FACE
You. Sport. Any thoughts? Counting
on Batass to rescue you?
PULL BACK TO REVEAL
A SECURITY GUARD, laying on the floor, wrists and feet
bound, trembling with fear.
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Batman-Forever.html
I also meant to say one more thing about the Returns emblem, & that is that the snow in the emblem goes with what Mr. Freeze says in B & R which is "Tonight's forecast: 'A freeze is coming!'" :D However, that quote doesn't make B & R a passable Batman film.
It's funny that even the ice emblem at the beginning of B&R looks like an amateur job, drawn with photoshop in 10 minutes
I believe Schumacher basically took a very different approach to the material than the approach Burton had with it, and I'm sure that was encouraged by WB anyways.
Batman Forever certainly isnt a complete and total restart and screams, "reboot". But on the other hand, it's not a film that seems like a direct sequel either. More like a loose sequel than anything else.
The novelization by Peter David did alot in trying to tie BF and BR as much as humanly possible, and I applaud David for doing that. It's also apparent that WB felt Forever was a sequel as well since WB apparently entertained the idea of Jack reprising his role as the Joker given Batman and Robin's box office numbers were better.
But we all know how that turned out. :D
Forever, to me, is like a reboot of the Batman film franchise. As for B & R, it seems like its own thing b/c Batman Forever, while it had zaniness, still had dark & serious moments, but B & R was basically just a campfest. I mean sure it tried to get at your heart at certain times (Alfred's sickness for ex.), but those scenes just don't save it. With that in mind, it's pretty hard to connect Forever w/ B & R.
I kinda get what you are saying.
Batman Forever is indeed a much darker film, especially compared to that of Batman & Robin. I suppose the addition of returning cast members, Two-Face and Riddler's getups being shown as a wink to the audience, and of course the neon are the main dots that connect BF to B&R.
In alot of ways, I can see how each Batman film (excluding the Nolan films), could be seen as loose sequels, and not direct sequels. Theres not a ton of things linking Batman 1989 to Batman Returns, even BR's Gotham looked alot different than in 1989. Which obviously continued with 1995's Batman Forever.
I like to think of Gotham City in BR as a different place in Gotham, In B89 we got the town hall, Flugelheim Museum, main stree, crim alley etc., while in Returns we got the Plaza, Shreck building, Penguins office, Penguin's Lair etc.
The reason why Gotham looks different in Returns is b/c it was meant to resemble New York City's cleanup in the 90's (I believe), whereas the BATMAN Gotham was meant to resemble NYC in its dirty times (70's-80's from what I've read). Returns Gotham was also made to look whimsical b/c the movie took place during the holiday season. Besides what I've mentioned above, you do know that both films had different designers, right?
Forever's Gotham City in the day looks like Metropolis, Las Vegas & Tokyo at night. B & R's Gotham, in the words of Gotham Knight, was just a drug trip. I mean, there were even more unnecessary features, like gigantic statues of Greek Gods for example. Funny thing is, Barbara Ling designed these sets in both films.
I always thought Forever looks more like the present day Times Square.
Quote from: batass4880 on Wed, 28 Jan 2009, 23:16
I always thought Forever looks more like the present day Times Square.
Times Square has lights, but it doesn't have the overdone neon that the Schumacher films have. From what I've seen & read, this Gotham is based on Las Vegas & Tokyo.
Part of it was shot on Wall Street
Are you talking about the scene where Bruce visits Meridian Raleagh?
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Wed, 28 Jan 2009, 23:28
Are you talking about the scene where Bruce visits Meridian Raleagh?
This scene I think
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmanmovieonline.com%2Fgallery%2Fthumbs%2F1211893158.jpg&hash=21d8124ae797ec2bb6ff00ca5b2c5c316547ce09) (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/gallery.php?showpicture=1065)
That car has a similar shape to the Keaton Mobile. Is that Schumacher's way of tying his films to Burton's (I still can't tie them)?
Maybe. Maybe not.
From what I've read, Shumacher's original cut for Forever paid more homage to Burton's film than what we ultimately saw with the theatrical cut.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 29 Jan 2009, 02:26
From what I've read, Shumacher's original cut for Forever paid more homage to Burton's film than what we ultimately saw with the theatrical cut.
True. I know for sure that it was meant to be darker than what we got for the final cut. I know there are things still that need to be edited or cut out of the film entirely at the end of the day (Chase Meridian for ex.), but I would've loved to have seen the full version. It's a shame that Warner Bros. really wanted the final cut to be mainstream & dumbed down. :( >:( Still, it's sure as hell not in Batman & Robin's league, there's no doubt about that! :D
How would you tie Forever & B & R The Joker?
I'm not really sure how I would tie BF to B&R, but personally I think out of all the Burton/Schumacher Batman films, B&R feels like more of a direct sequel to BF than Batman Returns was to 1989. And maybe that's just because we had O'Donnell returning with Michael Gough and Pat Hingle, instead of just Gough and Hingle who were about the only people from the Burton films reprising their roles from the in Forever. But yeah, it just felt like more of a continuation. Although that's just my personal opinion.
Unfortunately, as you stated, we got a watered down theatrical cut with Forever, and a even more watered down movie with Batman and Robin. >:(
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 29 Jan 2009, 02:45
I'm not really sure how I would tie BF to B&R, but personally I think out of all the Burton/Schumacher Batman films, B&R feels like more of a direct sequel to BF than Batman Returns was to 1989. And maybe that's just because we had O'Donnell returning with Michael Gough and Pat Hingle, instead of just Gough and Hingle who were about the only people from the Burton films reprising their roles from the in Forever. But yeah, it just felt like more of a continuation. Although that's just my personal opinion.
Unfortunately, as you stated, we got a watered down theatrical cut with Forever, and a even more watered down movie with Batman and Robin. >:(
Burton did say that Returns isn't a sequel to BATMAN. As for B & R being a follow-up to Forever, it's pretty difficult for me to think that. I mean sure Schumacher directed it, but it was just a COMPLETE CAMPFEST!
I dont think doing a direct sequel to Batman 1989 interested Burton that much. Actually, I believe it was WB basically telling him, "Well what if it's more of a Tim Burton movie?" was what essentially hooked Burton back in for doing another Batman movie.
The camp fest in BF was definately there with Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey hamming it up ... but the camp dial got turned waaaay up with B&R. Add that with WB caring more about happy meals, and making everything "toyetic", along with Schumacher going along with it .... we end up with something very, very disappointing.
Quote from: ral on Sat, 17 Jan 2009, 19:17
Did Furst do the B89 logo?
Yes sir! ;)
Production designer Anton Furst designed the poster, which he called "evocative but ubiquitous. Only featuring the Bat-Symbol. Not too much and not too little."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_1989#Marketing