If keaton did Batman Forever....

[Grissom]

I was thinking about this recently and if keaton had done Forever and the film turned out exactly like it did in terms of same script and same direction by Schumacher, do you think it was have sullied Keaton's reputation as Batman. To go from "film noir" so to speak with Batman Returns and be dipped into Schumacher's overly colorized and zany world, would it have diminished Keaton in the eyes of his fans and Bat-fans?

Personally, I think it would have. Keaton's tragic Bruce Wayne and  Batman might have been turned on it's head if he had been a part of Schumacher's film.

So I say Brave Keaton! Thanks for two great performances as Bruce/Batman.

[Dagenspear]

I liked Val Kilmer in the role. Michael Keaton's version wouldn't have worked for it or that story. Keaton played sad, angry, sometimes in love, but also off psychologically Batman. It worked for Burton's Batman. But Schumacher's was very much heroic, redemptive, hopeful and romantic. From Bruce saying to Harvey that he needs help instead of setting him fire to the moment where the movie ends on him smiling with a newfound hope for batman as a hero, instead of looking slightly perplexed out the window of his car about what he is.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[thecolorsblend]

I can't picture any of the Batmen in any of the other movies, frankly. They're well cast for the movies they appear in but I can't see any of them being as right for the character in any of the other movies.

Keaton appearing in Forever would add some badly needed visual continuity between Burton's films and Forever though. At present, someone so inclined could view Forever as a separate entity from Burton if they were so inclined and the more time goes by, the more I realize B89 is where the story begins and B&R is where it ends. It works so well on a character level.

[Edd Grayson]

If the movie turned out exactly the same, I agree that Keaton wouldn't have been as great as he was in his Batman films, even if ir would have helped with mantaining the visual continuity. I read that he wanted the third movie to explore Batman's past, but not just as flashbacks, as a prequel of sorts.

[riddler]

It actually would have fit the progression though;

In the first film Bruce Wayne is a mystery to the public so much that Vale and Knox don't recognize him. The only other time we see him go out in public was to crime alley to pay his respects.

In the second film we see more of the industrious side of Bruce Wayne; he goes to meet with Shreck and implies he's discussed power issues with the Mayor. Perhaps having a female relationship and killing his parents killer as well as saving Gotham gave Bruce the confidence he needed?

So introducing Wayne enterprises and making Bruce a statesman was the next logical choice for the third film.


Note that Bruce isn't acting quite as tortured in the second film. I know people like to read a lot into the first shot of Bruce but all that's implied there is that he's a man who sits and thinks to himself. He's more confident but he does in a way relive the dark part of his past noticing that Oswald was orphaned as well. In the third film he again would have relived it with Dick's parents dying. While many believe Bruce isn't acting dark and tortured in the fourth film because the third film cures him, it is also possible that is the only film in which there are no events paralleling his parents death.


Now the jokes are a little bit of a tough one, I have a hard time seeing Keaton delivering the goofy lines ala "I'll get drive thru" I do think Keaton would have cut the overall dialogue; saying the same things but in fewer words.


Lastly Keaton did indicate that Batman Returns (the only time he ever reprised a character) was difficult because he was felt as though he was imitating himself. Perhaps to help him in the next film he would have tried to play the character differently and thus tried to expand to a more comedic approach. I think if he went along with it, he would have been fine, we know Keaton can do comedy.

[The Laughing Fish]

Excellent post riddler. You made a great observation on how Bruce comes out of his shell, so to speak, in each sequel. I reckon if BF had cut down on the excessive neon lighting and still maintained a lighter tone but without the goofy one-liners, I believe Keaton would fit in quite well.

[Edd Grayson]

Yes, but Grissom asked what would've happened if the film turned out exactly like it did in terms of same script and same direction. I don't believe Keaton's reputation would be tarnished since he was known as a comedy actor before, but it was Schumacher's new direction and the neon lighting that made Keaton turn down the movie in the first place.

And that brings us back to the main problem of the film for me: That they wanted to make a lighter Batman movie and not the best movie they could've made. 

[Dagenspear]

It actually would have fit the progression though;

In the first film Bruce Wayne is a mystery to the public so much that Vale and Knox don't recognize him. The only other time we see him go out in public was to crime alley to pay his respects.

In the second film we see more of the industrious side of Bruce Wayne; he goes to meet with Shreck and implies he's discussed power issues with the Mayor. Perhaps having a female relationship and killing his parents killer as well as saving Gotham gave Bruce the confidence he needed?

So introducing Wayne enterprises and making Bruce a statesman was the next logical choice for the third film.

I don't see how that would give someone confidence. Likely it left him emotionally numb, with the only sense of enjoyment he has is when he's wailing on criminals, like miller batman. Thinking about it now that's probably why his connection with Selina was so important to him, it was him finding some human connection when he was losing himself.

Note that Bruce isn't acting quite as tortured in the second film. I know people like to read a lot into the first shot of Bruce but all that's implied there is that he's a man who sits and thinks to himself. He's more confident but he does in a way relive the dark part of his past noticing that Oswald was orphaned as well. In the third film he again would have relived it with Dick's parents dying. While many believe Bruce isn't acting dark and tortured in the fourth film because the third film cures him, it is also possible that is the only film in which there are no events paralleling his parents death.

Alfred dying.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Dagenspear]

Yes, but Grissom asked what would've happened if the film turned out exactly like it did in terms of same script and same direction. I don't believe Keaton's reputation would be tarnished since he was known as a comedy actor before, but it was Schumacher's new direction and the neon lighting that made Keaton turn down the movie in the first place.

And that brings us back to the main problem of the film for me: That they wanted to make a lighter Batman movie and not the best movie they could've made. 

It's a good thing they managed to accomplish a pretty good movie then.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Edd Grayson]

I don't think Val Kilmer as Batman was a problem, quite the contrary, but the stupid conflicts between Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey on set, the constant quips from the characters in the movie, even from Alfred, and the fact that they deleted much of the film's more serious material bothers me.

It was still satisfying for me, but not great.

God bless you, Dagenspear! God bless everyone in your life! (I mean that sincerely, please don't take it as sarcasm).