Batman and Returns are actually two different portrayals of Batman

[batass4880]

Even though the tone is different between the first two movies, they still feel like the same place IMO.

[Dark Knight Detective]

So you're telling me that The "Vicki" Bruce mentions twice in BR (the second time telling Alfred that he let her into the Batcave) is 100% not Vicki Vale from BATMAN? Seriously? And you mean to tell me that Chase's "Skintight Vinyl and a whip" is NOT a reference to Catwoman? Wow. Why would the filmmakers throw that in, something that would surely make us think of Catwoman, but you're telling me that it's not Catwoman? Then what is she referencing? That's bad writing then, to reference something but not mean it to be what it sounds like.

I apologize for the confusion concerning Vale, & now I've fully realized that BR is indeed a sequel to BATMAN (even though I've always been able to tie the two films), but just not in a Star Wars style. However, I just can't (& won't) show any consideration when it comes to tying Burton's film w/ Schumacher's, & I strongly stand by my opinion. But hey, that's just me. 

[Azrael]

I would never connect the films.

I could draw a comparison to Bond films, especially between the Sean Connery (Keaton) and Roger Moore (Kilmer) films. All are Bond, certain aspects connect them, none (as far as I remember) is a direct sequel, but they feel like two different series. Same with the Keaton films and Batman Forever. Wasn't Batman Forever a bit like "let's redo Batman"? Visually, except the cowl and the Catwoman reference in dialogue, nothing connects it to what came before. In hindsight, it's better this way. You can ignore the Schumacher films more easily.

Batman & Robin, on the other hand, feels like a joke on Batman Forever with the basic structure of the film (bank/museum heist beginning with Batman dressing up, party crash, vehicle climax on a large set-piece, big boom etc.) being almost identical.

[DocLathropBrown]

BF was meant to feel different, but the internal continuity is the same, and it's there, for the reasons I mentioned. BF is sort of what you'd call the first "vague sequel" as Bryan Singer would later do with Superman Returns. The Donner films are in continuity, but it's not super-strict so that others can jump on.

[Batnar]

I always followed Batman Returns to be a sequel to BATMAN. The same actors, and the mention of Vale (especially in the part when Alfred is trying to talk to Bruce about the damaged Batmobile and Bruce continues about how Alfred just let Vicki in the bat cave) It seemed logical to me that this movie indeed had some obvious connections to the first film. Hence, at least to me, making it a sequel. A very stretched, brand new beginning type of sequel.

I love em both. 

[The Dark Knight]

I agree, there?s definitely connective tissue between the two narrative wise.

[Joker81]

I can see why people may make connections to Batman and Batman Returns. I can also see why people can't, and sometimes won't. For me Returns was far more....weirder than Batman! But in mymind there is only one sequel to Batman, and that is Batman Returns.

Batman Forever is officially a sequel to Batman Returns. Michael Gough is in it, so is Pat Hingle. One reference made to Burtons Batman is the leather and whip/catwoman comment made by Chase. Another is when Dick Grayson says to Brue "Your parents wern't killed by a maniac" And Bruce replies "Yes they were." He doesnt have to mention the Joker, but we know what he is getting at. Even the reshoot of his parents death the shooter is uncannily like Jack Napier from Batman - only reshot to expand the origin story of Batman.

I remember coming away from the cinema disappointed at Forever for being more lighter, campy and kid friendly, and I was nearly sure Harvey Dent was black in the first film!! I put my VHS Batman on and yes! He was black. I was annoyed at Forever. Not one of my favourite Batmans.

That was until recently I bought the SE DVD. I watched it on an autum night and was pleasently surprised how much I enjoyed it. I don't enjoy it as a sequel to Batman, but like Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight, and even Batman The Movie from 1966, I enjoy Batman Forever as a seperate entity to the Batman series and family.

[DocLathropBrown]

Like all of the others you mentioned, BF is still undeniably Batman. Therefore, it is good enough for me.

[THE BAT-MAN]

This is all very interesting, however I hope I can shed some light on the subject.  It seems that alot of people misunderstand what a sequel is?  A sequel is a second installment of an already existing work like a book or a film, a franchise or a series.  A few good examples of a franchise and its installments(sequels) are Superman I-IV, Rocky I-V, Star Wars saga I-VI, Back to the Future I-III, The Godfather I-III, etc, etc, etc.....  all of these franchises have something in common and that is they are all numbered and based on continuity.  However, sequels and even prequels are not always numbered or based on continuity,  they are still considered  installments(sequels) of a franchise.  The best example I can give is the sequels of the Indiana Jones franchise the first installment Raiders of the Lost Ark, takes place in South America 1936.  The second installment Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom takes place in shanghai 1935.  This is considered to be a sequel/prequel meaning second film in the series but the events take place before raiders yet between them their is no continuity except for John Williams little musical nod to raiders when Indy doesn't have a gun to shoot the thuggi henchmen with swords  and then when you get to the third installment Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade which takes place in 1938, two years after Raiders.  Regardless of the previous cast of actors their is still no continuity in the story except for John Williams nod to raiders again when Elsa lights up an ancient drawing of what looks like the ark of the covenant.  Executive Producer George Lucas said, that when he and steven were going to make the second Indiana Jones film he did not want to continue where raiders left off instead he wanted the second film to be more like the empire strikes back where indy goes to hell and comes back. 

Having explained all of this, I would like to share with you how I view Batman Returns?  I believe Batman Returns is not a sequel based on the continuity where one left off, granted it is the second film, but it does not continue where one left off.  Your probably are wondering, well then how do you explain the mentioning of vicki vale and alfred letting her in the batcave?  I'll get to that later, but first I would like for Tim Burton to share his thoughts.

"It's not a sequel, it's not a sequel in the sense it doesn't sort of pick up neccessarily where one left off kind of a thing." 

"I wouldn't call it a sequel, it is basically another kind of chapter or you know another episode basically."

                                                                 Tim Burton



The way I look at Batman Returns as well with any batman film is that they represent comic books.  Let me demonstrate,  Lets say that Batman 1989 represents DC issue #150 Tim Burton is the editor(director), Sam Hamm and Warren Skaren are the writers, Anton Furst is the penciller(artist).  And that Batman Returns represents DC issue #162 Tim Burton is the editor (director), Daniel Waters and Sam Hamm are the writers, and Bo Welch is the penciller(artist).  And that yes their is continuity in the story from issues #150-162, but if you were to just read/watch issue #150 and then issue #162 and skip issues #151-161.  The events of issue #162 does not neccessarily continue where issue #150 left off,  however it does leave room for past references.

Tim Burton only expressed that Batman Returns is not a sequel, because it does not continue the story where Batman one had left off, and you know what?  He is 100% right.  That doesn't mean that their can't be any continuity between them,  just as long it's continuity is a reference of the past and not the present.

For example, if Batman Returns was a direct sequel based on continuity vicki and bruce's relationship would have gone deeper the plot point would now turn to organized crime after Joker's downfall.  Harvey Dent would be a major character from his rise as D.A. to his downfall as Two-Face,  Alexander Knox would still be trying to get a story on batman etc, etc, etc.......


To have a better understanding of this, Batman Returns takes place several years later, after Batman 1989 it could be somewhere between 3-12 years or as Gotham Knight explained, a not to distant future.  Since Harvey Dent is not in this movie and neither is Alexander Knox, Vicki Vale, or even Mayor Borg.  It is possible for this film to have a history of Harvey Dent becoming Two-Face and any other villain you can think of.  For you are in a batman universe where time has passed.  The mentioning of Vicki Vale is not a reference of the present, it is a reference of the past the same goes for alfred letting her in the cave.  All the references  that link batman and batman returns are pertaining to the past and not the present making the film not continue where part one neccessarily left off. 

A lot people talk about the changes in the production design and the costume.  I think that its like a comic book.  You have different artists working on the same character example penciller Jim Lee and penciller Andy Kubert they both illustrate batman almost in the same manner same goes for production designer Anton Furst and production designer Bo Welch they both design gotham, and the batcave almost in the same manner.  It really is not that different from the changes a comic book artist would make. 

As DocLathropBrown had explained in a different post, the events that happened in Batman 1989, did happen.  Except now they exist in the universe of Batman Returns like the Batcave and Wayne Manor.  Although, I believe at times that Gotham is a real big city, and that Anton Furst design  was Manhattan and Bo Welch's design was the Rockfeller center.  Same city different locations, but no matter like I said, its like a comic book with different writers and artist.
 

Anyway, I hope that I was able to shed some light on the subject.  On a personal note I do not believe that Batman Forever is a sequel to batman returns or batman 1989 based on continuity.  Yes, it is the third installment but just because chase describes catwoman, it does not mean that she is refrencing batman returns in particular, or the fact, bruce admits that his family was killed by a maniac.  In burton's film it was Jack and an unknown thug, possibly Joe chill, who breaks the necklace.  Also when the Waynes were murdered there were no roses in that scene.  In schumachers film it was just an unkown gunman despite the line refrencing a maniac and two roses fall with the pearls.  Bruce admits to alfred that he has never been in love.  What does he mean never? what happened to his love for vicki or selina again not even refrencing them.  From what I understand it is a Third installment, but it was ment to reinvent the franchise their truly is no connection to the story of the previous films and even if it was, its not enough.  And despite the recasting of Michael Gough or Pat Hingle they did nothing to help the previous stories.  You don't hear  Alfred say, "Well master bruce their was that one woman that I allowed in the cave and do you remeber the one that I had to relay a message for you."  No, because their is no real connection.  Anyway this is just my opinion.  Thanks for reading.

[mrpokal]

While I do like Batman Returns, I feel that it ultimately is hampered by these two opposing forces- Tim Burton and Warner Bros. While I'm not positive on the history of the film, it seems as if there is this grating contrast between some of the more romantic elements in the film, and the run-of-the-mill, Big Mac action sequences and dialogue. For example, "Eat Floor- High Fiber!" has absolutely no place in that film, and most of the slick action sequences do not as well. If anything, Batman Returns would've worked much better as a stage play, musical, or even opera. There are already connections to Wagner's work in the film as it is, and since Tim Burton's intent was so different in tone than the traditional Batman stuff, it just makes the action sequences and traditional superhero stuff seem horribly out of place. I personally wouldn't mind a Batman art film, or a Batman film without explosions and action. But when you put the "Tim Burton-y" stuff together with the mainstream, Warner Bros. Batman action material, it just creates this unpleasant combination. While I'm sure that Tim Burton was satisfied with what he got, I don't think that he was able to make 100% the film that he wanted. I truly feel that if Burton made it say, on a lower budget without the backing of a major studio (obviously an impossible scenario), we could've gotten something revolutionary. Instead, I would rank Batman Returns more as an "interesting failure." Even with its flaws, it's still a great film, and probably better than any of the Nolan or Shumacher entries, but that's more of a case of me not particularly liking those than considering Batman Returns to be a truly great film.

As for how this all relates to the topic, I just think that Burton really wanted to do a stand-alone film without any influence at all from the original. In his mind, it's not a sequel. It's kind of what he wanted to do the first time around. But you can't just re-do something and expect us all to forget Batman 89. We have these expectations. And unfortunately, the big-budget action sequences is what links the two.

To be honest, I'm just more disappointed in Batman Returns than anything else. We could've gotten something remarkable in the comic film genre, and due to the simple fact that you can't make a Batman film without action sequences and commercialization, we are left with an interesting failure. Not Burton's fault. Not anyone's fault, really.