Batman and Returns are actually two different portrayals of Batman

[Jack Napier]

I've heard this countless times, and it does make sense. You can connect the two movies in some ways, but its like they have nothing to do with eachother. BATMAN 1989 is the more gothic and brooding version of Batman, and Returns is more of a clean-cut and dark version of Batman. BATMAN 1989 is just how WB pictured Batman and just made Tim Burton the director, and Returns is just Burton's vision of it. Even though some of the same actors are in both movies, they were just carried over because in some ways, BATMAN 1989 was just like a trial. They took some of the few things that made '89 so cool, like the Batmobile, and inserted it back into this different vision on how Batman should be. In BATMAN 1989, Bruce just walks into the cave. For Returns, its viewed slightly differently. Batman can transform the Batmobile to the Batmissle, and has a secret entrance to get to the Batcave. And the cities look completely different, so Returns is no way continuing in the same story or vision of that portrayal of Batman.

[The Dark Knight]

Yes, Returns is not really a sequel. The sets are totally new and it doesn't pick up where the first left off. Burton wanted it all fresh and new, because it's the only way he envisioned the movie.

Burton said that he hated sequels, because they were essentially the same film only bigger in scale. So, for Returns, he set about creating an altogether different movie.

[Gotham Knight]

While it is a slightly alternate universe, the notion that they have nothing to do with one another is something I must disagree with. Clearly it is a stand-alone sequel that intends to stand it own two feet with little reference to the previous installment (the basic definition of a stand-alone sequel.) That said, while not leaning on 89, saying the events of the first film have had zero affect on the character or that the character is completely different has little evidence to support it. The way I see it, Returns is set quite a bit into the future and finds a Bruce Wayne bitter and weary, having found no solace in the death of his parents? murderer hence the take no prisoners attitude.

[DocLathropBrown]

He mentions Vicki Vale in BR.

It's a sequel. Just not your typical one because the continuity of the first film has no direct bearing on it.

[Dark Knight Detective]

He mentions Vicki Vale in BR.

It's a sequel. Just not your typical one because the continuity of the first film has no direct bearing on it.

That doesn't make it a sequel. A reference, but not a sequel.

However, sans the plots of each film, they still have many things in common that help tie them together. Your mention of Vale is an example of this.

[DocLathropBrown]

If a film makes reference to something that was in a film preceding it, it's a sequel. That is the very definition of what makes a sequel. Continuity. BR has it to B89.

So yes, it makes it a sequel. I don't even see how this can be questioned. He mentions her twice, the second time directly pointing out a specific occurance from the preceding film. It's a sequel.

If there's continuity, it's a sequel. Sequel doesn't have to mean "Back to the Future Part II" style. It doesn't HAVE to pick right up where the previous film ended. If there's continuity between a series of films, the succeeding installments are sequels.

[Dark Knight Detective]

^ I get what you're saying, but that's not always the correct answer.

Just look at Batman Forever. People try to connect it to the Burton films by mentioning certain quotes ("skintight leather & a vinyl whip") & etc., but that doesn't necessarily make any connections. Besides, everything about this film is entirely different from Burton's, so there's no sense connecting this film w/ B89 & BR.

My point is that not every reference made by one film to another connect the two (or more).

[DocLathropBrown]

No, you don't get what I'm saying. Otherwise, you'd see how completely bnackwards and baseless your claims are.

Those lines wouldn't be there for any other reason than to make continuity.

Can you honestly think of any logical reason why lines referencing previous movies are in BR and BF? You really think they're not meant to indicate continuity? You're kidding me, right?

Not to mention the other things that tie BF to the previous films. It is undeniable. I know you want to believe they're all unconnected, but that's just fanboy wishful thinking. The filmmakers fully meant them to be part of the same continuity. BR is a sequel to B89, and BF is a sequel to BR AND B89. Get over it. The differences between them (different actors in the same parts, different suits, vehicles and production design) are not meant to be taken literally.

Burton only spouted quotes about BR not being a sequel because it would not be a typical sequel. He wanted to make clear that it was a new adventure, not reliant on the previous film for its rules, stylistically. Meaning that he wouldn't have to re-use anything except a few actors, to make the experience fresh for himself. The new sets and suit (etc) were not meant to seperate the films from each other continuity-wise. If they were meant to be 100% unrelated, why would there be references to the previous films?

You have no argument on this. "It's not always that way" is not a successful counterargument. The lines are meant to connect. Why else throw them in at all? That is the antithesis of the successful filmmaking process, to throw in lines that are references to the previous adventures of these characters, and not have them mean anything. WTF? Are you serious?

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.

How about the BF flashback, meant to harken back to Jack Naiper killing the Waynes? "Too vague," you say. Okay, fine, desipte the fact that the Naiper stand-in is meant to look exactly like Hugo Blick from BATMAN. Then, why does Bruce say that his parents were killed by a "maniac?" Would you call Joe Chill a maniac? I would call the Joker a maniac.

The references would not be there if they meant nothing. This is pure, undeniable logic. I know you want, desperately, to see it your way, and that's fine. But be aware that there is NO evidence to support your POV being correct. You're just trying to see things a certain way for your own happiness, well, be that as it may, what you're believing in is false.

Now, should you decide to continue this, I hope you're prepared to prove your beliefs. Saying "it's not" or "you're wrong" is not a successful counterargument.

[Paul (ral)]

I think Burton really pushed the idea of what a sequel should be - hense the different opinions on the connection of B89 to Returns.

I know Burton did say it wasn't a sequel but during the production of B89 he did say:

?And the only thing to do is to make the sequel unbelievable, and take it to the next level - I think it must get weirder before it gets anything else. And I don?t mean that in an abstract way. I mean that in a way that?s interesting"

Jon Peters had a trilogy in mind from the beginning.

So even if Returns is viewed by some as not being a sequel I think the film-makers did have some inclination to connect them in some way. I like Gotham Knights interpretation of it.

[Joker81]

What makes a sequel?

Batman Returns is indeed a sequel to Batman. Just like Batman Forever is a sequel to Batman Returns and a second sequel to Batman - whether you guys like it or not.

What I think is getting confused in this thread is the difference between a sequel being a continuing story and a sequel being a new story.

Batman Returns is a sequel, but a new story. It doesnt pick up where the first ends. It doesn't reference the first that often,  because that wasn't the type of sequel Burton wanted to make. You are right Burton wanted a stand alone sequel, a film that didnt require you to see the first. Not all sequels require you to see the first movie.

I think the difference in tone between Batman and Batman Returns
is what the confusing aspect is here, and of course set design. But character wise, and story wise Batman Returns is indeed a sequel.