Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[DiFabio]

Some might disagree, but I see Buton's and Schumacher's Batman movies as being a 4 film series. It's one continuity in one universe.

You can't believe that Maglor, you can't! You really think that the Keaton Batman devolves into the character that's in Forever and B&R? That the dark, mysterious and brooding character that stayed hidden in the shadows, barely talked and confiscated photos of himself would be out in the open, attending Botanical garden charity events in full costume, pulling out a Bat-credit card , letting himself grace the cover of Time Magazine and having more one liners and quips than one can possibly imagine? Not even the Keaton Bruce Wayne did those things!

Schumacher's Batman was completely different than what was shown in the first film and in Returns.



The references? Doesn't Bruce say in Forever that he's "never been in love before"? Uhhhhhh.

 

[CloudN]

It's nice to see Returns getting so much love. A lot of good posts in here.





I have that.





There is also a nod to Catwoman in Forever.

And then Forever is tied to B&R buy Robin.

Some might disagree, but I see Buton's and Schumacher's Batman movies as being a 4 film series. It's one continuity in one universe.

At said, each has their own distinct feel.



The above poster is:

Yes, that's true. But at the same time. It's mostly sequels by name. It's hard to convince yourself that Batman Forever is a sequel to Batman or Batman Returns when the lead actor portraying Bruce Wayne/Batman is different and the director has been changed. I'm not to say Val Kilmer didn't do a good job. Just feels like I would be hesitant to really call it a true sequel.
Marketing wise, it's all four movies tied together.

On the other hand. If you just focus on the publicity of Batman, then all four movies makes perfect sense. From no one is sure that Batman existed (1989) to celebrity status (B&R)

 

[Maglor]

You can't believe that Maglor, you can't! You really think that the Keaton Batman devolves into the character that's in Forever and B&R? That the dark, mysterious and brooding character that stayed hidden in the shadows, barely talked and confiscated photos of himself would be out in the open, attending Botanical garden charity events in full costume, pulling out a Bat-credit card , letting himself grace the cover of Time Magazine and having more one liners and quips than one can possibly imagine? Not even the Keaton Bruce Wayne did those things!

Schumacher's Batman was completely different than what was shown in the first film and in Returns.



The references? Doesn't Bruce say in Forever that he's "never been in love before"? Uhhhhhh.

I thought you'd like that. I actually typed "DiFabio" at first, and then changed it to "some [people]".

In seriousness, I know you don't like your Batmen to 'devolve' (or some would say evolve), but I don't mind it. I actually like what Bruce Wayne becomes in Forever. He fully embraces his role as a superhero.

I'm in the camp that actually likes Forever, though not as much as the first two. (Returns>Batman>Forever)

B&R on the other hand is unfortunate. But I still see it as the same continuity.

Yes, that's true. But at the same time. It's mostly sequels by name. It's hard to convince yourself that Batman Forever is a sequel to Batman or Batman Returns when the lead actor portraying Bruce Wayne/Batman is different and the director has been changed. I'm not to say Val Kilmer didn't do a good job. Just feels like I would be hesitant to really call it a true sequel.
Marketing wise, it's all four movies tied together.

On the other hand. If you just focus on the publicity of Batman, then all four movies makes perfect sense. From no one is sure that Batman existed (1989) to celebrity status (B&R)

Two words: Michael. Gough.

 

[batfan08]

Two more words: Pat Hingle.

 

[DiFabio]

Two words:

Soft Reboot

 

[jye4ever]

One word.

Youz on Crack Cracker

True or False:

DiFabio picks BF over TDKR.

 

[batfan08]

Three wordz:

One.

 

[Kicker773]

so no new news basically..

 

[Cocoboloboy]

What's this "Forever" movie you guys are talking about?

 

[DiFabio]

Batman Begins is the prequel to Batman 1989. It shows Jack's Joker card at the end!

The Dark Knight is a remake of '89 and the sequel to Batman Returns cuz Fox is like, "it will do fine against Catz". OMG CATWOMAN REFERENCE. Bruce Wayne also references his days as Michael Keaton when he says, "pls halp lucious, I can't turn my head".


Batman and Robin takes place 8 years after TDKR when Broos comes back from retirement and teams up with John Bloke to take on Arnold.



OMG THEY ALL CONNECT.

 

[Maglor]

Two words:

Soft Reboot

There might be something to that.



But,

...Marketing wise, it's all four movies tied together...

That's always the impression I had. Like it or not, we were meant to see it as one continuity. And as a youngster, I bought it. When I see the Bat symbols from the 4 movies, I see the same symbol. I know there are minute differences, but they are essentially the same. Any rebooting in that regard was extremely soft.

 

[Maglor]

Batman Begins is the prequel to Batman 1989. It shows Jack's Joker card at the end!

The Dark Knight is a remake of '89 and the sequel to Batman Returns cuz Fox is like, "it will do fine against Catz". OMG CATWOMAN REFERENCE. Bruce Wayne also references his days as Michael Keaton when he says, "pls halp lucious, I can't turn my head".


Batman and Robin takes place 8 years after TDKR when Broos comes back from retirement and teams up with John Bloke to take on Arnold.



OMG THEY ALL CONNECT.

 

[DiFabio]

That's always the impression I had. Like it or not, we were meant to see it as one continuity. And as a youngster, I bought it. When I see the Bat symbols from the 4 movies, I see the same symbol. I know there are minute differences, but they are essentially the same. Any rebooting in that regard was extremely soft.

I see it as a 7 film franchise (soon to be 8 with Batman vs. Superman) with 3 different series.

- Burton film series

- Schumacher film series

- Nolan film series



There's no way that the Keaton Batman would just start quipping with one liners, or drive a neon light Batmobile, or put nipples and huge codpieces on his armor, or own a bat credit card, or attend circus functions, or what have you. There wasn't even a Wayne Enterprises in the first two Burton films. All that would be out of character for the Keaton Batman.

There's no way that the city would go from this,

to this,

Besides, Warner Bros. brought Joel Schumacher in to "refresh" and create a "new" Batman, their words. This was before the 2000s idea of a "reboot". Joel Schumacher and Co. even refer to Forever and B&R as film 1 and 2 in the documentaries for the movies, not "3 and 4". Joel Schumacher had a new vision, "his" Batman isn't the Batman as the one Burton created. Not in appearance or in actual characterization.

But yes, from a marketing stand point the Schumacher movies are thrown in with Burton's as a sort of "boxed set" angle. I agree that they're sequels in that case.

Then again, just recently Warner Bros. decided to sell Batman and Batman Returns as separate entities on their own, especially with the steel books (which Forever and Robin don't seem to have) . . .

 

[Maglor]

From the batman wiki:

In the 1989 Batman film, and its three sequels, Gordon is portrayed by Pat Hingle.

https://batman.wikia.com/wiki/James_Gordon_(Pat_Hingle)


Not everyone agrees with that, but it's always the way I've seen it.

 

[DiFabio]

That's wikipedia. I could edit that if I wanted. In fact, I WILL.

 

[Maglor]

Besides, Warner Bros. brought Joel Schumacher in to "refresh" and create a "new" Batman, their words. This was before the 2000s idea of a "reboot". Joel Schumacher and Co. even refer to Forever and B&R as film 1 and 2 in the documentaries for the movies, not "3 and 4". Joel Schumacher had a new vision, "his" Batman isn't the Batman as the one Burton created. Not in appearance or in actual characterization.

It does make it confusing I agree. I like your term "soft reboot".

To me that means, "it's still a sequel, but we are going to give Batman and Gotham an update, a facelift." They had their cake and ate it too.

A straight reboot or a traditional sequel would have made this all more clearcut, but that's not what we got. So this debate has no right answer. I see all 4 as being in the same continuity, but to some extent I keep the Schumacher films divorced from the Burton films, because I prefer the Burton films so much. When I watch them I give no thought to where Schumacher went with the character.

That's probably similar to how you watch Begins and TDK - divorcing yourself from where Nolan went with the character in TDKR.

 

[DiFabio]

Aye, I can agree with all that.

 

[Maglor]

That's wikipedia. I could edit that if I wanted. In fact, I WILL.

You will win teh internets if you do that.


[Edit] You actually did it!

 

[Maglor]

Aye, I can agree with all that.

Is this a first?

 

[banthafett]

Don't worry, if dvd/br or another home format in ten years, WB will clump ALL the batman flicks together in a big box to squeeze money out of collectors.