This is not an argument at all for them being in different continuities. Keaton was supposed to come back, and the original intention of having Harvey Dent in the first movie was to introduce audiences to the character that was going to eventually become Two-Face. Actors opt out (or are replaced) in sequels for many reasons that have NOTHING to do with the story intent of the sequel, or a plan to differentiate/divorce it from older films in the series. If directors and producers always had their way, most of the time they would maintain as many of the same actors in their sequels as they could. Unfortunately business or personal disagreements, life (and death!) often make it impossible for actors to always reprise their role. Doesn't mean that it isn't meant to be the same character in a sequel in the same series. If that was the case, Matrix Revolutions (original Oracle actress died), Iron Man 2 (Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle) and TDK (Katie Holmes to Maggie Maggie Gyllenhaal) can't be sequels to the earlier films in their series.
But that's not really my point.
If people can say, "oh, look, Michael Gough and Pat Hingle are back, this must be the same continuity" can't I easily say that it isn't when two actors aren't back and played by different actors? That doesn't seem fair. I even gave the modern Craig Bond example and it just gets glossed over when it's true.
Keaton didn't return and turned down 35 million dollars because he didn't like the story/script, didn't like where Schumacher was going, Burton wasn't back and he simply didn't want to return a third time. That was well before Akiva Goldsman came in and added his parts of the story to the script. Schumacher didn't even CARE, he even says he wanted to make a "new Batman" and Kilmer was his first choice anyway.
Billy Dee Williams? Ha, the poor guy didn't even have a chance because they weren't interested in him anyway. There wasn't even talks or negotiations of bringing him back.
1- As DGTWoodward said: ...so not even Batman 89 and Returns are in the same continuity by the argument that "Gotham looks radically different", right? In fact, at least one city design element--- the giant nude statues in BF and B&R seem to be taking a cue directly from Returns. 2- As for the suit, of course there are differences, but the overall design of the Kilmer panther suit is very similar to Keaton's first suit. Also, even though the Batmobile is different, it's definitely taking some design cues from the previous model with the looong engine bay, split windshield, sliding canopy, and the bat-fins on the rear fender. Also, there is already an in-story explanation for why he needed new (rebuilt) car, either he never quite finished the repairs after the Penguin damage, or as long as he was already working on it he decided to make some changes in the design while he was at it.
- I actually feel the same way about Batman and Batman Returns.
- So why would the Keaton Batman go back and make a muscle looking suit when, previously he armored it up? Better question, how come in story he'd add nips and a huge codpiece?
Oh that's right, because it's the
directors vision.
- The Batmobile is the same deal, and that explanation is a huge stretch of one trying to connect the two together. In Returns, Bruce was pretty much done,
He has the sides back on and mounted. The canopy is fine. The turbine engine is there. He took care of it. There's no logical explanation why he'd disassemble the thing and start from scratch making it vulnerable with an exposed engine/body and an obnoxiously blue glow that would attract attention.
Because he goes out to public events and parties? Because his face is on the cover of magazines? Because he's active at Wayne Enterprises? This isn't exactly a great departure from the trajectory the character was on in the Burton films. He hosted (and attended in person!) a party at his mansion in the first film. He goes out in public to lay roses in Crime Alley and lets himself be seen in the middle of the Mime Joker commotion. In Batman Returns he has a business meeting with Shreck about possibly investing (Wayne Enterprises capital?) in his power plant, then later encounters Selina on the street while he's just out and about...and then...he goes, unmasked to a masquerade ball (I get the irony of the scene, but if there ever was a time for "hermit" Bruce to stay hidden in public, this was it). Movie Bruce Wayne is already a pretty public figure before Schumacher took the reigns.
The charity ball in the beginning? He hosted and attended a party at his house in person that he
blends right into. What's he doing? Checking budget and inventory lists, not gallivanting around playing craps or roulette with the Commish and Dent or the elite folks he invited. The city hall scene? He goes out through
back alley ways in a trench coat and sunglasses to
pay his respects, not socialize. And I know, you know, that he's off to the side, down those steps, arms folded. Not at all in the commotion or even in the crowd. He knows something is about to go wrong. The masquerade ball? He only goes BECAUSE of Selina. He doesn't care about anyone or anything else there. Let's remember how he spent his "yuletide evening" during the Christmas ceremony. Instead of being out in the city amongst it's citizens, he's sitting in his dark study, brooding. Not socializing, not attending fun functions, sitting in the dark Citizen Kane style, waiting for the batsignal to appear. He's NOT the same person in the Schumacher films. You can see this same character going to a CIRCUS? Inviting girls for ROCK CLIMBING sessions instead of coming back to his isolated Manor? You can see the Keaton Batman posing for GQ and TIME magazine? How about Batman? Batman in the Burton films stayed as hidden and mysterious as possible. Even when he was known in Batman Returns, he doesn't even sit and chat with Gordon. In fact, he ignores the poor guy with a "we'll see" and is out of the scene no sooner than he came in. That's a stark contrast to the Batman that will,
- Swoop down in front of cameras and the media to talk with a psych doctor and Gordon when there's a hostage situation
- Talk with said psych doctor and Gordon
- Attend supermodel auctions with his "young ward" and actually BIDDING on them
- Also have Batman grace the covers of GQ and TIME magazine!
Sorry, but that wasn't the characterization of the Keaton Batman, who preferred being out of the spotlight.
The Shreck scene? That isn't about investing.
He's there because he's part of the city council along with the Mayor, Gordon, Dent, etc. In the first film after Batman's first appearance to the audience, we actually SEE this. It cuts to Harvey Dent's political campaign scene and we see Mayor Borg, Gordon, Dent, etc. sitting at the committee table. We see the name plaques. Right next to Gordon is . . . "Bruce Wayne", but it's an empty seat. He ain't around.
He confronts Shreck because,
- he "sees eye to eye with the Mayor"
- knows that Oswald is part of a crime organization
- wants to know Shreck's angle
As soon as Wayne sees Shreck come into frame, standing along side Penguin, during the television broadcast after the Penguin "saves" the mayor's child, the gears in his head start turning. He knows Shreck is up to no good and is looking to stomp him out.
There is no, "Wayne Enterprises". Bruce Wayne comes from old money as evident in '89 and Shreck refers to him as "blue blood". He's the exact opposite of the businessman character that Shreck is BECAUSE he's old money, not a fellow competing businessman.
The motivation is the same in Batman Forever and Batman '89 as it is in every Batman story ever: the murder of his parents. The quote "because I'm the only one who can" doesn't refer to why he is the only one who can in the first place....and that's because he deliberately made himself into "the only one who can" (through years of unseen training, and using his wealth to build his crime-fighting arsenal)...because he witnessed his parents murder. He's not Batman just because he "can" be Batman, like it's some hobby that he came up with to burn cash and kill time. He's Batman because his parents were killed. In Batman Forever, the rage at his parents' murder, not guilt at having somehow caused it, is what motivates him to becoming Batman (as evidenced in his talk with D i c k about going out night after night looking for revenge).
https://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5926044&postcount=3015
Keaton Wayne saw "Footlight Frenzy", an opera/play, before his parents were gunned down a block or two away from Monarch theater. There's not even the slightest hint that he blames himself over what happened, not even when he contemplates back to that night.
Kilmer Wayne saw "Zorro", a film that he thought he dragged his parents to, killing them, but turns out it was his parents idea. Obviously that spawned his guilt (after reading it in the red book) and caused him to fall down in an abandoned well in the ground which inspired him to become Batman.
Two different make-ups.
To me this is either a continuity error, or the writers lazily trying to force on the audience that Chase is somehow suddenly so much more serious to him than the other women in his life that came before. To be fair, Keaton's Bruce never actually told any of those other chicks he "loved" them. When Vicky said she loved him, his response: "I'd like to". Even to try to stop Selina from killing, and try to save her, he'd rather go into a speech about them being the same split down the middle, than let the L word escape his lips. Han Solo level pimp.
So you gotta say, "I love you" to love someone? That's the lamest thing I've ever heard.
Vicki, I'm not sure of (he purposely got her drunk and banged her), but he clearly loved Selina. He tore his friggin' mask off to reach out to her and "save" her. If that's "nothing special", then I don't know what is.
Well said. Anyone can have their own "personal" continuity and ignore/dismiss the films they personally don't like or think "fit"...I do that with Superman III and IV, and to a lesser extent with BF and B&R. But in all of those cases, I understand that they are meant to be part of the same franchise/continuity.
