They stuck Superman Returns in with the Superman sets too. Doesn't mean I have to consider it all part of the same universe, or that it wasn't a reboot ("soft" or otherwise). It completely ignores Superman III and IV... How would it be in continuity with the other 4? Just because it is packaged in the anthology?
Sallah
Or that great Bond set of 23 (that has an extra disc insert for Skyfall).
The last three were "reboots" weren't they? What's the deal there? What happens in the future when Warner Bros. put's the three Nolan films in the same set with the Burton and Schumacher ones?
I don't even know what continuity and "of the same universe" even means in this case. These aren't "worlds", they're movies that are made at their own point and time with a number of things being poured into them
other than story. IT'S NOT REAL.
It's why so many times we see "meta" writing's in the script. Batman Returns isn't mentioning Vicki Vale, just to tie into the first one (Burton was vehmently against the idea of Returns being a "sequel" to Batman), it's mentioning it because the fans had a problem with Alfred letting her into the Batcave in 1989. It's meta. In the first X-Men, the yellow spandex thing isn't for the story or "world", it's a meta reference to the comics and how, I guess, ridiculous the filmmakers thought the comic suits are. When Bale Bruce Wayne mentions in the Dark Knight about not being able to turn his head and Fox states "it should do fine against Cats", it's meta.
So the Kilmer Batman experienced the same things the Keaton Batman experienced? Huh? How does that work. If "continuity" and "of the same universe" is the same, what's the explanation for him looking like a different person, THREE consecutive times? Before I'm jumped on, I know that's an "aesthetic", visual difference that doesn't stop it from being "story continuity", but then what about inconsistencies like the fact that Keaton Batman saw a different show (Footlight Frenzy). while the Kilmer/Clooney Batman saw a movie (Zorro). If this is the "same universe" and the "same continuity" then how does that happen? In my universe, I can't just be two people. It doesn't work that way. So it's a continuity error than? Right? Well how many continuity errors effect/destroy the continuity? Now, I acknowledge that The Dark Knight is the sequel to Batman Begins, but guess what? There's a glaring difference between the two and it ain't the city or Rachel Dawes changing. Jimmy Gordon is an infant/toddler in Begins but then one year later (in the stories, "universe") in the Dark Knight he's freaking 9 or 10 years old! How the hell does that work unless you make up some contrived BS to make it work? We shouldn't be thinking in "sequels" or "history" or "continuity" or "worlds" for these things. Just a 1989 film, a 1992 film, etc. etc.
How about Batman: The Animated Series? The tone, look and visuals were inspired/used by the Burton films. They utilized, "Jack Napier" (an '89 creation) for their Joker along with the mob/hitman background and chemical dip. Selina was a blonde that looked like her film counterpart. Penguin was a deformed freak that had a duck and had a sewer lair. The Batmobile, boat and Batwing are all animated versions of the movies, right down to the armor/shields up thing Batman has. Danny Elfman did the main theme and the great Shirley Walker composed/scored the rest (a Batman '89 and Returns composer). Hell, Warner Bros. mandated some of these things!
So does that mean Batman: The Animated Series is an animated continuity of the Burton films? NO! It's loose references, it is it's own thing. JUST like Schumacher's Batman movies.
