Oh, so the concept of starting over with a new vision didn't exist in the 90's? So this:
Would be in the same cinematic universe as this:
...right?
Seriously? Your strongest counter-example is a TV movie that no one AT THE TIME even knew about, much less people nowadays?
If so, you're pretty much proving my point for me.
Now where were they marketed and sold as the same continuity?
I was there. It was a new Batman movie. It was the NEXT Batman movie. It wasn't a totally new series, it was the "THIRD" Batman movie.
The only connection I remember was Elfman's theme being used in the trailers (until later ones featured Goldenthal's score).
This has already been pointed out to you. Wayne's backstory with Jack Napier is important for his parallel storyline to Grayson's, otherwise his argument with Grayson makes no sense.
But reusing previous soundtracks from different films was commonplace, especially when the score wasn't finished.
Not previous soundtracks from an earlier movie series that was being rebooted.
Anyway, I included that magazine that had inserts of the movie from 1994 and 1995 from around the film. The director and writer are advertising it as a "re-invention" and something "new". Any time they mention Burton's first two it's always about how their's is strikingly different.
We've already discussed the politics behind the language they were using, and we've already established that everyone agrees the movies are different. That doesn't mean it's a different series and continuity.
I don't remember any "Batman: Trilogy" boxed VHS sets in 1996. Or "quadrilogies" or whatever the term is to describe a 4 film series until 2005.
Then your memory is faulty or you're ignorant of history. The trilogy was sold as a VHS box set, known as "The Ultimate Batman Collection," amongst other collections
Of course, now that I've pointed this out to you, I bet you'll conveniently ignore it among the other mountain of evidence that you're wrong
On another interesting note, for the longest time Begins was referred to as "Batman 5" by media and Warner Bros. even at the time it was known it was a "reboot". But that surely wasn't a sequel or a prequel, that was just Warner Bros.' fifth film in their Batman franchise that they own.
Your second sentence so succesfully invalidates any point of the previous sentence that I need say no more to address this point.
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?
This will never happen. Because they are two separate series.
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.
You know what "world" and "continuity" means in the context of this argument. Your claim to ignorance isn't serving your point, it's just making you look like an ***.
When I watch Die Hard, I'm thinking about Die Hard. When I watch Star Wars, I'm not thinking of how the prequels match up (and they don't). It's just stupid. They're sequels in the fact that they're made after each other, but they're not sequels in the idea of the "same universe", "same world", etc.
Uh, yes they are. The Die Hard movies are very much the same story/universe/characters. The Bruce Willis of the fourth movie is the same Bruce Willis as the first movie. In fact, the third movie's plot depends on this fact.
The same goes for the Star Wars movies.
But you know this, you're just acting braindead because you won't admit you're wrong and so you keep digging yourself into a hole that is deeper and deeper.
If "continuity" and "of the same universe" is the same, what's the explanation for him looking like a different person, THREE consecutive times?
The same explanation for the fact that Rachel Dawes looks like a different person in two different movies. It's a ****ing MOVIE SERIES made within the constraints of REAL WORLD MOVIE PRODUCTION.
Oh wait, here's this gem of yours:
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.
So you acknowledge that TDK and BB exist as part of the same story and continuity. Yet you also acknowledge that Rachel Dawes changes, that there are other continuity errors, and so forth.
So that should put to rest any arguments you have that certain differences amongst the older Burton/Schumacher films mean they are different series. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Give it up, man. You're wrong. Half of your points have been invalidated by us, the other half have invalidated themselves. Or is "Batman Forever" still a remake of "Batman Returns?" lol
