The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > Batman World

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-17-2007, 04:48 PM   #1
GoogleMe94
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,401
Default Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

even as a kid i never viewed the schumacher films as sequels because they are WAY too different from the tone of the burton films. the darkness is gone and the dialogue was very childish and the colors were EVERYWHERE. the villians werent dark either and were just nutjobs with a cackle. the batmobile's werent the same and the wayne manor was completely different. also you have different batman actors. since i watched forever a few days ago, it feels alot like a restart of the franchise rather then any kind of sequel. they practically redid the entire parents death scene. i simply cannot except these as sequels, even though there are some who think they are sequels. looked to me like they just clicked the refresh button on the franchise and got this colorful stuff instead.

GoogleMe94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 04:59 PM   #2
Swordmaster
Big Damn Hero
 
Swordmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Outer Haven
Posts: 12,500
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

***Note: I'm not as good an...explainer...as others on this site, so what I say may seem rough to many.


They are sequels. They have the same Alfred and the same Gordon. Forever acknowledges the events of the first two as well. It also concludes the Bruce Wayne storyarc about vengeance, which was started in Batman Returns

How can it be a restart, may I ask, if these are all present?

__________________
The dark is generous, and it is patient, and it always wins. But in the heart of its strength lies weakness: one lone candle is enough to hold it back.

Love is more than a candle.
Love can ignite the stars.
Swordmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:09 PM   #3
GoogleMe94
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,401
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

same alfed and gordon is basically it. and i never saw any "story arc" from Returns carried over. thats just a fan specultion/idea to try to connect them i guess, but its a bad one. forever does not ackoledge ANYTHING burton did.

GoogleMe94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:18 PM   #4
Penismightier
Side-Kick
 
Penismightier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Clinton, Manhattan, NY
Posts: 1,018
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Remember in Batman Forever when Nicole Kidman said some line about skintight leather and a whip? That's an obvious reference to Catwoman being in the previous movie.

Penismightier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:22 PM   #5
GoogleMe94
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,401
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

but....thats just one line. one line does not mean its a sequel. it takes more then just one line of dialgue.

GoogleMe94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:26 PM   #6
Penismightier
Side-Kick
 
Penismightier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Clinton, Manhattan, NY
Posts: 1,018
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Well there is the same Alfred, same Gordon, etc. The movies have the same actors reprising their roles and there is a reference to the previous movie. It's the same universe within the same continuity. Thus, sequel.

Penismightier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:28 PM   #7
Swordmaster
Big Damn Hero
 
Swordmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Outer Haven
Posts: 12,500
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoogleMe94 View Post
same alfed and gordon is basically it. and i never saw any "story arc" from Returns carried over. thats just a fan specultion/idea to try to connect them i guess, but its a bad one. forever does not ackoledge ANYTHING burton did.


On the storyarc: It is clear in BR that Bruce is becoming a darker person, even after getting justice for his parents. He's killing more often, and Batman has taken over his whole life. Shots such as the one where the signal is lit and he's sitting alone prove this. Then he meets Selina, and recognizes the same need for vengeance in her that is in himself. Bruce realizes that's not who he wants to be, so in essence Selina "wakes him up", so to speak.

And then there's this line in Forever:
Bruce: You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why.
Dick Grayson: You can't understand. Your family wasn't killed by a maniac.
Bruce Wayne: Yes, they were. We're the same.

It's evident that he's acknowledging what happened to him.

__________________
The dark is generous, and it is patient, and it always wins. But in the heart of its strength lies weakness: one lone candle is enough to hold it back.

Love is more than a candle.
Love can ignite the stars.
Swordmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:28 PM   #8
GoogleMe94
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,401
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

^^ but that doesnt mean anything for the burton films. that is simply forever dialgue for the story that they are telling, that doesnt mean its talking about anything in Returns. and selina? umm he never mentions her in the entire movie. keaton refered to vicky vale a few times in Returns and that is understandable because it is a sequel but in forever almost evertything in the older films is scrapped.

im sorry i just cant view them as sequels. if they are in fact meant to be sequels then i simply cannot view them as such because they are too different. can you seriously compare the dark sinister B89/Returns gotham city to the cartoon las vegas of schumacher's? ive even read on many bat sites that say that schumacher himself stated that his batman is like a totally new thing and not really a sequel to the other ones.

GoogleMe94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:29 PM   #9
union_jak
Licky licky
 
union_jak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 12,636
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

I always liked to think the powerplant island the Riddler was in control of was originally Max Shreck's, just tweaked a bit to suck thoughts and not energy.

Also, the outside of Two-Face's hideout appeared a couple of times in Returns.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
Quote:
Originally Posted by karea07 View Post
i think union is tight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP View Post
Union is pretty hot..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yurka View Post
union_jak for shoooooo

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogansRunt View Post
I had to go with JakJak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP View Post
Jak is teh sexy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by imaperson2 View Post
**** it, unionjak is hot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez View Post
I gotta go for my boy Jak here.

RIP Brittany, my Harley Quinn
Avatar by Eggyman
union_jak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:32 PM   #10
Penismightier
Side-Kick
 
Penismightier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Clinton, Manhattan, NY
Posts: 1,018
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoogleMe94 View Post
im sorry i just cant view them as sequels. if they are in fact meant to be sequels then i simply cannot view them as such because they are too different. can you seriously compare the dark sinister B89/Returns gotham city to the cartoon las vegas of schumacher's? ive even read on many bat sites that say that schumacher himself stated that his batman is like a totally new thing and not really a sequel to the other ones.
No one wants to view them as sequels. I'm sure most people would like to ignore Schumancher's movies even took place. But the reality of the situation is that they are sequels. It doesn't diminish the quality of Burton's films, it just makes Schumacher look like a terrible director.

Penismightier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:33 PM   #11
GoogleMe94
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,401
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

^ive heard that rumour about twfaces hideout in returns,. and thats not true. i watched both scenes to compare and that is simply IMDB rumour, but never did anyone official say thats true. that is just fan stuff.

GoogleMe94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:34 PM   #12
union_jak
Licky licky
 
union_jak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 12,636
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoogleMe94 View Post
^ive heard that rumour about twfaces hideout in returns,. and thats not true. i watched both scenes to compare and that is simply IMDB rumour, but never confirmed.
Err- the building next to where Shreck falls into the sewer?

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
Quote:
Originally Posted by karea07 View Post
i think union is tight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP View Post
Union is pretty hot..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yurka View Post
union_jak for shoooooo

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogansRunt View Post
I had to go with JakJak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP View Post
Jak is teh sexy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by imaperson2 View Post
**** it, unionjak is hot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez View Post
I gotta go for my boy Jak here.

RIP Brittany, my Harley Quinn
Avatar by Eggyman
union_jak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:36 PM   #13
GoogleMe94
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,401
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

yep. i looked at those scenes and i couldnt find any kind of visual connection of then big stone faces, but those are everywhere.

GoogleMe94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 06:03 PM   #14
Penismightier
Side-Kick
 
Penismightier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Clinton, Manhattan, NY
Posts: 1,018
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

It doesn't matter about whether or not the building was part of the set in the previous movie, there's just too many references to deny that they're sequels.

Penismightier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 01:35 AM   #15
dude love
Pissin fire is awesome!
 
dude love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Val Verde
Posts: 10,046
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Burton's films exist in a different universe. Firstly, Harvey Dent is black in Burton's world and white in Schuf**kers. Secondly the skin tight vynil and whip is a jab at the S&M fetish Schuf**kers Batman has. Third, Gough and Hingle were considered for Begins as well.

__________________
Excited for Batfleck, Wonder Gal, EisenLuthor, Fishborg, Aquamomoa, Ezflash and Robbie Quinn!
dude love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 03:25 AM   #16
DocLathropBrown
Side-Kick
 
DocLathropBrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Posts: 2,495
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Kid, different production design and actors does not a new continuity make. BF is a direct sequel to BR. BR and B89 had different production design, and they're obvious sequels. BF makes references to the previous films, and it ties up Burton's Batman's character arc from normal, to dark, to redeemed.

They're sequels. Get over it.

__________________
This summer, the great adventure returns...

Indiana Jones
and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


05.22.08
DocLathropBrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 06:21 AM   #17
roach
I am the night
 
roach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Under your Refrigerator
Posts: 42,456
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Keaton would have been in Forever too if he didnt like the script

__________________
something...something...
roach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 08:04 AM   #18
Superman Prime
*
 
Superman Prime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,676
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

What roach means to say.....

Keaton would have been in BF, had he liked the script. But he didn't. Schumacher was taking it in unwanted directions. Kudos to Keaton for flawless judgment and an uncompromising nature.

Superman Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 09:06 AM   #19
SolidSnakeMGS
Banned User
 
SolidSnakeMGS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spartanburg SC USA
Posts: 5,589
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown View Post
Kid, different production design and actors does not a new continuity make. BF is a direct sequel to BR. BR and B89 had different production design, and they're obvious sequels. BF makes references to the previous films, and it ties up Burton's Batman's character arc from normal, to dark, to redeemed.

They're sequels. Get over it.
Words of wisdom. Exactly what I would say. Just because the titles are not followed by roman numerals does not mean it isn't a sequel. The Burton movies and Schumacher movies each have their own feel, but they're in the same universe. Schumacher just took the franchise into the sewers.

SolidSnakeMGS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 11:12 AM   #20
Kevin Roegele
Do you mind if I don't?
 
Kevin Roegele's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 23,354
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoogleMe94 View Post
but....thats just one line. one line does not mean its a sequel. it takes more then just one line of dialgue.
How about recreating scenes from the 1989 movie, such as Jack Napier shooting the Waynes? He even wears the same coat.

__________________
There is no Marvel/DC rivalry. Most of the great comic creators worked for both; Jack Kirby, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Walt Simonsen, Gil Kane, Steve Ditko, John Byrne, Steve Englehart, Mark Waid...even Stan Lee.
Kevin Roegele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 11:26 AM   #21
fabman
Side-Kick
 
fabman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,339
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoogleMe94 View Post
but....thats just one line. one line does not mean its a sequel. it takes more then just one line of dialgue.
Then "Batman Returns", except for cast and helmer, is not a sequel to the first "Batman"

__________________
THE DARK KNIGHT - ITALIAN BLOG
fabman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 12:46 PM   #22
Rockbottom
Side-Kick
 
Rockbottom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 864
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Then "Batman Returns", except for cast and helmer, is not a sequel to the first "Batman"
Thats true.
Quote:
Keaton would have been in BF, had he liked the script. But he didn't. Schumacher was taking it in unwanted directions. Kudos to Keaton for flawless judgment and an uncompromising nature.
Exactly, turning down 30 million at that time was unheard of, no actor had been payed that much to lead a film ever at that time. Now thats sticking to your guns.

__________________
You have the potential to be great. Use it.
Rockbottom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 12:52 PM   #23
JerseyJoker
Side-Kick
 
JerseyJoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Jersey Represent!!
Posts: 1,817
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

I still think out of the original four Batman films, that Forever is the second best out of hte bunch. With Returns being the best.

__________________
This is my blog:

The Jersey Critic (Latest Review: The Wolverine!)

Visit. Enjoy. Comment.
JerseyJoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 01:01 PM   #24
Penismightier
Side-Kick
 
Penismightier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Clinton, Manhattan, NY
Posts: 1,018
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Quote:
Originally Posted by xGambit420x View Post
I still think out of the original four Batman films, that Forever is the second best out of hte bunch. With Returns being the best.
Really? Come on, would you really rather watch Carrey as The Riddler over Nicholson as The Joker? And Forever is, as the producer described it, "Like Saturday Night Fever on acid". That doesn't scream Batman to me. Still, this thread needs an enema.

Penismightier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 02:52 PM   #25
The Empire Ape
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: At home, washing my tights.
Posts: 591
Default Re: Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

Of course they are sequels.

With your "they are not sequels" you could even call Batman Returns a non-sequel.


The Empire Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.