Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

[GoogleMe94]

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.

 

[Swordmaster]

***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?

 

[GoogleMe94]

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.

 

[Penismightier]

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.

 

[GoogleMe94]

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

 

[Penismightier]

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.

 

[Swordmaster]

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.

 

[GoogleMe94]

^^ 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.

 

[union_jak]

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.

 

[Penismightier]

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.

 

[GoogleMe94]

^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.

 

[union_jak]

^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?

 

[GoogleMe94]

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

 

[Penismightier]

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.

 

[dude stannis]

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.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

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.

 

[roach]

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

 

[Superwoman Prime]

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.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

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.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

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.

 

[fabman]

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"

 

[Rockbottom]

Then "Batman Returns", except for cast and helmer, is not a sequel to the first "Batman"

Thats true.

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.

 

[JerseyJoker]

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.

 

[Penismightier]

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.

 

[The Empire Ape]

Of course they are sequels.

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