Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

[Warhammer]

They are sequels, forreal.

 

[Two-Face]

BF and B&R have Gough and hingle as Alfred and Gordon so they are seqeuls.

 

[The Joker]

BF and B&R have Gough and hingle as Alfred and Gordon so they are seqeuls.

Not to mention Batman is on friendly terms with Gordon, which happened in Burton's movies.

 

[Rockbottom]

Lol i'd never call Keatons Batman friendly

 

[Mr. Socko]

The Oval was not different, the suit itself was changed a bit.

Only one that is wrong. The oval actually is different. I didn't even notice it until I freeze framed it while watching Forever earlier this year. But for what it's worth, the '89 symbol, Returns symbol, Forever symbol, and Batman & Robin symbol are ALL different. So the symbol being different doesn't neglect it from being a sequel. Also, the suit was changed more than just a bit I'd say, but again, I'd also say it was changed more than a bit from '89 to Returns. (Returns being my all time favorite suit)

Batman '89

Batman Returns

Batman Forever

 

[David Rice]

Sorry dude, they are sequels!!!

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

Sorry but everyones right googleme.....well except you.

If you dont see the slight plot threads carried through the filmsthen your not watching properly.

Chase-(in Batman Forever to Batman) Or do i need skin tight vinyl and a whip?

This aint coincidence she's researched Batman, she's Refering to Catwoman.

Bruce in the cave Mentions to Dick that revenge dont help, he's been there, He's refering to when he killed the Joker.

Not to mention Micheal Gough & Pat Hingle are both present, its no coincidence, theres part of the same continuing series (had Schumacher made Batman 5 yes, Batman 5 he was going to have the Joker return in The Scarecrows hallucination, Get this Played by Jack Nicholson). I find it hard to believe you dont see that?

The difference in tone is simply due to different directors, different visions.

 

[Noir]

Only one that is wrong. The oval actually is different. I didn't even notice it until I freeze framed it while watching Forever earlier this year. But for what it's worth, the '89 symbol, Returns symbol, Forever symbol, and Batman & Robin symbol are ALL different. So the symbol being different doesn't neglect it from being a sequel. Also, the suit was changed more than just a bit I'd say, but again, I'd also say it was changed more than a bit from '89 to Returns. (Returns being my all time favorite suit)

Batman '89

Batman Returns

Batman Forever

The forever and Returns logo look almost the same.

 

[Penismightier]

Sorry dude, they are sequels!!!

Simple, simple brilliance.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

***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?

Look at the HIGHLANDER franchise. Same actor, yet the sequels have NOTHING to do with the original.
Its wierd, but its possible.

I don't view BR,BF, or B&R as true sequels to B89.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[Penismightier]

It's like the James Bond films. Certain parts are filled with different actors, some remain the same (Q and Alfred), different directors are hired, but they're still in the same continuity.

 

[bullets]

i disregard schmuckers films.

 

[Gianakin_]

BF and B&R have Gough and hingle as Alfred and Gordon so they are seqeuls.

I'd argue for the sake of arguing that Judi Dench is M, but Casino Royale is a reboot, but I agree. I consiver them sequels.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

It's like the James Bond films. Certain parts are filled with different actors, some remain the same (Q and Alfred), different directors are hired, but they're still in the same continuity.

yeah, but not true sequels.

 

[Penismightier]

yeah, but not true sequels.

What the hell is a true sequel? It's either a sequel or it's not. If it's not a sequel, then it's out of continuity or a reboot, or something else. A sequel is a sequel, whether people like it or not.

 

[Penismightier]

i disregard schmuckers films.

You can disregard their existence all you want, but they're still on the shelf at Blockbuster and were shown in theaters.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

What the hell is a true sequel? It's either a sequel or it's not. If it's not a sequel, then it's out of continuity or a reboot, or something else. A sequel is a sequel, whether people like it or not.

Yeah, but If you take HIGHLANDER for intance. Same actor and character, and in many instances you would think they were true sequels, but they wasn't.

BF and B&R have a different city for gods sake! How can BF be a true sequel to BR, (or BR to B89 for that matter) if the city cave and wayne manner are totally different?

I mean, TDK will be a TRUE sequel to BB because Gotham will be the same, the tone and style will remain constant. I meanm Sch-MUCKERS Batman is not the same guy we sw in B89 and BR. He's totally different. Especally Clooney. Can you see Keaton bobbing his head and cracking Jokes in the cave with Alfred? Would Keaton say, 'I'll get frive thru?'

In some ways, they are sequels, but in others they are clearly not. Therefore they are not TRUE sequels. Well, thats how i see it anyway.

Just my view.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Batman '89

GOOD
Batman Returns

BETTER
Batman Forever

AMAZING!

On a side note, BF's suit was really well made. It had its flaws, but that simbol was great.

 

[Penismightier]

Yeah, but If you take HIGHLANDER for intance. Same actor and character, and in many instances you would think they were true sequels, but they wasn't.

BF and B&R have a different city for gods sake! How can BF be a true sequel to BR, (or BR to B89 for that matter) if the city cave and wayne manner are totally different?

I mean, TDK will be a TRUE sequel to BB because Gotham will be the same, the tone and style will remain constant. I meanm Sch-MUCKERS Batman is not the same guy we sw in B89 and BR. He's totally different. Especally Clooney. Can you see Keaton bobbing his head and cracking Jokes in the cave with Alfred? Would Keaton say, 'I'll get frive thru?'

In some ways, they are sequels, but in others they are clearly not. Therefore they are not TRUE sequels. Well, thats how i see it anyway.

Just my view.

Tone and style don't matter, it's continuity. Alien and Aliens are two different genres, but Aliens is still the sequel to Alien. And they're not two different cities. It's still the same Gotham City in the same continuity across all four films. The Schumacher movies have a totally different feel than Burton's, no one is debating that, but they're in the same continuity, thus they are sequels.

 

[roach]

Hell They Come In A Boxed Set...that Makes Them Sequels

 

[Penismightier]

Hell They Come In A Boxed Set...that Makes Them Sequels

Yes, that's a simple answer.

 

[roach]

i like to cut thru the BS

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Tone and style don't matter, it's continuity. Alien and Aliens are two different genres, but Aliens is still the sequel to Alien. And they're not two different cities. It's still the same Gotham City in the same continuity across all four films. The Schumacher movies have a totally different feel than Burton's, no one is debating that, but they're in the same continuity, thus they are sequels.

The Sch-MUCKER cities are the same, But BR and Sch-MUCKERS are not the same city as B89. Therefore they cannot be true sequels. Clooney is so far removed from Keaton that he cannot possibly be the same BW.

B&R does not reference B89 in anyway.
With Chase remarking to Catwoman does not mean BR's Catwoman as it was intended. It could have been any catwoman from any continuity.

 

[roach]

The Sch-MUCKER cities are the same, But BR and Sch-MUCKERS are not the same city as B89. Therefore they cannot be true sequels. Clooney is so far removed from Keaton that he cannot possibly be the same BW.

B&R does not reference B89 in anyway.
With Chase remarking to Catwoman does not mean BR's Catwoman as it was intended. It could have been any catwoman from any continuity.

this is just crazy talk....they come in a boxed set...they are sequels. Burton almost directed Forever. Why is this not sinking in????