Schumacher's movies are NOT sequels to Burtons films

[Mr. Socko]

Before you try to distance Schumacher from Burton, which is the whole point of this thread, go take a look at who held the most power position on the set of Forever ....TIM BURTON! That's Producer, not co-producer, not associate producer, not executive producer.

If Batman Forever won Best Picture, Tim Burton would have been handed the Oscar!

Yes like fabman said, you've got to know the circumstances. There was much more to it than that. You want to know a film where Burton was producer and actually had the most power and control, look no further than A Nightmare Before X-Mas.

 

[ThreeActRomance]

they're sequels..get over it kido.

the chest logo argument is weak. you don't think that Bruce would alter and adjust the Batsuit as he grew as Batman? Even *GASP* Tweaking the logo?!?

 

[Darkness Falls]

Yes like fabman said, you've got to know the circumstances. There was much more to it than that. You want to know a film where Burton was producer and actually had the most power and control, look no further than A Nightmare Before X-Mas.

i love that film

but seriously back to the topic
Schumacher's films (imo) were sequals
as many have referenced the dr chase quote
and in the batman Forever novel at the start dent is talking to batman about the whereabouts of the Red triangle gang

 

[Darkness Falls]

the chest logo argument is weak. you don't think that Bruce would alter and adjust the Batsuit as he grew as Batman? Even *GASP* Tweaking the logo?!?[/

Is there really an arguement about that

 

[slave2catwoman]

Yeah, they were.

 

[spiderfan21]

Also, go to retrojunk.com, watch the Batman Forever trailer, and it has Danny Elfman's score playing over the whole thing.

 

[Gianakin_]

That doesn't prove anything. It was more commercial reasons, than anything else. They just wanted to get people excited by using a beloved and widely familiar piece of music.

 

[spiderfan21]

yes, but that connects the 3

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't count it, because it's a trailer. The B&R trsiler had the Elfman theme in it, too. If it was part of the actual movie, yes, but in this case, the trailer music doesn't really count. But hey, to each his own.

 

[Warhammer]

These films are all in the same continuity.
They are all sequels. However, they aren't direct sequels like the Back to the Future films are.

 

[GoogleMe94]

That doesn't prove anything. It was more commercial reasons, than anything else. They just wanted to get people excited by using a beloved and widely familiar piece of music.

yeah, if they actually used the elfman theme, they woulde be considered sequels, but they like totally reinvented the entire franchise with batman forever and the darkness disapeared. i just caqnt accept the schumacher films as sequels. i agree, they arent direct sequels, but still, i wouldnt say they are in the same series. batman begins is alot like B89, but is it a sequel or prequel? no.

 

[Gianakin_]

I base my opinion on the story and certain references, not the look of the films. Like Bond. And by these criteria, they are sequels.

 

[Mr. Socko]

These films are all in the same continuity.
They are all sequels. However, they aren't direct sequels like the Back to the Future films are.

Yes, they are most definitely sequels, that isn't even debatable. But I personally don't look at them in the same line of continuity. To me, it's almost like Schumacher's film are in a parallel universe. Funny that you bring up Back to the Future. I look at it like this:

89-92 was the Burtonverse, after that, Schumacher came in and spewed the time line thus creating a parallel universe where Batman is a joke, he wears nipples on his bat-suit, and Gotham is filled with Neon.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yes, they are most definitely sequels, that isn't even debatable. But I personally don't look at them in the same line of continuity. To me, it's almost like Schumacher's film are in a parallel universe. Funny that you bring up Back to the Future. I look at it like this:

89-92 was the Burtonverse, after that, Schumacher came in and spewed the time line thus creating a parallel universe where Batman is a joke, he wears nipples on his bat-suit, and Gotham is filled with Neon.

You know, I almost never say that, but this is a post that should mark the end of this thread. Brilliant.

 

[Gotham22]

that doesnt make since if the same Batman and Robin in B&R and the same Joker from Batman89 were suppost to be in Batman: Triumphant.

 

[Gianakin_]

Triumphant was never shot, though. Even if it had existed, Socko's opinion would still make sense. Remember, Meridian mentioned the BR Catwoman in BF, it's kinda the same thing.

 

[Gotham22]

but if Triumphant was made, The Joker from Batman89 was suppost to return.

 

[Gianakin_]

Socko says this:
BF and B&R follow the storyline of B89 and BR, so story-wise they are sequels. The traits that makes them belong to this cute parallel universe are the style, the dialogue and the tone.
So, whether Jack would have returned or not, it wouldn't have made a difference, as Triumphant would have been probably set to this Neon-Gotham, nipple-suited Batman world. The story would make it a sequel to the 4 films, but the 3 forementioned traits are what cause tem to be in his different timeline.
All in all, he was just giving an equally clever and funnier explanation, which I find completely true and sensical, but I don't think it's anything to make fuss about. It's what most people are saying, but in a more "in-a-nutshell" and theatrical, if you will, way.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Precisely. Thank you.

To be honest, I, nor anyone can answer Gotham22's question about Batman Triumphant. Why? Because it does not exist, nor in any form could have. You see Schumacher created a paradox by making Batman a homosexual(as George Clooney has stated, Citation) which result started a chain reaction that unraveled the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroyed the entire Batman-universe on film that Burton started. But fortunately, eight years later, Chris Nolan created another Bat-universe for film. Didn't you wonder why Nolan's film is set in another realm and not related to the others? It's because it couldn't have been, Schumacher destroyed that realm in 1997.

 

[Penismightier]

Crap, I leave for like a week and this thread is still thriving. For F's sake people, they're sequels, let's move on.

 

[Gianakin_]

To be honest, I, nor anyone can answer Gotham22's question about Batman Triumphant. Why? Because it does not exist, nor in any form could have. You see Schumacher created a paradox by making Batman a homosexual(as George Clooney has stated, Citation) which result started a chain reaction that unraveled the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroyed the entire Batman-universe on film that Burton started. But fortunately, eight years later, Chris Nolan created another Bat-universe for film. Didn't you wonder why Nolan's film is set in another realm and not related to the others? It's because it couldn't have been, Schumacher destroyed that realm in 1997.

I always thought it was strange that Schumacher agreed to do B&R when in fact he wanted to do darker Bat-films after BF. How he expected people to trust him with a dark film like Triumphant was supposed to be after B&R, is a wonder.

 

[slave2catwoman]

They are sequels. They are just crappy sequels.

 

[GoogleMe94]

ok, they may BE sequels, but they are not in the same continuity with the burton films. i just dont see it, storywise, or looks wise. i mean seriously, batman forever practically redid the entire origin story. they wouldnt do that if they were sequels. and why does the batsignal look different? everything was just too different.

 

[Gianakin_]

ok, they may BE sequels, but they are not in the same continuity with the burton films.

Contradiction here.

i just dont see it, storywise, or looks wise. i mean seriously, batman forever practically redid the entire origin story.

No it didn't, they even tried to replicate the murder scene from B89. The murderer's head-shape was just like the actor's who played young Napier.

they wouldnt do that if they were sequels.

Sure they would. See the Evil Dead Saga.

and why does the batsignal look different? everything was just too different.

Is that really a problem? Then why is Batman's suit in BR different than in B89?

 

[Darkness Falls]

ok, they may BE sequels, but they are not in the same continuity with the burton films. i just dont see it, storywise, or looks wise. i mean seriously, batman forever practically redid the entire origin story. they wouldnt do that if they were sequels. and why does the batsignal look different? everything was just too different.

do you even read before you post