Batman-Online.com

I think it would be better. Keaton would provide a sense of continuity, and in turn, keep the links between the Burton and Schumacher movies. 

No, it would be not. It would have just trashed Keaton's reputation in the role.

Now, I'm not saying Keaton would have put in a poor performance, but the material he would have had to work with was poor. He would be surrounded by pathetic DOO-DAH acting and lots of neon lights.

We wouldn't really be seeing a Keaton Batman, his personality would have changed to suit the lighter tone that Schumacher created. It would be a living death, watching this great Batman actor crumble before our own eyes.

I am glad he didn't return. He was never going to return to a non-Burton Batman film anyway. Keaton had sense.

But Keaton had a sort of aura about him. I think he would not change at all. Keaton would of been better than Kilmer, that's for sure.

Quote from: Shan45 on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 03:38
But Keaton had a sort of aura about him. I think he would not change at all. Keaton would of been better than Kilmer, that's for sure.

The film still would have sucked big time.

Batman Forever isn't bad, it has its moments. Having Keaton would have balanced out the moments of darkness and campiness.

Quote from: Shan45 on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 03:42
Batman Forever isn't bad, it has its moments.

That is your opinion. I'm sure a lot of folks here disagree with it.

I like Batman Forever for what it is and could have been a la my deleted scenes post. I voted yes, Though it would have only worked had Schumacher not directed he just woundn't understand Keatons Batman, Which is one reason him and Val Kilmer fighted so much.

Quote from: Sandman on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 03:48
Though it would have only worked had Schumacher not directed he just woundn't understand Keatons Batman, Which is one reason him and Val Kilmer fighted so much.

Exactly. Burton and Keaton were a team, removing pieces of dialogue - for example.

Now, the deleted scenes would make the film a lot better, but I'm still not that fond of the film.

Quote
Exactly. Burton and Keaton were a team, removing pieces of dialogue - for example.

Well said my friend, To true!

What exactly did Kilmer fight about with Schumacher? I heard a rumor that Kilmer wanted a darker batman.

Kilmer wanted to play Batman similer to the same way Keaton did while Schumacher wanted to the complete opposite, Which was one of there many reasons to fight.

Had Keaton have decided to stay - the script would no doubt have been different. Keaton was getting a big paycheck and had a lot of clout.

With Burton gone though i would say he didn't see any point in staying to fight for revisions, so i suppose it's a mute point.

But yeah, as much as i like some parts of Forever - I think it would have been different...

I agree with Ral.  Keaton in BF would be duct taping the Titanic's hull back together after it smacked the iceburg.  It would be a waste of time and whatever minor changes it made wouldn't affect the basic outcome all that much.

Besides, it would unnecessarily link the movie to Burton's films.  The way that it is now, I can at least sort of pretend that B89 and BR went down in Burton's world and the Joel Shlockmaker movies took place in a parallel universe or something.

While I would have loved to see Keaton again, no doubt his presence would soften the blow, however I must agree with my compatriots' general consensus that

A) Minor changes made at the behest of Keaton would still leave Joel the director's whose primary vision would decide the outcome of the film

and B) That outcome would have been bad for Keaton's rep.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 16:44
Besides, it would unnecessarily link the movie to Burton's films.  The way that it is now, I can at least sort of pretend that B89 and BR went down in Burton's world and the Joel Shlockmaker movies took place in a parallel universe or something.

Couldn't agree more.

No I dont think it wouldnt have been better because I think with Schmacher in charge Keaton would not have had any input into the character, story or tone of the film.

Schmacher was in chanrge and I get the feeling it was his way or no way.

I think this is one of the main reasons Keaton bailed!

They(Warner) were willing give Keaton 35 million to do this film. Any qualms that Keaton had were going to be heard indefinitely, because the powerful influence he exerted.  If Keaton wanted his batman to be darker, no doubt in my mind, Warner would let him do his thing.

I also think there were some parts of Batman Forever that could have fit Keaton's Batman very well. For example, when BW is explaining to Dick Grayson about revenge, and why he (Batman) is going to retire, that was a very dark and truthful scene.

At the same time, I have a hard time imagining Keaton's Batman saying "I'll get drive through" for an opening line.

I think the scene where Bruce Wayne tells Chase about his parent's murder would have fit Keaton well, too..

Quote from: Batmoney on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 21:34
I also think there were some parts of Batman Forever that could have fit Keaton's Batman very well. For example, when BW is explaining to Dick Grayson about revenge, and why he (Batman) is going to retire, that was a very dark and truthful scene.

At the same time, I have a hard time imagining Keaton's Batman saying "I'll get drive through" for an opening line.

I have a feeling he would have refused to say that line no matter how much he was being paid.

When Keaton walked away from Forever and that massive paycheck, it was after he had already met with Schumacher. I think his clout with the director and studio is being overestimated. Keaton has said that what he was interested in for the third film was "more of a prequel;" aborted "red diary" subplot aside, that obviously wasn't taken into consideration.

Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 28 Aug  2009, 20:30
Keaton has said that what he was interested in for the third film was "more of a prequel"

wasn't that quote only from recent times, after the release of Begins?

Quote from: ral on Fri, 28 Aug  2009, 23:48
wasn't that quote only from recent times, after the release of Begins?

I reserve the right to have a poor memory on this but I swear to remember that bit at least as far back as 2002 or 2003 or so.  Maybe further.

Quote from: ral on Fri, 28 Aug  2009, 23:48

Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 28 Aug  2009, 20:30
Keaton has said that what he was interested in for the third film was "more of a prequel"

wasn't that quote only from recent times, after the release of Begins?

It was right before Begins came out, when people were asking Keaton what his thoughts on the upcoming film were.

I like Forever for what is a lighter Batman film I don't have a problem with that. I do wish Keaton would have stayed on board but I do like what Kilmer did I mean he did what he could! I do enjoy Batman Forever not as brillantly done as Tim Burtons first 2 films but I do enjoy it!

i think the question should be "Would it have been better if Burton and Keaton and Sam Hamm returned?"  :P

I've said it before, I love Forever, and what was done, everything fits well, tbh I wouldn't want Keaton in it cause he wouldn't have fit.  Now, a third Batman done like Returns/89 and done in the same style, then yeah, obviously, but I think Kilmer was amazing in Forever, and most importantly, he fit, Keaton's Batman or even his characteristics, hell eveything about Keaton's Batman wouldn't have made much sense in Forever.

While Batman somewhat remained the same, Bruce Wayne's character was changed a bit. He's the rich playboy we all know, and his conflictions are a bit more hidden. In my eyes, Val Kilmer played a more unserious role in a serious manner, which was probably why Bob Kane liked him so much. Keaton had his vision of Batman, and he didn't want to change it, and I respect him stepping down; no one knows what could've happened.

I'll get drive through is a great line. I don't think Keaton would have fit in this version.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Keaton in BF....

Absolutely! Keaton would not be better at the role than Kilmer, whose work isn't unnoticed, but he would also bring precious continuity with him. The storyline with the Red Diary kinda depends on being familiar with the previous films, despite the end product of BF being a stand-alone feature, seemingly.

So yeah, it'd have been great. Much like Christopher Reeve returning for SIII and SIV, he'd have been a highlight for the movies, as he never gave a bad performance as Bats.

I can't give a yes or no answer.

Would he be better in the film that is there, as such, untouched except for the change in leading man? I don't honestly know.

So much of the world of story had changed that I think Keaton would look a bit conspicuous in the film.  Granted, I have a personal preference for Keaton's performance over Kilmer's by quite a margin, but I'm not sure if the alteration in the world of story between BR and BF would have been resolved by retaining Keaton. 

As stated by a fellow poster, if Burton/Hamm/Keaton had all returned with the Bo Welch (or Anton Furst's) designs and the entire film were shifted away from the brighter and larger Schumacher sensibilities--then, yes, that could potentially work of course.

But I'm trying to imagine Michael Keaton kicking down Meridian's door with an awkward 'I'm sorry.  I have an appointment.  I'm Bruce Wayne.'  I just have a hard time imagining it.

Quote from: greggbray on Mon, 27 Aug  2012, 20:54But I'm trying to imagine Michael Keaton kicking down Meridian's door with an awkward 'I'm sorry.  I have an appointment.  I'm Bruce Wayne.'  I just have a hard time imagining it.

Actually, thats one of the scenes that I envision Keaton actually doing, with the same nervousness that he exhibited in B89's ballroom scene. In fact, I think Kilmer borrowed from Kaeaton quite a bit, right to clothing - what he wears in the scene when Dick Grayson first arrives, is exactly what I envision Keaton would wear, because its of similar style to what he wore in the scene in BR, when he exposes Penguin to the Gothamites.

Fair enough. :)
I  think you are right in asserting that Kilmer borrowed from Keaton's performance (right down to the glasses).  There are moments when Kilmer is in the cowl where he looks like exactly like Keaton.  "If Bruce Wayne could have given his life for your family, he would have."  Which, by the way, I think is the best line in the film. 

As I think about this, I *could* definitely see Keaton arguing with O'Donnel about following him around.  Though it was probably Kilmer's strongest out-of-cowl moment in the film, Keaton could have easily carried it. 

"The car, right? Chicks love the car." Either I can't picture Keaton's Batman saying that or else I just don't want to.

I'm actually starting to think my enjoyment of Forever would take a serious hit if Keaton was in it. As it stands, I can pretend that the Burton Batman's story ends in BR. Although Forever continues his story (arguably), somehow it works out in my mind that the Batman from Forever isn't necessarily where Burton's character was going. If that makes sense. Forever is an optional continuation of the story but it works best for me in that it doesn't necessarily tie all that intimately back to either of the Burton films. If Keaton had been in it, I'd be thinking about how Burton would never have done this or that, never would have permit certain lines of dialogue or gags or whatever else.

Forever works best for me as a Schumacher/Kilmer vehicle that riffs on (but isn't necessarily a continuation of) Burton.

That's where it falls apart for me a bit.  While I could see Keaton having the serious moments with O'Donnel (in particular) I would have a hard time with the campier aspects, and I would have a hard time with the way the Chase Meridian romance is written.  They had originally cast Rene Russo in the role (according to a 1994 EW article), and I think he would have had better chemistry with her.

Had they kept Keaton and went with Russo as opposed to Kidman, there would just have to be a tonal shift.  I couldn't imagine the film as is with Keaton in there in lieu of Kilmer.  The chemistry in the performances with Kidman and Carrey in particular just would seem off.  Especially if Keaton was continuing with the character as portrayed in the previous film.

Quote from: greggbray on Wed, 29 Aug  2012, 00:52That's where it falls apart for me a bit.  While I could see Keaton having the serious moments with O'Donnel (in particular) I would have a hard time with the campier aspects, and I would have a hard time with the way the Chase Meridian romance is written.  They had originally cast Rene Russo in the role (according to a 1994 EW article), and I think he would have had better chemistry with her.

Had they kept Keaton and went with Russo as opposed to Kidman, there would just have to be a tonal shift.  I couldn't imagine the film as is with Keaton in there in lieu of Kilmer.  The chemistry in the performances with Kidman and Carrey in particular just would seem off.  Especially if Keaton was continuing with the character as portrayed in the previous film.

That leads into something I've been thinking for the past few days. In each of the four movies, I firmly believe we got the Batman we needed to get. I couldn't picture Keaton in Forever or either Keaton or Kilmer in B&R. And I couldn't picture Clooney in any of the others. Each was appropriate for the movie at hand.