Do you think Batman Forever would have been better if Keaton had returned?

[greggbray]

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.

[Batman Beyond]

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.

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.

[greggbray]

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. 

[thecolorsblend]

"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.

[greggbray]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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.