Why isn't batman forever not considered the end of burton's trilogy?

[Vampfox]

Personally I hesitate to consider either of Joel's Batman movies to be a sequel to Tim's Batman movies since they have a completely different feel to them in terms of design and atmosphere.

[BatmanFanatic93]

Personally I hesitate to consider either of Joel's Batman movies to be a sequel to Tim's Batman movies since they have a completely different feel to them in terms of design and atmosphere.

True true i will agree with you about the feel & terms of design and atmosphere i was the same way years back but when i watched both forever & batman & robin i realized forever was nowhere near as bad as batman & robin cause batman forever at least had a story & try to balance the level of darkness & campiness while bring something new to the sequel not only that but when i looked pass the neon & bright lights i started to appericate the new building structures & the addition of roman & gargoyle statues i mean burton had them too but never giant ones like joel did.

[Edd Grayson]

I do consider it the closing act of the original Batman trilogy, and I disregard Batman & Robin completely.

[johnnygobbs]

I  do consider it the closing act of the original Batman trilogy, and I disregard Batman & Robin completely.

Welcome to the forum Edd Grayson. 

Do you think Batman Forever works well as the closing episode of a trilogy because Bruce seems to find some type of closure, whilst of course still operating as Batman, by the end of Batman Forever?  He has clearly forsaken wanton killing in the pursuit of justice and consequently imparts this epiphany to his ward, Dick Grayson, who he steers away from repeating the same mistakes he did.

[Edd Grayson]

Exactly, Bruce is at peace with who he is and he is Batman because he wants to be.

[The Dark Knight]

I consider BR the end of the Burton era, regardless of any carry over material there may be. BF and B&R are their own thing, in my view. New director, new composer, new Batmen. And I don't think the Keaton Batman would completely move on from his dark ways. I see him still killing when need be and giving sinister smiles to his opponents, ala Napier at Axis Chemicals and the Strongman in BR. Thematic trilogy ending or not aside, it seems to be who he was. One could say he was finally at peace when Joker was killed, but he wasn't.

[Azrael]

No need to point that out, but well said. Even Batman Returns itself is some sort of soft reset, there's nothing to connect it with B89 (story-wise) other than that brief Vicky reference. I like Uslan's take when in an interview he said that each film more or less represented a different Batman era (89=1939, BR=90s, BF=50s, B&R=60s).

[Silver Nemesis]

Daniel Waters:
''He [Burton] was obsessed with the thought that this had to be an entirely different film. Whenever I'd make an occasional reference to the Joker or Vicky Vale, I'd have to fight with him to get it in. I remember, when we were trying to come up with titles, Tim suggested that we call it BATMAN again. He literally wanted to redefine the meaning of the title.''
http://www.angelfire.com/film/batman/movies/returns/story.htm

[Azrael]

^ Glad someone who is heard quoted that Waters interview.

[Batman88]

How does exactly Returns represent the Batman from the 90s comic books ?