I was thinking about this recently and if keaton had done Forever and the film turned out exactly like it did in terms of same script and same direction by Schumacher, do you think it was have sullied Keaton's reputation as Batman. To go from "film noir" so to speak with Batman Returns and be dipped into Schumacher's overly colorized and zany world, would it have diminished Keaton in the eyes of his fans and Bat-fans?
Personally, I think it would have. Keaton's tragic Bruce Wayne and Batman might have been turned on it's head if he had been a part of Schumacher's film.
So I say Brave Keaton! Thanks for two great performances as Bruce/Batman.
I liked Val Kilmer in the role. Michael Keaton's version wouldn't have worked for it or that story. Keaton played sad, angry, sometimes in love, but also off psychologically Batman. It worked for Burton's Batman. But Schumacher's was very much heroic, redemptive, hopeful and romantic. From Bruce saying to Harvey that he needs help instead of setting him fire to the moment where the movie ends on him smiling with a newfound hope for batman as a hero, instead of looking slightly perplexed out the window of his car about what he is.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I can't picture any of the Batmen in any of the other movies, frankly. They're well cast for the movies they appear in but I can't see any of them being as right for the character in any of the other movies.
Keaton appearing in Forever would add some badly needed visual continuity between Burton's films and Forever though. At present, someone so inclined could view Forever as a separate entity from Burton if they were so inclined and the more time goes by, the more I realize B89 is where the story begins and B&R is where it ends. It works so well on a character level.
If the movie turned out exactly the same, I agree that Keaton wouldn't have been as great as he was in his Batman films, even if ir would have helped with mantaining the visual continuity. I read that he wanted the third movie to explore Batman's past, but not just as flashbacks, as a prequel of sorts.
It actually would have fit the progression though;
In the first film Bruce Wayne is a mystery to the public so much that Vale and Knox don't recognize him. The only other time we see him go out in public was to crime alley to pay his respects.
In the second film we see more of the industrious side of Bruce Wayne; he goes to meet with Shreck and implies he's discussed power issues with the Mayor. Perhaps having a female relationship and killing his parents killer as well as saving Gotham gave Bruce the confidence he needed?
So introducing Wayne enterprises and making Bruce a statesman was the next logical choice for the third film.
Note that Bruce isn't acting quite as tortured in the second film. I know people like to read a lot into the first shot of Bruce but all that's implied there is that he's a man who sits and thinks to himself. He's more confident but he does in a way relive the dark part of his past noticing that Oswald was orphaned as well. In the third film he again would have relived it with Dick's parents dying. While many believe Bruce isn't acting dark and tortured in the fourth film because the third film cures him, it is also possible that is the only film in which there are no events paralleling his parents death.
Now the jokes are a little bit of a tough one, I have a hard time seeing Keaton delivering the goofy lines ala "I'll get drive thru" I do think Keaton would have cut the overall dialogue; saying the same things but in fewer words.
Lastly Keaton did indicate that Batman Returns (the only time he ever reprised a character) was difficult because he was felt as though he was imitating himself. Perhaps to help him in the next film he would have tried to play the character differently and thus tried to expand to a more comedic approach. I think if he went along with it, he would have been fine, we know Keaton can do comedy.
Excellent post riddler. You made a great observation on how Bruce comes out of his shell, so to speak, in each sequel. I reckon if BF had cut down on the excessive neon lighting and still maintained a lighter tone but without the goofy one-liners, I believe Keaton would fit in quite well.
Yes, but Grissom asked what would've happened if the film turned out exactly like it did in terms of same script and same direction. I don't believe Keaton's reputation would be tarnished since he was known as a comedy actor before, but it was Schumacher's new direction and the neon lighting that made Keaton turn down the movie in the first place.
And that brings us back to the main problem of the film for me: That they wanted to make a lighter Batman movie and not the best movie they could've made. :(
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 1 Sep 2015, 22:18
It actually would have fit the progression though;
In the first film Bruce Wayne is a mystery to the public so much that Vale and Knox don't recognize him. The only other time we see him go out in public was to crime alley to pay his respects.
In the second film we see more of the industrious side of Bruce Wayne; he goes to meet with Shreck and implies he's discussed power issues with the Mayor. Perhaps having a female relationship and killing his parents killer as well as saving Gotham gave Bruce the confidence he needed?
So introducing Wayne enterprises and making Bruce a statesman was the next logical choice for the third film.
I don't see how that would give someone confidence. Likely it left him emotionally numb, with the only sense of enjoyment he has is when he's wailing on criminals, like miller batman. Thinking about it now that's probably why his connection with Selina was so important to him, it was him finding some human connection when he was losing himself.
QuoteNote that Bruce isn't acting quite as tortured in the second film. I know people like to read a lot into the first shot of Bruce but all that's implied there is that he's a man who sits and thinks to himself. He's more confident but he does in a way relive the dark part of his past noticing that Oswald was orphaned as well. In the third film he again would have relived it with Dick's parents dying. While many believe Bruce isn't acting dark and tortured in the fourth film because the third film cures him, it is also possible that is the only film in which there are no events paralleling his parents death.
Alfred dying.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 2 Sep 2015, 13:13
Yes, but Grissom asked what would've happened if the film turned out exactly like it did in terms of same script and same direction. I don't believe Keaton's reputation would be tarnished since he was known as a comedy actor before, but it was Schumacher's new direction and the neon lighting that made Keaton turn down the movie in the first place.
And that brings us back to the main problem of the film for me: That they wanted to make a lighter Batman movie and not the best movie they could've made. :(
It's a good thing they managed to accomplish a pretty good movie then. :)
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I don't think Val Kilmer as Batman was a problem, quite the contrary, but the stupid conflicts between Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey on set, the constant quips from the characters in the movie, even from Alfred, and the fact that they deleted much of the film's more serious material bothers me.
It was still satisfying for me, but not great.
God bless you, Dagenspear! God bless everyone in your life! (I mean that sincerely, please don't take it as sarcasm).
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 3 Sep 2015, 02:39
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 1 Sep 2015, 22:18
It actually would have fit the progression though;
In the first film Bruce Wayne is a mystery to the public so much that Vale and Knox don't recognize him. The only other time we see him go out in public was to crime alley to pay his respects.
In the second film we see more of the industrious side of Bruce Wayne; he goes to meet with Shreck and implies he's discussed power issues with the Mayor. Perhaps having a female relationship and killing his parents killer as well as saving Gotham gave Bruce the confidence he needed?
So introducing Wayne enterprises and making Bruce a statesman was the next logical choice for the third film.
I don't see how that would give someone confidence. Likely it left him emotionally numb, with the only sense of enjoyment he has is when he's wailing on criminals, like miller batman. Thinking about it now that's probably why his connection with Selina was so important to him, it was him finding some human connection when he was losing himself.QuoteNote that Bruce isn't acting quite as tortured in the second film. I know people like to read a lot into the first shot of Bruce but all that's implied there is that he's a man who sits and thinks to himself. He's more confident but he does in a way relive the dark part of his past noticing that Oswald was orphaned as well. In the third film he again would have relived it with Dick's parents dying. While many believe Bruce isn't acting dark and tortured in the fourth film because the third film cures him, it is also possible that is the only film in which there are no events paralleling his parents death.
Alfred dying.
It allows him to break free of his shell; he conquered the man who killed his parents and even Gotham. No longer did the city feel he's a foe.
You can't possibly think the old butler dying has any parralels to his parents death or Oswald becoming orphaned or Dicks parents getting killed; Alfred wasn't murdered nor was anyone getting orphaned over it. Bruce feels sorry for Oswald and Dick as well as regret over failing to save the Graysons. Alfred dying is not something Bruce would have regretted.
The third film ended in victory just like the first, it's not that big of a stretch to believe Keaton could have helmed the role. The 'drive thru' joke would have been awkward but thats it
Riddler, some say that the script still had Keaton in mind for the role. Like the scene in which he breaks into Chase's place, and how he's still socially awkward, those traits sound like Keaton's Bruce in Batman.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 3 Sep 2015, 22:57
I don't think Val Kilmer as Batman was a problem, quite the contrary, but the stupid conflicts between Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey on set, the constant quips from the characters in the movie, even from Alfred, and the fact that they deleted much of the film's more serious material bothers me.
It was still satisfying for me, but not great.
God bless you, Dagenspear! God bless everyone in your life! (I mean that sincerely, please don't take it as sarcasm).
Thank you very much. I'm not being sarcastic either, to be clear.
I wasn't bothered by the quips myself. The film still had a lot of serious elements. Not really some of the deeper aspects, I agree. Although I personally found the giant bat deleted scene a little off.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
It's amazing what's possible when the film the scene was shot on is properly developed and Goldenthal's music has been added to the scene. It would've thrown off the pacing and intensity of the film's climax big time to have that Navajo spirit quest going on but I think the scene itself could've been made to work.
Good question. When I apply hypotheticals I tend to configure thinking at that time rather than a current day opinion to determine a logical outcome. I think it would be TOO easy to suggest Keaton would have hit the "Trilogy" curse of superheroes like Superman and Spider-man, had he done a third one. Because to say that is to allow all the water to flow under that bridge of discontent after B&R came out 18 years ago. To assume that stays would not be giving it an accurate assessment. This movie came out in 1995 and those feelings of discourse towards Schumacher did NOT exist.
If we're to be completely honest, he actually saved the franchise with the success of Forever, because Returns had driven such a harsh nail into public opinion. The Studios were already at odds with the public over it's tone and subsequent reduced commercial appeal. And because that had happen so early, there were still allot of skeptics in the industry kitchen about Batman's viability as a franchise after only one sequel in. So perhaps the bigger question here is what would have happened to Keaton in the fourth installment? Success sells perception and industry value. Renewed success in a third Batman film would have propped up Keaton's market value and likely solidified the industry perception that he was not replaceable giving him more of a voice in the next film. Translation: Batman & Robin never gets made and we're having an entirely different conversation today about Schumacher's place in Batman cinematic history.
Remember, Schumacher always wanted to go darker. Who's to say with more clout in the Keaton camp they wouldn't have taken back that direction, only with a little more management on the tone controls. I think it's completely conceivable history gets completely rewritten if Keaton stays on and Batman Forever is the success it became.
Good point. Keaton's performance has always been great as the Caped Crusader (not to mention all the other roles he has performed). If he did do BF, the direction of the film might have been different because Keaton would definitely have a say in what his character goes through and says in the film, within the context of the story.
I think he was right to decline the role, as the film turned out. If they had kept more quality control, BF and B&R would not be as hated today, in my opinion.
That's one thing I love about the Batman franchise as a whole, everyone has their pick of favorites and you can find something to like (or for some something to dislike from each film). There's a lot to choose from, from Batman '89 right up to The Dark Knight Rises.
Quote from: Grissom on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 13:21
That's one thing I love about the Batman franchise as a whole, everyone has their pick of favorites and you can find something to like (or for some something to dislike from each film). There's a lot to choose from, from Batman '89 right up to The Dark Knight Rises.
Too true. And now we're getting a new one.
Keaton would not have fit in Schumacher's world. And Burton's ideas for the 3rd movie sound weird to me. Although Rene Russo would have made a good Dr Chase Meridian. Robin Williams as The Riddler? Not sure about that casting. Same with Marlon Wayans as Robin. Don't know about Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face, either (although I like his Harvey Dent). I am glad we got the movie we did.
Quote from: OutRiddled on Fri, 20 May 2016, 08:38
Keaton would not have fit in Schumacher's world. And Burton's ideas for the 3rd movie sound weird to me. Although Rene Russo would have made a good Dr Chase Meridian. Robin Williams as The Riddler? Not sure about that casting. Same with Marlon Wayans as Robin. Don't know about Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face, either (although I like his Harvey Dent). I am glad we got the movie we did.
You know, I can't help but feel Robin Williams would've been a much better fit as the Prankster, the Superman villain.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fmarvel_dc%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fec%2FSuperman_Family_Vol_1_184.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20090208200953&hash=df7711484fcb0f214ca384ef8f832b6a50c90348)
Considering that Williams and Christopher Reeve were close friends in real life, it makes me wish they starred together in a sequel. Maybe in another universe. :(
Keaton went on record before saying he had no interest in Schumacher's BF, but this is the first time I've heard him clearly expressing his distaste for the film.
Quote
The third and fourth installment, Batman & Robin, became some of the character's weakest portrayal which eventually killed the franchise. In a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Keaton chatted about not doing the third one because of the script. When talking about it, Keaton admitted when he realized that this film was problematic.
"It sucked! The script never was good. I couldn't understand why he wanted to do what he wanted to do. I hung on for many meetings. I knew it was in trouble when he [Joel Schumacher] said, 'Why does everything have to be so dark?'
Source: http://heroichollywood.com/michael-keaton-the-moment-batman-forever-suck/
Let's see if the derivative looking Spider-Man: Homecoming is a good choice for him to star. Does anybody feel his role as the Vulture will be just as forgettable as most MCU villains?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 4 Jan 2017, 00:06
Keaton went on record before saying he had no interest in Schumacher's BF, but this is the first time I've heard him clearly expressing his distaste for the film.
Quote
The third and fourth installment, Batman & Robin, became some of the character's weakest portrayal which eventually killed the franchise. In a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Keaton chatted about not doing the third one because of the script. When talking about it, Keaton admitted when he realized that this film was problematic.
"It sucked! The script never was good. I couldn't understand why he wanted to do what he wanted to do. I hung on for many meetings. I knew it was in trouble when he [Joel Schumacher] said, 'Why does everything have to be so dark?'
Source: http://heroichollywood.com/michael-keaton-the-moment-batman-forever-suck/
Let's see if the derivative looking Spider-Man: Homecoming is a good choice for him to star. Does anybody feel his role as the Vulture will be just as forgettable as most MCU villains?
The MCU has had a fantastic record so far. Maybe Keaton is less concerned about how well his character will be perceived than he is in being part of a great film (bear in mind that despite the suggestion that he'd been overshadowed by Jack's Joker in Batman '89, Keaton was still happy to return to Batman Returns alongside his pal, Tim Burton, and even asked that his character be given fewer lines). Plus, Keaton initially pulled out of Spider-Man: Homecoming, so it's possible that his misgivings concerned his character and thus likely that the filmmakers have subsequently boosted his character.
Also, he's right; compared to Burton's brilliant contributions to the Batman franchise, Batman Forever, and its sequel,
do suck. Kudos to Keaton for recognising that. :)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 4 Jan 2017, 00:06
Keaton went on record before saying he had no interest in Schumacher's BF, but this is the first time I've heard him clearly expressing his distaste for the film.
I enjoy BF and B&R for what they are, however I obviously realise Burton and Keaton not coming back for a third outing represents a missed opportunity. But I made peace with that long ago. And in some ways, just being two films gives the Burtonverse added mystique. Two films is enough to create an era, but it also keeps you wanting more. It feels incomplete or freeze framed in some way. And I kinda like that 'what if'.
I think Keaton is a bit biased in that he's very close to that iteration of the character. I suspect he's not really able to take a more holistic view of the matter and see Batman as an organic, ever-changing character. I honestly don't think a lot of contributors necessarily understand their role. Comic creators may. Probably do, in fact.
But in most cases, I get the idea the Bill Doziers, Tim Burtons, Joel Schumachers, Chris Nolans, Zack Snyders and all the rest are "putting their stamp" on the character without being fully cognizant of the fact that their efforts, while important, are really a small part of a much larger tapestry.
On that basis, I can understand why Keaton thinks the way he does. But I'm not sure at all that he understands the context BF works within.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 4 Jan 2017, 12:01
On that basis, I can understand why Keaton thinks the way he does. But I'm not sure at all that he understands the context BF works within.
I get the impression Keaton is only scathing of Schumacher's treatment, not for the idea that Batman finally makes peace with his parents and banishing his guilt for good. Maybe Keaton already knew how Schumacher was going to execute ideas, and it didn't entice him.
Who knows, if another director who was less flamboyant than Schumacher but still wanted a lighter tone, would Keaton have been encouraged to stay on? That's a question I don't expect anyone to answer.
No Burton basically meant no Keaton. That's the answer for me.
Does anyone know when keaton dropped? I have the second draft watch March 94 and it was the same but different.
Including Batman sleeping with chase. Penguin and Catwoman had a camero as well, they were mental images (to remind him of his failures) when Batman climbs up riddlers layer
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 02:48
Including Batman sleeping with chase and Penguin and Catwoman
You gotta use some punctuation, dude. Now I've got the mental image of a
really weird four way! :P
I am actually glad that Burton dropped out of Batman 3. Not sure if I like some of his ideas. Marlon Wayans for Robin, for example. Robin Williams was also a poor choice for Riddler. I think at that point you needed a breath of fresh air for the franchise. I actually think Joel Schumacher was the best choice at the time to do a modern but camp superhero movie. Campiness is not all bad, as the 60s Batman tv show was high camp but was massively popular back in the day. And let's face it, Batman is no stranger to camp at all, just read the comics from the 40s-60s - way sillier than anything in Batman and Robin.
Quote from: GBglide on Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 03:05
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 02:48
Including Batman sleeping with chase and Penguin and Catwoman
You gotta use some punctuation, dude. Now I've got the mental image of a really weird four way! :P
FIXED! I am so sorry ???
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 04:55
Quote from: GBglide on Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 03:05
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 02:48
Including Batman sleeping with chase and Penguin and Catwoman
You gotta use some punctuation, dude. Now I've got the mental image of a really weird four way! :P
FIXED! I am so sorry ???
No problem, it made me laugh. :)