Keaton - Got out because the script "sucked"

[MIB41]

Here's a new story released today where Keaton is offering a retrospective fresh with the backing of revised opinions favoring his side. For me, it's all pretty subjective to how people choose to approach the character. Returns may be heralded today, but it nearly tanked the franchise back during it's theatrical release. Schumacher had to campaign to industry insiders to garner financial support for another film. Nobody believed the franchise had anything left in the tank after Returns. Forever revitalized the franchise and the movies kept going. NOW Forever is reviled because of it's association with B&R and so the Returns installment gets a lift from that shift in people embracing the dark imagery. I think context is always a much needed commodity here. Keaton will always be one of my favorite Batman actors, but he hardly ran a perfect race in this franchise. I like Returns but it's a pretty muddled story after getting the great send off from the original that started the franchise. And you know, for me, the lessons between Returns and B&R are pretty similar. You never leave the director to go off and make the movie solely on his vision. I think Returns was too quirky with Burton having full control while B&R suffered from being too campy with Schumacher making all the decisions. Opinions may vary today but the box office results were distressed on both those films when there was no middle man maintaining balance in the treatment.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/01/05/michael-keaton-reveals-reason-left-batman-franchise-it-sucked.html

[palitoy]

Yeah it's an interesting story, Art VS Commerce really. Burton didn't want Returns, so they let him do whatever he wanted with it.

Personally "Returns" is my least favourite, "Forever" isn't a triumph but it kind of harkens back to the Bill Finger era of Batman. I remember being excited to see "Batman & Robin" back in '97 and almost walking out in the first fifteen minutes.

[enyawd72]

I'm all over the place on the original four...loved Batman, still do. Loved Returns in '92, but like it less and less with age. Loved Forever, it's probably my favorite of the four, and loved B&R as a big budget episode of the TV series. Sure it's stupid, but it's also a lot of fun.

[MIB41]

Yeah it's an interesting story, Art VS Commerce really. Burton didn't want Returns, so they let him do whatever he wanted with it.

Personally "Returns" is my least favourite, "Forever" isn't a triumph but it kind of harkens back to the Bill Finger era of Batman. I remember being excited to see "Batman & Robin" back in '97 and almost walking out in the first fifteen minutes.

Yep. I think most folks here know my evolution with B&R. My grandson made me a fan of it partly out of desperation from having to watch it three times a day for months. Somewhere in that delirium you find yourself saying, "Thank you. May I have another?" So I watch it with a load of bias because Lil D loves it. Of course these days he says, " Doo Dah I can see Batman's nipples! That's so funny." Yes... at 5 this young boy can make that distinction. So perhaps this film will eventually get parked in his mind where allot of other people see it. But for now it still remains VERY entertaining to him, so I piggyback on that. I'll always champion anything that makes my grandson happy. On that premise, I believe there must be some rich, hidden, virtue in this film that maybe allot of us miss. My kids grew up liking it too and actually sit down to watch it when Lil D gets parked there, so maybe tradition gives it a pass as well. The ONLY redeeming value I can honestly say it deserves (and maybe therein lies the magic) is it's a very beautifully lit film. It absolutely looks like a comic book and is easy on the eyes. So if I shut my brain off, I can actually enjoy the film visually. I can't say that about too many other offerings in this franchise. So by hook or crook, it has found a distinct place on my bookcase.

[Spyweb007]

The problem with Batman Forever isn't the script, just the director's approach to the material. I think the movie has a decent story to explore and more action than the previous two movies. Just need to town down Jim Carrey a tiny bit and have Two Face approached differently. Might have been the best of the original movies if it had Tim Burton directing and Keaton back as Batman.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I heard Keaton say he was pushing for a grittier take like Nolan ended up doing. Returns is stylish, but it's a Burton freak show, and Batman just kind of stumbles through the background of his own movie. Keaton and Pfiffer (sp) have great chemistry (they did date once upon a time), so it's a shame we didn't get more of that, and less of the misguided interpretation of the Penguin biting off people's noses and running around in a soiled onesie.

I'm a fan of Forever. The camp level is about as high as I want it, but Brian nailed it when he says it captured that Golden Age Finger feel. Kilmer is more visually suited for Batman, although I think Keaton fits the role better psychologically. I love the camaraderie between Batman and Robin in this one. That scene at the end where they are running in front of the Bat-signal still gives me goosebumps.

I think Batman '89 really captures that very early Golden Age Finger/Kane "mysterioso" feel, while Forever nails that later Golden Age Finger/Robinson/Sprang feel.

Chris

[MIB41]

I heard Keaton say he was pushing for a grittier take like Nolan ended up doing. Returns is stylish, but it's a Burton freak show, and Batman just kind of stumbles through the background of his own movie. Keaton and Pfiffer (sp) have great chemistry (they did date once upon a time), so it's a shame we didn't get more of that, and less of the misguided interpretation of the Penguin biting off people's noses and running around in a soiled onesie.

I'm a fan of Forever. The camp level is about as high as I want it, but Brian nailed it when he says it captured that Golden Age Finger feel. Kilmer is more visually suited for Batman, although I think Keaton fits the role better psychologically. I love the camaraderie between Batman and Robin in this one. That scene at the end where they are running in front of the Bat-signal still gives me goosebumps.

I think Batman '89 really captures that very early Golden Age Finger/Kane "mysterioso" feel, while Forever nails that later Golden Age Finger/Robinson/Sprang feel.

Chris

Well stated. I think Val Kilmer also did a fairly descent job of emceeing the Keaton Batman in the beginning of this. I thought he presented himself very much in the same way Keaton did both in movement and in vocal quality. But as the movie progressed he found his own identity in the film. And you know I think that is something that probably plagued B&R more than anything else. Clooney was ALWAYS Clooney. He never took on a character change when he wore the cowl and I think that was a major mistake. Had Keaton acted like Bruce Wayne in his cowl and Kilmer the same in his, those films would probably be reviled as well. Putting on the cowl should imply a change and with Clooney, it was business as usual. So, in my mind, it really played a big role in how people saw Batman in that movie. The sad part is Clooney actually looked pretty good as a classic Bruce Wayne. They just never found a role for him in the cowl.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Agreed. Clooney actually looked more like Bruce Wayne than any of the others. But he did the whole bobble-head thing as Batman too!

Chris

[huedell]

IMHO Keaton defied odds against his less traditional look by taking his unique look and excellently making his own brand of dark/brooding that comparatively trumps the more sterile Bale (now years later, Affleck's more unique look/styling has aided making a darker Bats special again IMHO).

Batman Returns was Burton/Keaton to the hilt and I'm glad we got it.

But, to me, all the value of Keaton-era Batman films can be summed up by 4 people: Keaton, Burton, Nicholson & DeVito.... and, possibly the visual designer guy.

At the risk of redundancy, I don't find much of any superhero films to live up to story/screenplay expectations I have when comparing to other genres.... so, Keaton-era Batman is no exception to this...

...and THAT leads to me saying that I find Batman Forever and Batman & Robin to be virtually useless, yet more watchable than Bale's Batman Begins debut which has to be THE most overrated superhero film of all-time---it's only saving graces being that it DID deliver on reinventing Batman adequately enough for a new generation--- and birthing the greatest live-action Joker of all-time.

[Nostalgiabuff]

actually, Forever is my fave of the original 4 films. I loved Batman 89, but the suit was too stiff and watching it now, it is very, very dated. Returns had it's moments but the direction they went with Penguin and the giant penguins that raised him kind of made it too silly. B&R was just garbage. I will say though that my kids, when they were little, loved that movie above the others. probably because it was so silly and campy. the only things I would gripe about with forever was the overuse of neon lighting, and having Batman smile. Batman does not smile, Bruce Wayne yes, Batman no

[ODBJBG]

I have no idea why people bash Returns. And I don't see anything Keaton says as revisionist. It was a box office hit (saying otherwise is absurd) and it's a damn fine movie. I don't at all buy that studios had to be begged to do another Batman. The only thing the studios didn't want to do, was another dark Batman movie. So they made fluff instead, but they definitely wanted to do more Batman.

Returns was gritty, Devito was a tour de force and between the sex and violence, they wanted everyone to tone it down. Keaton didn't want to play Adam West, the script for Forever DID suck (it's just a vehicle for Jim Carrey to make funny faces) and the rest is history. Plus I suspect Keaton was afraid he'd once again get stuck playing second fiddle, this time to the Jim Carrey show. Forever isn't total garbage, but it's pretty close and of course, it led to B&R, which promptly killed the franchise.

Once Burton & Keaton were gone, the whole puzzle fell apart.

[Brue]

Forever is reviled because of it's association with B&R and so the Returns installment gets a lift from that shift in people embracing the dark imagery.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...it-sucked.html

So true. I find Forever a better movie than Returns. I thought Returns was decent. I remember most people feeling the same and saying Forever was good. I loved it other than TLJ's portrayal of Two Face.

It was after B&R people started saying they hated Forever. I have always thought there was some guilt by association there. I didn't really consider that Returns got a post mortal lift by B&R, but it makes sense.

People ages 5 to 12 LOVED B&R - my kids included. It had lots of heroes lots of bad guys lots of color lots of action. - The didn't care about plot and dialogue.

[filmation batman fan]

I haven't read the article yet, but I've always wondered if one of the reasons Keaton bailed out of Batman Forever is that it was finally going to introduce Robin, since the Burton films almost, but did not. I think I read a magazine article years ago, that Keaton hated Robin like Christian Bale did. And I do know that Bale vowed to quit if Robin were to be introduced. I think I recalled during the Burton films, had the character been introduced, Keaton suggested not calling him Robin like Ann Hathaway's Selina Kyle was not called Catwoman. However, I enjoyed Chris O Donnell's performance as Robin and I think he and Keaton would have made a great team had the stories been treated like Batman: The Animated Series if Robin was only around on occasion and most of the time away at college. I guess I'll know the answer when I read the article, but what I posted is merely a theory.

[rykerw1701]

I always lump "Forever" "BR," "Superman III," and "Superman IV" all together under the category of "Best left forgotten." In addition to a bad script, Keaton might have also feared typecasting, a much bigger concern then than it is now. Even a good actor like Reeve had a hard type breaking out of the comic book based role that made him very famous, though admittedly Keaton was well known before "Batman."

[kept back]

Am I in the minority of people that walked out of Batman'89 feeling a little deflated? It had such a buildup and I felt like the end result was just really indulgent Burtonism. It really showed through when the comics tried to Burtonize things after the movie and you saw just how little the film really had to do with the comic.

To me, it was all downhill after the first one.