DBWI: Michael Keaton Doesn't Return for Batman Forever

Amadeus

After Tim Burton was fired from Batman III, Michael Keaton also considered leaving the project. But despite his misgivings about Schumacher's new direction for the franchise, Keaton ultimately agreed to return as Batman on the condition that he have input on the film's story and character development. For his third and final outing as the Caped Crusader, Keaton earned a salary of $15 million in addition to a large sum of profits from Batman merchandise.

But what if Keaton had declined to return for "Batman Forever"? How would this have changed the film, and ultimately the Batman franchise? Who might've replaced Keaton?
 
jack_donaghy_is_the_shado

jack_donaghy_is_the_shado

Maybe kurt Russell gets the role before his turn in Superman lives?

downloadfile.jpg
 

Amadeus

jack_donaghy_is_the_shado said:
Maybe kurt Russell gets the role before his turn in Superman lives?

View attachment 454416
Click to expand...

After Keaton quit, Warner Bros decided against continuing the Burton-Schumacher franchise and instead revamped the character in Superman Lives! Russell looked more like the comic book variation of Bruce Wayne than Keaton did, but IMO he wasn't able to capture essence of Batman quite as well as Keaton. Still, he did his best to bring his own spin on the character.
 
Last edited:
jack_donaghy_is_the_shado

jack_donaghy_is_the_shado

Amadeus said:
It's pretty impressive that Burton revamped two classic DC characters, Batman and Superman. IIRC, Burton's original choice for Superman was Nic Cage. However after a disastrous screen test, the studio got Burton to replace him in exchange for story credit. I love Christopher Reeve, but I'll go out on a limb here and say that Russell is my favorite live action Superman to date.
Click to expand...

OOC: Sorry I meant to say Russell was cast as Batman in Superman Lives.
 

Amadeus

Hulkster'01 said:
I heard a rumor that the guy who played Jim Morrison was considered to be Batman until Keaton signed back on.
Click to expand...

Val Kilmer? Maybe that would've worked. Had Kilmer starred in Batman Forever instead of Keaton, might WB have decided to continue the franchise past 1995? I could see Kilmer doing at least one more movie if Batman Forever is a hit.
 

thekingsguard

Val Kilmer would have been interesting as Batman - he was coming off the heels of his turn as Doc Holliday in Tombstone.

"What's the matter Two-Face? You look like someone just... walked over your grave!"
 

Amadeus

thekingsguard said:
Val Kilmer would have been interesting as Batman - he was coming off the heels of his turn as Doc Holliday in Tombstone.

"What's the matter Two-Face? You look like someone just... walked over your grave!"
Click to expand...

That would be a change from the serious tone that Keaton wanted to keep in the third movie. Ultimately, Keaton got WB and Schumacher to keep the movie serious while lightening it from Batman Returns. Without Keaton, Batman Forever might have been much more light in tone. Maybe even campy like the Adam West show. One of Schumacher's early ideas was to put nipples on the Batsuit, which Keaton quickly ruled out.
 
Icedaemon

Icedaemon

Batman returns was weaker than the first movie, clearly. However, Billy Dee Williams' Two Face was a superb antagonist. As I understand it, Keaton and Williams basically did a lot of the writing or at least storyboarding themselves, with Schumacher mostly concerned with art direction and only butting in to make the scenes lighter and campier on occasion. Were they not chasing a PG rating it would have been far better of course - perhaps this would also have led to an interesting and cerebral take on the Riddler rather than him essentially being a discount Joker.
 

Amadeus

Icedaemon said:
Batman returns was weaker than the first movie, clearly. However, Billy Dee Williams' Two Face was a superb antagonist. As I understand it, Keaton and Williams basically did a lot of the writing or at least storyboarding themselves, with Schumacher mostly concerned with art direction and only butting in to make the scenes lighter and campier on occasion. Were they not chasing a PG rating it would have been far better of course - perhaps this would also have led to an interesting and cerebral take on the Riddler rather than him essentially being a discount Joker.
Click to expand...

Robin Williams' performance as the Riddler is far from the best of his career. I think reports of Keaton and Billy Dee Williams doing the storyboarding themselves are exaggerated, but there was definitely conflict between Schumacher and the original Batman actors.
 

CountDVB

Icedaemon said:
Robin Williams can play many roles, but never a villain who can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, he played a surprisingly frightening villain on some crime show in his later years if I believe.

Micheal Keaton did help cemeent a pretty good Batman trilogy, but it did mean that the next Batman trilogy we got in the future (that would set up the DC cinematic universe) was a balance of the light and dark. Had Batman Forever been more campy, I reckon we'd get a darker trilogy. Heck, Christopher Nolan ntoed he wanted to make a superhero film series, but noted that an entire cinematic universe was too much for him. It's why he did his own thing outside of Marvel and DC. However, he decided to use pulp heroes for it I think
 

Amadeus

CountDVB said:
Speak for yourself, he played a surprisingly frightening villain on some crime show in his later years if I believe.

Micheal Keaton did help cemeent a pretty good Batman trilogy, but it did mean that the next Batman trilogy we got in the future (that would set up the DC cinematic universe) was a balance of the light and dark. Had Batman Forever been more campy, I reckon we'd get a darker trilogy. Heck, Christopher Nolan ntoed he wanted to make a superhero film series, but noted that an entire cinematic universe was too much for him. It's why he did his own thing outside of Marvel and DC. However, he decided to use pulp heroes for it I think
Click to expand...

Without the DC Universe in the 2000, we might never have gotten the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel created their universe when it did in order to compete with DC.

I think the Kurt Russell Batman trilogy wasn't bad. Russell did a good job of playing an older, more seasoned Bruce Wayne. But by the time of his third movie in 2007 you could tell he was getting way too old for the part.
 

CountDVB

Amadeus said:
Without the DC Universe in the 2000, we might never have gotten the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel created their universe when it did in order to compete with DC.

I think the Kurt Russell Batman trilogy wasn't bad. Russell did a good job of playing an older, more seasoned Bruce Wayne. But by the time of his third movie in 2007 you could tell he was getting way too old for the part.
Click to expand...

Kurt Russel was a surprise pick to say the least! We got a lot of good and interesting films from there. Denzel Washington as the Martian Manhunter was really awesome!

As for his stinct as a villain, check out his episode in Law and Order: Special Victims Unit back in 2008.

OOC: Yes, that was a real thing and he was apparently pretty damn spooky. Also, Robin Willians would've made an awesome Hugo Strange
 

Amadeus

CountDVB said:
Kurt Russel was a surprise pick to say the least! We got a lot of good and interesting films from there. Denzel Washington as the Martian Manhunter was really awesome!

As for his stinct as a villain, check out his episode in Law and Order: Special Victims Unit back in 2008.

OOC: Yes, that was a real thing and he was apparently pretty damn spooky. Also, Robin Willians would've made an awesome Hugo Strange
Click to expand...

Yeah, Williams was great on Law and Order. Back to the DC film franchise, Sandra Bullock really stood out in her performances as Wonder Woman, beginning in 2000's Wonder Woman and 2003's Justice League.

What do people think about Nicholas Cage as Superman in Tim Burton's Superman Lives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top