I don't see these films be talked about or shown anywhwere, and it's a shame because they are better than anything nolan or snyder did.
shareNolantards want us to forget anything which isn't from Nolan.
The movie is also 27 years old and tarnished by how campy #3 & #4 were.
It's NOT a quadrilogy. "Forever" and "& Robin" are their own universe in spite of a couple of returning actors.
Batman '89 stills seems to get a lot of respect. Not as much as it deserves, of course (and it's sometimes derided by hipster hacks like Kevin Smith).
Originality needs a reboot.
It IS a quadrilogy, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin take place in the same universe Batman does.
shareIt's arguable. I don't think Burton necessarily considers Batman Forever or B&R to be a continuation of his universe, especially seeing as a new actor takes over from Michael Keaton in those subsequent films.
shareThe Joel Schumacher movies are to me, a soft reboot of the Batman series following Tim Burton's ones. In other words, they could take place in the same continuity (in broad strokes), but for all intents and purposes, they're otherwise, their own thing.
shareI think Casino Royale is probably the only movie to have returning actors and characters but be set in its own continuity rather than be a sequel.
sharePaul Reubens just played the Penguin's father once more and Billy Dee Williams is about to reprise his role as Harvey Dent. They're not talked about as much because they're 20 to 30 years old, but tribute is still being paid, they're still relevant to pop culture, despite what fanboys on message boards would have you believe.
share