Once Keaton left the series took a different direction with no saving grace, be like Christopher Reeve quitting Superman after two films. Changing Batman actors one film after another so soon would drive people mad like"Can't you just keep one actor"
shareThe constant change of Bat actors so soon would've contributed to B&R under performing.
shareB&R actually made a lot of money. It was just a bad movie that few people like. I don't think changing actors had anything to do with the franchise dying.
shareActually it made lower than the first three films.
shareIt would be naive to not suggest that the constant changing of actors playing Bruce Wayne hurt. We already had to adjust to the drastic change from Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer and then after just one movie, Batman's actor is changed again. And it isn't like they pulled a Diamonds Are Forever and bring Michael Keaton back after his replacement failed to the task. I never understood why the 1989-97 Batman movies couldn't have a stronger sense of continuity? They all felt like they were alien to one another.
shareYou might as well blame Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer for that. Keaton was unhappy that Tim Burton wasn't going to be allowed to direct a third time after all of the controversy that he caused with Batman Returns. He also wasn't trust-worthy of what Joel Schumacher was going to do with the franchise. Keaton didn't think that the series needed to go "lighter" and in his words, the script sucked.
Val Kilmer was by most accounts, an asshole on the Batman Forever set. He was antagonistic towards the crew and he refused to speak to Joel Schumacher after Schumacher called him out on his behavior. And then decides to do this movie called The Saint (or it may have been The Island of Dr. Moreau) without telling anybody (keep in mind that Kilmer was under contract to do at least one more Batman movie) ahead of time. So Warner Bros. had no choice but to fire him.
The changing lead actors was the least damaging thing about the Joel Schumacher films!
It was bad enough losing Keaton and Burton, after just two movies. But once fans got to grips with the new direction and redesigns in Batman Forever, they should of tried harder to keep Kilmer on board, three different Batmans in a row in such a short period of time was too much.
It must have at least contributed to B&R underperforming having three different Batman actors in a short period of time. Since B&R was rushed a year ahead of schedule no real effort was made to keep Kilmer on and make sure everyone was appropriately cast.
shareI just don't think that Joel Schumacher wanted to deal with Val Kilmer anymore (who anybody else who was out to spread negativity on set) after all of the trouble that Kilmer caused on the set of Forever. And it was naturally, a harbinger for things to come as Kilmer's behavior on the set of The Island of Dr. Moreau made Kilmer's behavior on the set of a Forever make him look like a choir boy.
share#1 reason for all of the first four Batman movies sucking: Stupid writing.
2nd: Silly directing.
3rd: Absurd acting (with a pass given to the only thing good about B1, Jack)
Only BB and TDK were good (and yet still plagued with silly shit). The rest are sour.
Yes. Just like changing the main actor from Tobey Maguire to Andrew Garfield hurt the Sony's Spider-Man franchise a lot.
Also, Hulk. That was just messy.
I don't know if the Spider-Man analogy is a fair argument. Batman & Robin is ostensibly supposed to be in the same universe/continuity as Batman Forever (with George Clooney playing "The Other Darrin" at the expense of Val Kilmer) and by extension, the Tim Burton movies. It's quite obvious that Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man come from to decidedly separate worlds.
shareYeah, I didn't mean that as an analogy. Just pointing out that changing the main actor would considerably hurt a franchise regardless.
Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is terribly broken not only because of the recasting, but the supposedly new reboot looked the same, with similar costumes, virtually the same origin story and direction, even the same villain, just with different actors.
Which is amusingly the other way around of what's happened to Burton's Batman franchise. That one has a sequel that supposedly in the same universe and act as a continuation but looked totally different, felt different with different actors and direction.
Both approach didn't work.
Worth noting that Michael Keaton had a strong presence in costume that Kilmer and Clooney don't come close to and I think he was pretty important making 89 and Returns the way they are.
shareThis movie was a big deal when it came out. Batman Returns was lackluster and it killed the franchise. People like it now. But that wasn't the case back then.
Batman forever revitalized the character. Jim Carey was HUGE at that time. Tommy Lee Jones was coming off the fame of The Fugitive. Chris O'donnell was a staple actor in movies like the Three Musketeers. The Animated series kept fans interested.
It's not the best movie, but it brought batman back. Fans wanted Keaton. Kilmer did well enough for us to miss him with Batman and Robin. He made the right choice to go with the Saint.