Batman Forever out of the first three films, perhaps had the most organic way that Dick Grayson could be introduced after having been cut out of the first two. Maybe Keaton dragged his feet on the idea and saw there was no way to write him out of this one and that played a part in him deciding not to come back.
shareBased on an old EW article, it sounds like Keaton felt that the Batman character had played second fiddle to the villains in the first two movies, and this looked like it was going to be more of the same. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080921055249/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C302969%2C00.html
shareI also simply believe that Michael Keaton walked away from Batman out of loyalty/allegiance to Tim Burton and simply because he didn't want to do it anymore. I suppose besides the fear of playing second fiddle to the villains again, there's always the worry about being pigeonholed/typecast/tied down as a superhero character. Keep in mind that this was still years before, the MCU was a thing, and it's no big deal for Robert Downey Jr. to play Tony Stark at least ten times on screen. Apparently, Michael Keaton (and I don't know if he feels this way today) had an adverse feeling towards sequels anyway because of the concern that he would have to figure out how to play the character differently (even though it's the same character, it's a different story if that makes sense). Plus, it isn't like he needed the money (even though he did turn down a reported $15 million payday to come back as Bruce Wayne for a third time).
shareEh to me it was always equal and I can't understand why he thinks otherwise. The whole point of a Super hero movie is to build up both sides which Batman 1989 and returns did very well.
You build up the villian to make the audiences care to buy into the story of how/why they're doing what they're doing. All while at the same time giving the hero. In this case Batman the screen time and story build throughout to make the viewer care about how and why the hero is going to stop the villian when it's all said and done.
If that's such a bad concept in Michael Keatons opinion then he should have just stuck to doing comedies or something else.
I always thought it was because Tim Burton didn’t direct.
shareRobin's introduction and inclusion in this film is not bad, and there were worse choices than O'Donnell to play the character. I don't feel like he was necessarily a negative for this movie. But it's weird for me to think of Keaton's Batman specifically with O'Donnell's Robin. They just exist in two different worlds.
This film had a lot of problems but Robin wasn't really wasn't one of them.
I do sometimes imagine how Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne would've played off of Chris O'Donnell's Dick Grayson in an alternate timeline. They did do this mini-series for TNT called The Company in 2007.
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/actors-michael-keaton-and-chris-odonnell-pose-at-the-premiere-of-picture-id75443821
Here they are with Alfred Molina:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/ef/c6/3cefc6c208a1f62f2c947a6a6e6b8b4a.jpg
So this is a too-fer of sorts, Michael Keaton would later play a Spider-Man villain (Vulture) just like Alfred Molina did as Doctor Octopus.
This isn't to say that Val Kilmer didn't do a decent enough of a job with what he was given as a Bruce who is suddenly trust into this mentor/surrogate father/big brother role to Dick.
Keaton's Batman seems like it would feel weird being paired with Robin, at least the cartoony Robin that O'Donnell brought to life. It seems to me that if the Burton films would have a Robin, he would need to be a Burton-esque Robin -- a little darker, a little more serious.
shareMaybe Tim Burton and company also figured that Bruce Wayne already had a sidekick (or a Doctor Watson to his Sherlock Holmes) in Alfred.
shareI've always heard that had Robin been used by Tim Burton, then he would've been a street-wise mechanic with Marlon Wayans in mind. He wouldn't exactly have been Dick Grayson or even Jason Todd, but he would've had an "R" etched into his mechanic uniform. So I would presume that his given name (kind of like John Blake in The Dark Knight Rises), would've actually been Robin. Robin presumably would've come in to assist Bruce Wayne after the Penguin hijacked the Batmobile in Batman Returns.
shareIt that was actually Burton's idea then I'm very glad it never happened. Either have Robin or don't. You shouldn't butcher the character beyond recognition.
Considering that Burton didn't choose to introduce Robin even in the second one, I just don't think he was very interested in him. Probably thought it was too cartoonish and that Batman just doesn't need a sidekick to run around with him.
I wonder if Robin in Tim Burton's Batman universe, could've been made into a police officer like in The Dark Knight Rises. Then, he could technically still be a crime-fighter and you don't have to worry about the notion of Batman knowingly putting a literal child in danger.
Or Dick Grayson could've worked with Vicki Vale and Alexander Knox (assuming of course, that Burton wanted to bring Kim Basinger and Robert Wuhl back) at the Gotham Globe. Dick could've been the Jimmy Olsen to Vicki's Lois Lane to put it in another way.
Eh, I think if you do that you really don't have Robin. You have a regular guy who helps Batman out a little bit here and there. I mean, if you create a character like that and put him in a Batman movie that's fine, but you haven't made a Batman movie with Robin. You've made a Batman movie with a new character that vaguely resembles Robin.
shareSpeaking of Marlon Wayans...:
https://screenrant.com/batman-89-robin-revealed-marlon-wayans-joe-quinones/
Batman '89 artist Joe Quinones has released the first look at Marlon Wayans' Robin, who has a very different looking costume than fans might expect.share
Yeah, no, hard pass.
shareI don't see Keaton's Batman with a Robin. I really hope he doesn't get one in the Flash movie.
shareRobin (as portrayed in the comics) is a child - The thought of a "hero" using a child in various situations which could end in that child's injury or even death is very troublesome. DC Comics has long made light of this (the death of Jason Todd being a notable exception to this) and while this is possible in a comic book, it's far more difficult in a live action film.share
The homoerotic nature of the Robin character - DC Comics has run into several instances where the fact that a single man adopts and then partners with a young orphaned boy has caused controversy. The introduction of various characters (Catwoman, Kathy Kane,Poison Ivy,etc) is likely due to questions being raised about the nature of the relationship. In a film (especially one set in present day) this would become more apparent, both to audiences and to critics.
The character detracts from the protagonist - Introducing a Robin character means that the lead character's role has to be reduced. Few actors are willing to share the lead with another actor and it would difficult to write a screenplay in which a Robin character would be both necessary and not reduce the role of the Batman.
Credibility issues - It is difficult to imagine an adult male vigilante being allowed to roam the streets assaulting criminal suspects. It would be next to impossible to imagine a child or an adolescent doing the same or similar. Even if you remove the ludicrous athletic abilities portrayed in the comic books (swinging above buildings, fighting supervillians, etc) it is inconceivable that a minor would be able to handle these various requirements. This would also be difficult to portray on film.