MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > What exactly was so bad about the script...

What exactly was so bad about the script that Michael Keaton didn't want to do it?

posted 7 years ago by TMC-4 (20489)
9 replies | jump to latest

Michael Keaton has recently gone on record that the reason why he didn't make what would become Batman Forever because the script simply put "sucked". But what exactly was in the script that he didn't like? I heard that Keaton when he was making Batman Returns would demand that chunks of dialogue from him while in the Batsuit were exercised. I think according to Keaton's internal logic, Bruce Wayne wouldn't feel comfortable (perhaps because it in part would dilute the intimidation and mystery factor) doing a lot of monologuing or speechifying while as Batman.

Was the script that Michael Keaton read the same script (by Lee and Janet Scott Batchler and Akiva Goldsman) the same one that was in the finished product? I always assumed that he was reluctant of doing another Batman movie anyway out of fear of typecasting, he was likely going to be pushed into the foreground again in favor of the villains, and because more significantly, Tim Burton wasn't going to direct again.

http://www.imsdb.com/Movie%20Scripts/Batman%20Forever%20Script.html

[–] MickyMac (3254) 7 years ago

Batman in Forever wasn't exactly lighthearted or Superfriends like B&R but more like traditional Batman. Keaton did say he would only play Batman again if Tim Burton does it. Could be wanted to stay the same old solo Batman with no Robin and Batman being the guy in the background so to speak.

[–] DceuFanticArmy (1111) 7 years ago

wow man it would be horrible to see batman without robin in batman forever robin is the backbone of batman

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 6 years ago

Bane didn't break Robin, though...

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

who cares what he says really, an absolute hasbeen that owes everything to Batman.

[–] filmschooldegree (350) 7 years ago

Are you being facetious?

[–] PaladinNJ (21772) 7 years ago

Michael Keaton was upstaged in both the previous films by the EXTREMELY popular actors playing the villains. When they cast Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey he realized it would happen again and enough was enough.

[–] TMC-4 (20489) 6 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/9h6c6s/is_michael_keaton_the_best_batman_in_film/e69mjkz/

Fun Fact : Michael Keaton turned down 15 Million dollars to reprise the role in Batman 3.

His reason primarily was the script and there was a deeply interesting story about that. When Batman came out WB absolutely killed it on Bat Merch. They made so much money that they decided to "reign in" the merchandise for the sequel specifically to not over saturate the market. They decided to primarily focus on action figures and toys from McDonalds for the sequel. Now we have children playing with Batman Returns toys before the movie came out, they were all so excited. When the movie came out millions of parents took their children to see the new Batman and they were absolutely horrified. With in the first fifteen minutes of the film, a baby is born with a deformity, locked in a cage and then drowned. Then we met the dirty sex criminal Devito who actively talked about wanting to fuck any female he met for the entire runtime. This movie was clearly not made with children in mind and the fact that it was marketed for children really ticked people off. So the parents started writing letters to McDonalds and Warner Brothers absolutely pissed off about what they mislead them over the content of the film. When Warner decided to make Batman 3 they contacted their McDonalds over potential merchandising again and McDonalds refused. They demanded to read the script and wanted control over the content. Since Warner Brothers needed McDonalds they let them do it, which is what led to the "family friendly" Batman Forever which was built specifically to sell toys to children.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I expect this is the real reason. It's Jim Carrey's or The Riddler's film, Batman gets very little screen time and doesn't do much of interest.

I'm glad things turned out the way they did. I love the campy insanity of "Batman Forever" just as it is, and I love Jim Carrey's scenery-devouring performance! Keaton's subtle insanity just wouldn't have worked in the same film, better to have a dull Batman who didn't take much attention away from the real star.

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Didn't want to work with a director who's flamboyant and mincing.