Talk: Burtonverse

Name

As a fan of Burton, I sympathize with Warner Brothers taking away from him creative powers for the last 2 movies. I suggest that "Burtonverse" be called something else. He had nothing to do with Forever and Robin and it shows. Warner Brothers are the ones who ruined this adaptation of Batman, requiring the re-boot.

Continuity 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We could always do what they do on the MDP - use "Earth-releasedateoffilm" instead.

Roygbiv666 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go with (Batman 1989 Movie). DrJohnnyDiablo (talk) 19:47, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

But what about characters like Alfred Pennyworth and James Gordon, who are probably the only ones that remained consistent with the same actors throughout the Burton-directed movies and the Schumacher-directed movies? (Vic George (talk) 19:56, February 29, 2016 (UTC))

@DrJohnnyDiablo - The same statements I made over at Nolanverse hold here as well.

And to simplify things, I think I'll post this over on the Forums..

- Byfield (talk) 23:02, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Catwoman

The Catwoman movie is also part of this universe. In the movie Halle Berry's Catwoman investigates the history of the powers she has inherited, checking for previous women empowered as she has been. Among the many references shown is a picture of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Lokiofmidgaard 11:39, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

That may just be a mythology gag. It's not generally reckoned to be in continuity. Is there a creator statement on the matter? -- Tupka²¹⁷ 11:45, June 13, 2010 (UTC)#

"not generally reckoned to be in continuity" - by whom? The creators of the movie included her picture, a nod to the Batman version. It seems the burden of evidence that this isn't part of the Burtonverse is on those who claim otherwise - they need to find a creator statement saying it is just a "mythology gag." If the joking reference to Superman is counted as evidence that he exists in the Burtonverse, rather than just a "mythology gag" then how come an actual picture of Pfeiffer's Catwoman doesn't get the same value? Catwoman's a bad movie, so I can understand why some people might not want to put it in the same universe as Burton's Batman, but given it's got to share that universe with Batman and Robin, quality isn't a deciding factor. Lokiofmidgaard 11:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

And reverting the Catwoman movie page "until discussion is resolved with some more evidence" - before you go reverting, where's your evidence? What evidence is there that Catwoman cannot fit into the continuity of the Burtonverse Batman movies? The evidence for it being part of them is clear - Patience's origin is very similar to Selina Byle in Batman Returns, brought back to life by cats after being murdered. She subsequently researches cases like her own to find previous women empowered by Bast, and one of the cases she finds is a picture of Selina Kyle as Catwoman. So the evidence for is there - the burden is on proving otherwise. Lokiofmidgaard 12:00, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Superman is a mythology gag too. But it's just Superman - not, say, the Donnerverse Superman and by extension the entire Donnerverse.

There's one picture of Michelle Pfeiffer. The only thing that shows, is that in the universe of the Catwoman movie, a woman resembling Michelle Pfeiffer was once gifted with the cat magic. It doesn't mean it's the Burtonverse Selina Kyle, and even less that the entire Burtonverse shares continuity with the movie.

In a debate, both sides have and will always have a burden of evidence. But it's never an equal burden: you make the positive claim ("It is") which is always greater than the negative. "Negative proof" which you ask me to give, does not exist. In fact, asking me to do so is a logical fallacy.

I hide behind the null-hypothesis. So technically, I don't have to prove anything. I just have to poke holes in your reasoning. Your first point, "there's a picture, therefore it shares the same universe" is shaky and relies completely on assumption. Your second, "the origin story is similar, and notably different from the comics", does also not mean "Earth-Catwoman" and "Burtonverse" are the same per se. -- Tupka²¹⁷ 12:17, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed the reference to Superman indicated a specific Superman. But it nevertheless warranted someone adding a note saying Superman appears to exist in the Burtonverse. You state that the only thing the picture proves is that "a woman resembling Michelle Pfeiffer was once gifted with the cat magic." It's not just a picture of a woman resembling her - it is her. The intent seems clear enough, especially as the Catwoman movie was originally planned as a spin-off from Batman Returns. "In a debate, both sides have and will always have a burden of evidence." - agreed. So why haven't you provided ANY? ""Negative proof" which you ask me to give, does not exist." - it can exist. In fact, "proof by contradiction" is one of the strongest tenets of science. A statement by the creators saying "we included a picture of Pfeiffer's Catwoman, but that's just a joke" would be such proof. Or identifying clashing points of continuity that prevent the movies sharing a single continuum would likewise be negative proof - "these two points, one from either movie, contradict one another, that contradiction thus being proof against the hypothesis that they share a reality." You're inability to provide such negative proof is the problem. You demand evidence against your hypothesis that the realities are not the same one, then, when evidence is provided, insist you need more evidence, yet likewise insist there is no need to for you to back up your hypothesis with any - "I don't have to prove anything." You claim my evidence is shaky, while having nothing to back up your side of the debate - well, even if it was shaky (and I don't think it is as shaky as you'd like to claim), shaky evidence in favour of shared reality beats no evidence at all against it. Lokiofmidgaard 12:42, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

My statement that negative proof doesn't exist was carelessly worded. Negative evidence does exist, however, you asking me to provide it is a fallacy. Simply because your point is not refuted, doesn't make you right.

My claim is not a negative one, it is a neutral one. It could very well be that the movie shares the continuity. Unless solid evidence is provided, it is not the case, however. That's why I don't have to provide any evidence of my own.

You haven't provided any solid evidence. You've made several valid observations - shared origin, same appearance, originally meant as a spin-off, but this is not solid evidence for your claim, only circumstantial. I looked for interviews with one of the thirty-odd writers to see if they had anything on the matter, but couldn't find anything.

I think it's better if we let other people chime in one this first, maybe they know more, or have other ideas. -- Tupka²¹⁷ 13:04, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the picture sets up a prima facie case that the movie belongs in that continuity and shifts the burden of proof to those trying to exclude it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

Things aren't quite so simple. If we accept the photo as proof, that the movie takes place in the Burtonverse, then we'd likely also have to consider the appearance of the first Burtonverse Batmobile, in "Don't Thug on Superman's Cape", as evidence that Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman is also set in the Burtonverse. The truth is that we don't have proof of either. What we've got is one photo and one re-used prop car. What we'd need is some form of official confirmation from someone at either DC or Warner Brothers.KylieMfever (talk) 14:00, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

Superman

Yeah, not much, but in Batman and Robin, George Clooney's Batman clearly refers to Superman, "This is why Superman works alone". Also, in Batman Forever, there is a passing reference to the city of Metropolis. In addition to that, Tim Burton was set to direct the now canceled Superman Lives and there are multiple pieces of concept art over the Internet. So, should we add a "Superman (Burtonverse)" page? Superman01 17:18, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Logo replacement

I would like to upload a replacement of John Alvin's 89 logo, the one we currently have was uploaded in 2007 which was a long time ago now, but I'm pretty sue even back then you could've found a better scan than that. I don't think anyone would object to this?--Phantom Stranger (talk) 13:47, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

Burtonverse and Schumacherverse are now separate continuities

I guess it is official by now. DC Comics and Warner do no longer consider the Schumacher movies Batman Forever / Batman and Robin canon to the Burtonverse even though they were originally produced as sequels to Burton's movies.

With Sam Hamm returning to write the comic series Batman '89 and Michael Keaton reprising his role as the Burtonverse Batman in the upcoming DCEU movie The Flash, it is becoming increasingly obvious that DC and WB are retroactively establishing that Schumacher's movies took place in an alternate reality after all. It is confirmed that the Batman '89 comics will introduce new Burtonverse origins for Robin and Two-Face (based on Marlon Wayans and Billy Dee Williams), ignoring the versions portrayed by O'Donnell and Jones. A Burtonverse version of Barbara Gordon will also appear.

The Flash 2022 has been confirmed to explore the DC Multiverse on film and will not only bring back Michael Keaton's Batman, but also mark the return of the Burtonverse Batcave, Batsuit, Wayne Manor and Batmobile as several set photos recently revealed.

Generally speaking, the newest installment in a franchise dictates what is to be considered canon. The comic series set to be released next month and eventually the 2022 Flash movie will officially confirm that the Schumacherverse was a different continuity all along, so pages like Harvey Dent (Burtonverse) should be split (section about Tommy Lee's version goes to Harvey Dent (Schumacherverse)) and articles like Pamela Isley (Burtonverse) should be moved (to Pamela Isley (Schumacherverse) in this case). We should treat the Schumacher movies like Superman Returns, which was originally also intended as a sequel to the Donnerverse but is not considered part of it on this wiki for obvious reasons. Schumacher's vision for Batman was always very different from Burton's and should be treated as an alternate reality as well. --The Gotham Knight (talk) 15:10, July 25, 2021 (UTC)

I support this idea. In the long run, it might be easier than trying to reconcile the conflicting Robins and other alternate versions appearing in Batman '89 and anywhere else these characters might pop up. DrJohnnyDiablo (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Batman Anthology is still one thing. It's bad enough we called that thing "Burtonverse", but no, please no "Schumacherverse" pages. I reverted the rewrite because it simply makes Schumacher an unperson, while only acknowledging the movies in a note. They would still have to be mentioned in the intro because the average reader does not care about continuity nerds. And can we wait one hot second before tagging all the pages for a move?

Also, we do not cite a rumor for a movie that isn't out yet, and a comic that isn't even properly out yet. And none of those cited sources are an official statement from DC or WB. Merely that the writer doesn't use them. Let's cool our jets.

There is a tangible difference between Superman Returns and '89. If you cite that as an example, your argument would have to be that the Batman '89 movie gets a new universe designation. But if you want to suggest we merge the characters, I'm not against that, though it needs a better universe name. Or wait for Superman '78 to come out and muck things up more.

I don't like either universe name. "Schumacherverse" is just a "The Batman Anthology" is still the best way to describe them, and within that, multiple versions of a character can exist. It's a Continuity Family. It's not the first time we've done that. --Tupka217 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it would make Schumacher an "unperson" and I have huge respect for the late Mr. Schumacher, he directed some really great movies. And I certainly don't want to erase his Batman films from memories, they should just be acknowledged as a different vision and its own reality in my opinion.

You're right, we should at least wait until the release of the Batman '89 comic series. The cited source about the comic series was an official press release from DC Comics that confirms it is "continuing the twisted adventures of DC's Dark Knight from Tim Burton's seminal classic Batman movies" and will introduce new versions of Robin and Two-Face. The fact that Billy Dee Williams' Harvey Dent will be transformed into Two-Face as shown on the cover for issue 2 of Batman '89 proves that DC Comics does not consider Tommy Lee's Two-Face (and therefore the Schumacher movies) canon to the "Burtonverse". That's about as official as it's going to get and I think we should act accordingly once the comic is published later this year.

It was not my intention to suggest that we should merge Superman Returns and the Donnerverse. I was just using it as an example for a movie that was originally produced as a sequel but is not considered part of the prior film universe on this wiki because the film disregards a lot of the earlier continuity and tone. Similar to Arrowverse: Earth-167 and Smallville (TV Series).

I like the names "Burtonverse" and "Schumacherverse". "Burtonverse" may not be an official designation, but it makes things a lot easier than calling the universe "Batman (1989 Movie)". If we are going to rename the "Burtonverse" and call it "Batman '89", then we should also move Batman (1966 TV Series) to Batman '66. --The Gotham Knight (talk) 23:23, July 25, 2021 (UTC)

The way the page was rewritten, it removed any reference to the last two films, without an explanation until the notes section. That is not reader friendly. At all.

Also, in line with the DCEU, splitting the pages up is a hard veto from me for SEO reasons. Sections on Schumacher and Batman '89 may need to get a continuity note like the Snyder Cut. We have this everywhere, and reality designations are really more like continuity families than hard definition of canon. DC has always been a mess, DC will always stay a mess, when it comes to continuity.

I still favor moving all of this to (Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology) just to avoid the illusion of creative ownership. Same for (The Dark Knight Trilogy) and something for the Donnerverse, which should be the Salkindverse more than the Donnerverse. (Superman Movies) or something. --Tupka217 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not rewrite the page and agree that all references to the last two movies shouldn't have been removed. That's why I added the provisional paragraph in the notes section once I saw that the page had already been altered.

A continuity note works for the Snyder Cut because it's an alternate telling of the same story. But the Batman '89 comic series will officially declare everything that happened after Batman Returns non-canon and will provide an entirely new storyline.

There are multiple examples for realities that were split on this wiki even though they belong to the same "continuity families":

• Donnerverse, Superman Returns (Movie) and Arrowverse: Earth-96
• Smallville (TV Series) and Arrowverse: Earth-167
• Burtonverse and Arrowverse: Earth-89
• Birds of Prey (TV Series) and Arrowverse: Earth-203
• Earth-19 and Batman: Gotham by Gaslight (Movie)

So why shouldn't we do the same to the Batman Anthology?

I think it would be great to start a poll to decide if we should use a continuity note or split the pages once the comic drops. That way everybody on this wiki can have a say in this. I'm open to both options but I think that splitting the pages would make everything a lot easier, streamlined and less confusing for readers. --The Gotham Knight (talk) 18:27, July 26, 2021 (UTC)

None of those are the same. If you want a counterexample: Red Sun vs Earth-30. Or Earth-One --> New Earth.

The Batman '89 series will not "declare everything non-canon". It will simply split off from the timeline, pretending, for the sake of the story, that it doesn't exist. A what if, if you will. Both versions are equally valid. It's still the same family. DCAU comics aren't canon with the series, but the Superman from Batman Adventures #25 doesn't get a different page.

This may make me sound like a dick, but... I'm putting my foot down regarding the SEO aspect. Our Core Web Vitals are bad enough as it is. The last thing we need is even more decentralized content. --Tupka217 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

They basically are the same. Though I will agree that we should hold off on redesignations until DC officially declares the separation of the Burtonverse and Schumacherverse into Earth 89 and Earth 97. Also, should Arrowverse: Earth-97 be its own page? Hayden Thomas Peterman (talk)

Technically, Arrowverse: Earth-97 should be its own page with limited content, similar to Arrowverse: Earth-89, and a link to https://twitter.com/SamuelHamm/status/1422769754486415362 which introduced the concept of Earth-97. Burtonverse vs Schumacherverse is whole different matter. --Cmanigold 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)