I think you're deifying him a bit, in Batman 89 it's implied that he's been Batman for a short time and there were few sightings of him. From 1989 to 2013 (the year the flash takes place) there are 24 years apart, Batman Keaton could easily have made those suits in that time after 1992. I repeat, it's 24 years, plenty of time for him to have created and used those suits.View attachment 978
1. 1940s Batsuit
2. 1970s Batsuit
3. "Batman" Batsuit
4. "Batman Returns" Batsuit
5. Knightfall Batsuit (?)
6. Ice Batsuit (?)
7. "The Flash Batsuit
Maybe Keaton's Batman was around longer than he was implied to be, since it appears to be in order of chronology. I guess he probably just shot dead all the criminals for a while so there was no sightings of him, haha.
I think he is just joking, is not implying that Batman literally shot dead all of his first foes.I think you're deifying him a bit, in Batman 89 it's implied that he's been Batman for a short time and there were few sightings of him. From 1989 to 2013 (the year the flash takes place) there are 24 years apart, Batman Keaton could easily have made those suits in that time after 1992. I repeat, it's 24 years, plenty of time for him to have created and used those suits.
Por cierto hablas español?I think you're deifying him a bit, in Batman 89 it's implied that he's been Batman for a short time and there were few sightings of him. From 1989 to 2013 (the year the flash takes place) there are 24 years apart, Batman Keaton could easily have made those suits in that time after 1992. I repeat, it's 24 years, plenty of time for him to have created and used those suits.
Obvio hablo español BroPor cierto hablas español?
I get that, but look at the suit timeline. The first suit has guns, like the original First Appearance Batman. I'm saying that he had few sightings because maybe he was under the radar - also just freaking shooting his enemies like he did in '39 comics.I think you're deifying him a bit, in Batman 89 it's implied that he's been Batman for a short time and there were few sightings of him. From 1989 to 2013 (the year the flash takes place) there are 24 years apart, Batman Keaton could easily have made those suits in that time after 1992. I repeat, it's 24 years, plenty of time for him to have created and used those suits.
NoCouldn't he have used the first two suits a few months before? Why must it be years? Batman 89 starts in October 1989, Bruce could easily have used the first suit from January to April, the second from May to August and the one in the film from September , You're stretching it out to stretch, Keaton started in 1989Lo entiendo, pero mira la línea de tiempo del traje. El primer traje tiene armas, como el primer Batman original. Estoy diciendo que tuvo pocos avistamientos porque tal vez estaba bajo el radar, también disparando a sus enemigos como lo hizo en los cómics del 39.
Entonces, su traje progresó básicamente con el tiempo. Es un retcon implícito en estos trajes.
Traje de 1987 - 1939 (tiene armas)
1988 - Traje azul
1989 - Traje de Batman
1992 - Traje de Batman regresa
1994 - Traje Knightfall (?)
???? - ???? traje
2013 - El traje de Flash
It sounds more reasonable.Tal vez. Parece extraño que hiciera tres trajes en tan poco tiempo. Creo que un año (12 meses) máximo por lo menos, entonces.
Do you mean "1995 - Batman Forever", right?Earth-97
1995 - Batman
1997 - Batman & Robin
2000 - Catwoman 80th Anniversary, "Now You See Me" (Comic)
I am actually fine with that, though I would say that Superman II would be set the same year as the first Superman, as you know originally, they were intended to be one story, one right after the other. Also, wouldn't prop dates for Superman III place it in 1983?I have reasonings for my placements if you read them, supported by prop dates. Superman IV is not 1987 because the film places itself in 1985. It's the 15 year reunion from the class of 1965 in Superman III, so 1980. Using that, we can assume Clark is 18 in 1965.