Kurt Russell Was On A Shortlist For One Of The Worst-Reviewed Batman Movies

In July of 1994, the Los Angeles Times claimed that it was "still a riddle why Keaton didn't stay" as the star of the Batman movies. 30 years later, however, that riddle has been well and truly solved. Along with director Tim Burton, Keaton revolutionized the comic book film with 1989's "Batman," which was not only a box office smash, but alongside Richard Donner's celebrated "Superman" from 1978, wrote the blueprint for how to adapt superhero stories for the big screen. Keaton himself had overcome considerable backlash following his casting as the Dark Knight, proving wrong legions of fans who claimed the five-foot nine-inch actor, then known for his comedic work, was too diminutive a choice for the lead role.

Then came 1992's "Batman Returns," which saw Burton craft an expressionist nightmare fairytale unimpeded by studio interference. Unfortunately, not everyone was a fan. Not only were parents and kids put off by the dark sensibility on display in "Returns," McDonalds was particularly dismayed at having to sell Happy Meal toys based on the Burtonian freaks showcased in the film.

So, when Burton came into the Warner Bros. offices to chat about the third installment in the franchise, he was met with a frosty response. The director recalled pitching several ideas before he had a sudden realization: "You don't want me to make another one, do you?" WB did not, in fact, want Burton to make another one, but it was seemingly open to having Keaton stay on for whatever the threequel turned out to be. Lamentably for the studio, Keaton did not feel the same. The actor told Marc Maron on the WTF podcast, "Tim was out, this was a new director, and I could see that was going south." Evidently, "Batman Forever" director Joel Schumacher did not share Keaton's ideas about where the franchise should go, and the actor departed.

In Keaton's wake, Schumacher and the studio considered several replacements, one of whom was (it seems) the great Kurt Russell.

After Michael Keaton walked away from Batman, Warner Bros. and Joel Schumacher had to find their new star. Ultimately, they would cast a younger actor than Keaton in the form of Val Kilmer, who was actually inside a batcave when he landed the role. But it would take some time to find this new Batman. During the search, several big names were either bandied about, attached, or in discussions to star, including Johnny Depp, Ethan Hawke, Billy Baldwin, and as the Los Angeles Times noted, Kurt Russell.

At the time, Russell had just starred as Wyatt Earp, alongside Kilmer as Doc Holliday, in the eminently quotable Western "Tombstone." According to the LA Times, it was Kilmer who really caught Schumacher's attention, however, particularly for his portrayal of Holliday. The director told the outlet, "Val was my first and only choice (after Keaton). People always assumed Michael was doing the movie but he didn't have a deal."

At the time, Kilmer would have been around 35, while Russell would have been around 43. Following Keaton's departure, Schumacher and Warners were reportedly looking for a younger actor to take on the role, which may have influenced their decision to cast the younger of the two "Tombstone" stars. 

"Batman Forever" occupies a strange space in the Batman filmography. The film was a much lighter affair than "Batman Returns," depicting a Gotham that while still dreary in its own way, was drenched in neon light and took as many cues from modern Tokyo as it did the Gotham of the early comic books. Jim Carrey's Riddler was about as cartoonish as they come, and the movie was much more — to use the industry phrase — "toyetic," with Batman donning several suits and commandeering multiple vehicles that lent themselves to a Happy Meal aesthetic.

Amid all this was Val Kilmer's Dark Knight, just as brooding as Michael Keaton's version, but with a much more traditionally handsome air and imposing bearing. Kilmer is often overlooked in the history of Batman, but as a kid, this film meant a lot to me and provided almost as much fuel for my burgeoning imagination as Tim Burton's previous efforts. Thus, it's standing as one of the lesser entries in the Bat-canon has always seemed unfair to me.

One thing is for sure, though. To think of Kurt Russell at the center of this neon-soaked, bordering on campy, reinvention of the Batman character is kind of ridiculous. The veteran star has a gruffness that just wouldn't have held up as well as Kilmer's younger, more refined manner. It's just as well then, that according to Billy Baldwin, who spoke to Batman On Film back in 2009, Russell wasn't actually being considered by Joel Schumacher. According to Baldwin:

"I was one of Joel Schumacher's top choices when Val Kilmer wound up playing Batman. Tim Burton and Michael Keaton had left, so Joel had the luxury of replacing Michael Keaton and he told me that his four choices –- which was an eclectic, diverse array –- were Daniel Day Lewis, Ralph Fiennes, Val Kilmer and me."

Whether that's accurate or not remains unconfirmed, but with Keaton out, it seems strange to think that the studio and Schumacher would replace him with an actor born the same year. "Forever" was their attempt to reinvigorate the franchise with a much lighter aesthetic and a younger Batman was a big part of that. Kurt Russell as Batman certainly isn't the worst idea, but this, I think, was not the right movie for it.