The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[GothamAlleys]

What I like:
- Design of the city (minus colors of course)
- Batman's first cowl
- sound mix

What I dont like:

- Casting: Kilmer is not Batman or any superhero by any stretch. Val-ium Kilmer never gets angry or threatening, he portrays a moping around poster boy who is never moved by anything, not even by his cave being destroyed. Its like they loaded him with valium.

- Everything is red and pink, from the city at night to Two Face

- Riddler. He does a bad impression of a stereotypical flamboyant homosexual

- Two Face. He is a retarded and gullible cousin of Joker, not Two Face

- The dialogue! Ugh, its the worst dialogue Ive heard in any movie (aside from Troll 2). I mean the conversations between Chase and Batman, its just bouncing off cheesy one liners off of each other. Im an open book, you read? Its the car, chicks dig the car. Jesus...
And the movie even starts with a dumb one liner!

- Batman's character - as I mentioned, Kilmer is a moper on Valium, not Batman. And I dont see why would he get fascinated by a psycho overly promiscuous fanatic of his

- Inclusion of Robin. His mere presence changes the mood and Batman's character completely. His existence in real world makes no sense whatsoever

- abandonment of a very interesting subplot of Returns which TDK also introduced, whcih is Batman perceived as an enemy of the city

The overall vibe of the movie. Feels more like a SpiderMan movie than a Batman movie

[TheDragonator]

Bruce Wayne adopted a person who is over TWENTY YEARS OLD.

That is all.

[El Payaso]

I didn't care for the Batman Forever or Batman & Robin score at all. The "Bwaaaaaa bwa bwa bwaaaa bwa bwa bwa!" just sounds annoying to me. It almost sounds sarcastic.

Heh. The music is kinda saying 'oooooh, looooook, feeeeeel all the heroism.'


Bruce Wayne adopted a person who is over TWENTY YEARS OLD.

That is all.

Bruce Wayne adopted a person.

That is all.



Well, he kinda gave him where to stay more than actually, officially and legally "adopt" him anyways.

[Ponyboy]

I think Batman Forever is really a fun movie... it was an experience at the theatre. It's not really a decent Batman film, if you wanna deconstruct the thing.

[El Payaso]

But it's still watchable and doesn't snub the dark of it all.

[Spoonman]

I like Batman Forever and enjoy it to this very day.

[jacobed]

Its without a doubt my favorite of the original 4

[Ponyboy]

But it's still watchable and doesn't snub the dark of it all.

Oh I agree. There are parts that really make me groan. Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face should've been epic but it was just a real poor reflection of the character. I do still break it out on occasion and give it a watch, though. :cwink:

Its without a doubt my favorite of the original 4

:dry:

May I recommend a psychiatrist for you?

:cwink:

[Mandalore464]

I like Forever. I like it a lot more than Batman (1989). I never really cared much for Burton's Godfather Joker or midgety Batman (I never liked how his Batman looks absolutely clueless as to what's going on for the whole film... How could he not see that silly mime was up to no good?).

Kilmer's Batman was the first that got me interested in Batman more than the villains.

I still think Batman Returns is largely superior in terms of art direction, acting, cinematography, music, and basically every single technical aspect of filmmaking. But Forever is the first Batman film that's really about Batman to me. Burton's were... well... Burton movies more than they were Batman movies. Don't get me wrong, they're amazing films, but I think Burton's unconditional love for his villains completely overshadowed Batman, and while it ended up delivering one of the most beautiful and tragic interpretations of the Penguin ever in the second film (My eyes still get watery during his death scene), it hurt the first Batman a lot.

[Blue Sugar]

It's mediocre. It got some fun stuff and some nice points. But more bad than good ones. I gotta say I dig Carrey's The Riddler though, he is fun!

[The Joker]

The villains are a fail for me. But I love all the Bruce Wayne stuff. Especially his scenes with Chase and Dick. Alfred also has some good scenes with Dick.

[Mister Meddle]

I agree it was the corny villains. IMO they were way too cartoony for a live action film. It got the point where Two Face was just a bad imitation of the Joker. The Riddler was no different than any of the other characters that Carrey played. . And there were a number of small things like the colorful lights, Batmobile driving up a building, the way Riddler magically had his own island built so instantly. And the corny box that's nothing more than a blender full of popcorn that somehow could read your mind. IMo the most enjoyable character was Dick Grayson.

Funny how it's everything that takes place out of the costumes that was more enjoyable. Edward Nygma was great until he became the Riddler and Bruce Wayne was alright until he walked into some Fruity Pebbles zone wearing a muscle suit with nipples.

[HolyPurpleSocks]

Still the Batman film with the most re-playability to me, to this day. Mostly for the sake of nostalgia, but also because the soundtrack, the zany sound effects, the performances (mainly by Carrey, O'Donnell, Kilmer as Bruce) all happen to full of so many memorable lines, moments and facial expressions. It's one of those 'kinda good' movies that etches itself into your memory because of how embedded it was in the pop culture of that time. I look at it now, and can still enjoy watching it by myself, with my 4-year old niece, with a group of friends doing a 'riff' on it...it's just damn entertaining. That's enough for me to love it, pardon the pun 'Forever'.

[GothamAlleys]

Personally I HATE Forever. To quote MTV.com, “Largely considered the film that began a slow, painful, camp-fueled death for the black-suited superhero (with "Batman and Robin" marking the final nail in that coffin), the "Forever" villains are often listed among the worst comic-book performances of all time”

For me it wasn’t a Batman movie, only in name. It was a generic superhero or more of a SpiderMan movie. The character was off, the feel was off, the imagery was off, the personalities of the characters were off and on and on. Where to start?

First of all, the movie starts with a dumb one liner. A Batman movie starting with a one liner! As oppose to all the other movies (sans B&R) which had some kind of buildup for the audience to see batman, the first thing we see IS Batman, or should I say Val Kilmer in a homosexual imitation of a Batman suit. But lets keep it all together. So one liners – I could never imagine Batman throwing so many stupid one liners at the same time and being so talkative. I mean: "You trying to get under my cape?", "It's the car, chicks dig the car", "I'll get drive through", "Try a fireman. Less to take off.”. The dialogue is cringe worthy and its not even a dialogue, its corny one liners exchange – “Im an open book, you read? I don’t blend on a family picnic – that’s all right, bring your scarred psyche”….
Then we have Batman saying obvious stuff like an idiot - “"You've been sucking Gotham's brain waves and now you've devised a way to read mens minds" - Captain Obvious here. Ok, so I guess that briefly covers the sorry excuse for dialogue in this movie

Now lets get to Batman whos not in the movie actually. All Kilmer does is being sad and depressed. He speaks so softly and so low hes barely audible. As I already said, he seems like he overdosed on Valium. Even when hes Batman, and thats my biggest issue. We never get to see any anger from him, any fire in his eyes. Just moping. Ive been a hardcore fan since 88 and Ive never seen Batman as CONSTANTLY a calm, expressionless, 100% self reserved half asleep character who never has any kind of expressions or feelings. Bale mirrors Modern Age Batman I came to know. Keaton mirrors the very earliest depiction. West mirrors Silver Age. Kilmer mirrors someone on Valium overdose. Both Keaton and Bale showcase the rage and anger that is the primary characteristic of Batman

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LK3QfcRC83E/TjtaTqrDn5I/AAAAAAAABvE/EAhQOJq0MuQ/s1600/whereishetkj.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTn-Tx7X1CI/AAAAAAAAA6o/djEQoKjW72g/s1600/angrybale.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6tqRM6hoRxU/TlMM4CFJWHI/AAAAAAAAB5Q/-8Ib2PMp09E/s1600/drivingoverbr.png

You NEVER see ANY emotions or anger or fury or losing control with Valium Kilmer. He has the same expression in every situation and as Batman he constantly looks spooked and startled
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-88.jpg
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-2545.jpg

Not to mention the imagery and feel of Batman. Keaton and Bale moved, looked and landed like a bat or a vampire, with spread out wings or covered by cape. They looked like a giant bat or a creature
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTX9RyqVJ_I/AAAAAAAAA3A/zTCzxYhcB_Y/s1600/landignroof.png
http://www.thefilmpalace.com/images/batmanbegins1.jpg

Valium Kilmer had none of that. Hes moves and presence resembled that of a generic superhero with flowing cape, descending on a rope like SpiderMan to a gasping Superman’s crowd :oh look, its Batman!”….
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-44.jpg
There should be some rage or emotions involved. At least make him do an angry face instead of being a Valium Man all the time even when hes about to loose everyone, even when his cave is destroyed etc etc

He even strikes a pose like Superman!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0n0hNAOcfU0/TVUnXMZK0BI/AAAAAAAABSM/Wf2Z-PvYpNM/s1600/batmanforever76wl3.jpg
http://www.supermansupersite.com/fleischer.jpg

What happened to the creature of the night? A guy who was hiding in the shadows?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTYHkk34WQI/AAAAAAAAA3U/8I0WOuEZDwk/s1600/batcage2b1.PNG
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a277/lovegunner/Batman/tdk_1229.jpg

Now the SpiderManBat lands in the middle of a crowd on a colorful street?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTbofsEruSI/AAAAAAAAA4k/49e6KvbIHc4/s1600/inthecrowd.JPG

And the feel? I mean images from Burtons and Nolans movies are QUINTESSENTIAL batman. Quintessential. The darkness, the mist, the setting, the imagery –

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uB6XApK-v2w/TsCLqiisThI/AAAAAAAACLE/Kjq2RKPjEnE/s1600/darkvibe.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TN5hncsDCSI/AAAAAAAAAgQ/Y0Z2OYXAfVs/s1600/batshadowret.PNG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTsZ9mBVugI/AAAAAAAAA7c/Kl9jZyEMPSs/s1600/balroof.PNG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TUsaRNZgbYI/AAAAAAAABI8/RRFBeeD427g/s1600/BBwatch.png

And what the hell is that? Not even Batman never stands, behaves or looks like Batman, but it just looks like a guy in a Halloween suit in a circus
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-2511.jpg

And what happened to Gotham which is suppose to be a darker version of New York?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTX9cKuQhWI/AAAAAAAAA3E/0krGJhYSauQ/s1600/cathedra.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTbtafeX4II/AAAAAAAAA44/puHZKSWlaiQ/s1600/Batman_Forever_1995_003.jpg
Whats with the Barbie City?

And the batcave? Keaton and Bale had a cave with sporadic equipment scattered around
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTgDeJKEBEI/AAAAAAAAA5c/FUxpV7M0ZCY/s1600/spookybatcave.PNG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lkqR1KGWOGE/TjtZCEj7IbI/AAAAAAAABu8/YpFWgY6GDEA/s1600/13930963bbcave.jpg

What the hell is it with neon carshow display? This is suppose to be Batman?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTgccN-YKqI/AAAAAAAAA5k/-zmJdEXJk_o/s1600/BFBatcave8.jpg

While Burton and Nolan took a very different approach and drew from different eras, the quintessential and defining core characteristics of Batman and his world are shared by Keaton and Bale. Schumacher’s movies are just not Batman movies. Theyre colorful generic superhero movies loaded with Saturday night superhero cartoon clichés and childish comic booky heorism

Then theres the pointless regression in the storyline. The whole parents thing again. It was already dealt with in the first movie and the revenge was completed. He moved on in Returns, the whole sudden depression and moping around as if it just happened the day before was unnecessary. He killed Joker and in Returns doesnt even mention his parents. He is STILL traumatic and affected by it (never said otherwise), but he moved on to another phase. Same in TDK - never mentions his parents, never stops to mourn about them. Its all about his life and companionship, as was Returns - the second film as well. Bale himself says he moved on from his parents death in TDK. Despite that, hes still affected and still the same Batman. Valium Kilmer suddenly turns into a hardcore Depression Man

And he says hes both Batman and Bruce Wayne cause he chooses to be. I mean, seriously? I dont know how soemone can miss the mark more with Batman. Bruce Wayne is just a mask, in the comics and in Burtons and Bales movies. Hes Batman, thats hes real identity.

Its amazing that Keaton and Bale were both chosen for their intensity and fire in the eyes, while Kilmer was chosen cause he was "handsome" and "young". But what to expect from a man who constantly dismissed Batman as just a comic book and continuously insisted this material cant be taken seriously cause "its Batman".


And I mean, making out in the suit? My god...

And whats up with being so enchanted with a cliche blonde holywood start-looking doctor? This is another thing I dont get. Chase was just a weird hottie who was in love with Batman like teenage girls with Justin Beaber. I dont know how she got his interest other than seductive looks and behavior. Vale was just a girl for him, he was dismissive of her and she had to chase after him when he didnt have much interest and had to even be pelted by Alfred to answer her calls. Catwoman was a fellow tarnished soul, a bride of Frankenstein. Rachel was someone who knew and understood Bruce from his childhood. But Chase? Just another cliche "hot blonde" who needs saving and yet he was so into her


Ok, lets movie on to the villains, shall we? Ill just mention them briefly – not only they look like descends of crayola pack, but theyre both ridiculously stereotypical overly flamboyant homosexuals and both act silly and goofy. Jones plays a homosexual, gullible and retarded cousin of Joker and Carrey plays a guy who REALLY needs to hold back with his homosexuality

Theres much more but I think I made my point already

[4theLulz]

GothamAlleys,

Amazing post. And spot on, in my opinion.

[Indy1Jones]

Yeah It Was Decent.

[Mandalore464]

Personally I HATE Forever [...]
Theres much more but I think I made my point already

You know, everything you say is absolutely true. It's cheesy and corny, a parody of Batman.

But that was the point though, wasn't it? It's not like they tried to deliver the ultimate Batman film (something that I still think is impossible considering all the different incarnations of Batman over the years), they went with a campy Batman, like the TV show did before them, they knew they had to do something radically different than what Burton had done and went balls out with it and did it.

I give them credit for that.

I think it's very hypocritical -not addressing you here GothamAlleys- to hate Forever for being campy and not hate the TV show or the comics from the 50s who were at least as campy. I wonder (rhetorical question here) if it's related to a lot fo people growing up with the Batman from the TV show and thus failing to acknowledge its abysmal flaws. Seriously though, have a ten-year old who's never watched any Batman film before watch Forever and it'll be his favourite film for weeks. Then make him watch Burton's and he'll go "Good films but WTF this guy's got issues".

Now have him watch Burton's Batman first and Forever later and he'll hate Forever. That's because the Batman you grow up with, the one you watch first etc. eventually becomes your defining incarnation of the character. It's not true for 100% of the audience though. I for example grew up with the TV show and Batman Returns, and while it's still my favourite film from a technical point of view (cinematography, screenplay, references, character arcs...), I now hold Batman Begins as my defining take on what Batman should be.

It's important I think to stay open-minded about it all. At the end of the day it's just a character that's far beyond what any director, writer or actor could realistically portray whether it be on a screen or on a page. Sure, we all have our favourite version of Batman, but does that mean that any other version should be dissed and ***** all over?

Batman Forever is not my definitive Batman at all. Two-Face especially was the weakest villain of the first four movies. But nor was Keaton's. Keaton's Batman was first and foremost an interpretation of the character seen through the prism of Tim Burton. It's a Burton character before it's a Batman character. Interpretation. The point of those films is not to try and bring the comic-book pages to life. It's primarily to allow a director, who has a certain vision of the character, to express it.

Schumacher went too far with Batman and Robin because he started to parody himself. But I still think Batman Forever, although flawed -but what movie isn't?- did it right.

Now it's only fair for you not to like it. But why not be open-minded about it? It's not like they were aiming at something different and missed. Batman Forever looks exactly like it was supposed to : Bright, cheesy, colourful. And yet it still managed to retain important themes from the mythos. The Bruce Wayne arc is to me the most interesting in every Batman film that's come out since 1989. Kilmer's Batman was poor, but is it a small feat that they managed to make Wayne as interesting, no, MORE interesting than Batman? Who was able to do that? Nolan tried in Batman Begins. The result? Back in the theatre, I was dying to see Bale putting on the cowl and cape and going nuts on criminals.

I completely understand the people disliking the film because it went completely the opposite way of what Batman is to them. But I think "hating" it is a bit strong. It's not like Schumacher invented this whole "gay Batman" concept. Some people and critics have been calling Batman gay since the 50s...

Batman Forever, just like the TV show before it, has its place in the Batman pantheon of live interpretations. It's different, yet enjoyable. Burton's Batman was also a different take on the character, yet was enjoyable.

Take Batman Forever for what it is, not for what you think it should have been.

And I still think Forever's a lot less corny than a lot of comic books from the 50s and 60s... Why couldn't there be a spot for such interpretations of the character?

[El Payaso]

What amazes me about Forever is that its tone allows Robin to be a good contribution to the bat-world without ruining it. At least Dick Grayson, because when robin appears with the holey joke...

But yes, I'm completely against a movie Robin, I think he has no place in a serious movie adaptation. But in Forever the whole Dick Grayson story and O'Donnel's work was good.

[Doctor Jones]

I do believe you can bring Robin back into a film. It's not about making him relevent, it's about making him understood again. Batman does need Robin for development reasons. Batman can't continue being by himself his whole career. He can only do it for so long. When he began, he never anticipated these villains, and fighting them over and over again doing God knows what, it's possible it can make you go over the edge. Robin is there to bring him back. The fact they're similar yet opposite is what makes their relationship a great one. Dick is that light to Bruce's darkness. Him saving Dick from any potential fate to train him as his own was the best way for preventing Bruce to potentially fall over his line. I just can't see Bruce being alone forever as Batman. He's gonna need someone with him eventually. If Bruce even sees this, then that at least says something.

Besides, eventually it will get old to see Batman always solo. I prefer Batman solo, but in reading the comics, they can be just as good with Robin. It's too damn interesting to pass up on film. Hell, Dick's story in BF was the standout thing about it. I feel like there is a lot of potential. What comes from a great character in the comics, can also result in a great movie character and story dynamic. It's there, it just hasn't been recognized yet. I have faith in that.

[Mandalore464]

^ Agreed.

I think it's weird that only a few people question the presence of Robin in the comic books yet a lot of fans do it when it comes to Robin in a film.

Dark Victory is a great way of bringing Robin into the evolution of Batman as a character. It could totally work as a film. His presence in Arkham City was great as well, although he was an older Robin. It's actually a shame he's confined to a mere cameo in it.

I also agree that Robin would probably have felt weird in a Nolan Batman film, because they went in a specific direction that required a lot less suspension of disbelief than what's usually required of comic book movies (I'm not saying it doesn't require any, just less).

Once a new era of live-action Batman is introduced, one probably closer to the comic-books world, Robin will fit in the whole picture.

[El Payaso]

I do believe you can bring Robin back into a film. It's not about making him relevent, it's about making him understood again. Batman does need Robin for development reasons. Batman can't continue being by himself his whole career. He can only do it for so long. When he began, he never anticipated these villains, and fighting them over and over again doing God knows what, it's possible it can make you go over the edge. Robin is there to bring him back. The fact they're similar yet opposite is what makes their relationship a great one. Dick is that light to Bruce's darkness. Him saving Dick from any potential fate to train him as his own was the best way for preventing Bruce to potentially fall over his line. I just can't see Bruce being alone forever as Batman. He's gonna need someone with him eventually. If Bruce even sees this, then that at least says something.

Besides, eventually it will get old to see Batman always solo. I prefer Batman solo, but in reading the comics, they can be just as good with Robin. It's too damn interesting to pass up on film. Hell, Dick's story in BF was the standout thing about it. I feel like there is a lot of potential. What comes from a great character in the comics, can also result in a great movie character and story dynamic. It's there, it just hasn't been recognized yet. I have faith in that.

I disagree. You certainly need reason to develop the characters, but that doesn't have to include Robin. He's not a natural next stop. He's popular because of the comics and the old TV series.

Take Nolan. He needed new motivations for the character. Inmstead of including Robin he came up with this "Batman needs to be a fugitive in order to protect the city" idea. That wasn't in the comics but it worked.

And if he really needs more people involved I rather see a TDKR type of story where he starts a little army instead of having a 12 year old boy in a red/yellow suit.

And again, Robin - or Dick Grayson as Robin wasn't all that great - in BF worked ONLY because of the tone of the movie where you could dig a rebel youngster wanting to follow Batman's steps. Successfully.

Now, Batman solo will get old? Really? Superman, Spiderman solo will get old too? Can't see why or how.




^ Agreed.

I think it's weird that only a few people question the presence of Robin in the comic books yet a lot of fans do it when it comes to Robin in a film.

Maybe they realize what works in comics doesn't always work on screen. And we have some Robin on screen to ponder over, compare and contrast.

Dark Victory is a great way of bringing Robin into the evolution of Batman as a character. It could totally work as a film. His presence in Arkham City was great as well, although he was an older Robin. It's actually a shame he's confined to a mere cameo in it.

It wouldn't be taken seriously on screen no matter how many tragic mirroring sequences you put. The moment you have this kid in a yellow cape all credibility gets lost. Yes, even if it's a black cape.

I also agree that Robin would probably have felt weird in a Nolan Batman film, because they went in a specific direction that required a lot less suspension of disbelief than what's usually required of comic book movies (I'm not saying it doesn't require any, just less).

That's what I'm saying. BF was the perfect tone for Robin because you were more forgiving to certain things.

Once a new era of live-action Batman is introduced, one probably closer to the comic-books world, Robin will fit in the whole picture.

I hope it will be a comic-book era that won't be that close to Schumacher's.

[Mandalore464]

Maybe they realize what works in comics doesn't always work on screen. And we have some Robin on screen to ponder over, compare and contrast.


I realize that too, thanks for the reminder.

Yet all you have to judge from, compare and contrast are versions of Robin. Just because he was made in such ways that did or didn't work does not mean he couldn't work in another version.

If writers can make him work in comic books, they can make him work on screen. At the end of the day, he doesn't even have to be a kid in tights.

I find your lack of faith in the screenwriting industry disturbing.

It wouldn't be taken seriously on screen no matter how many tragic mirroring sequences you put. The moment you have this kid in a yellow cape all credibility gets lost. Yes, even if it's a black cape.

There are more subtle ways to make a character appealing than just resorting to pathos.

You said yourself it's worked before, why couldn't it work again? All it takes is a talented director willing to make something more out of Robin than just a funny kid hanging around in Batman's shadow.


I hope it will be a comic-book era that won't be that close to Schumacher's.


I think the lesson's been learned, so it shouldn't happen again.

[EliteF50]

Batman Forever wasn't hot garbage, but it was garbage.

EDIT: Never mind. It's terrible.

[El Payaso]

I realize that too, thanks for the reminder.

I have it on my signature. Stan the Man's words.

Yet all you have to judge from, compare and contrast are versions of Robin. Just because he was made in such ways that did or didn't work does not mean he couldn't work in another version.

It still is a testament of some attempts on the matter that are woprthy to examine.

If writers can make him work in comic books, they can make him work on screen. At the end of the day, he doesn't even have to be a kid in tights.

I find your lack of faith in the screenwriting industry disturbing.

Hav eyou noticed those "Expectations vs Reality" memes? They're reflected on cinema in the fact that on paper everything sounds greatr. but when you have to actually do it, then things change.

Writing Robin for a movie is the easiest thing on earth. To show him and make him serious and believable, that's completely different matter. I wish great ideas were to be merely written and planned. Execution though...

There are more subtle ways to make a character appealing than just resorting to pathos.

You said yourself it's worked before, why couldn't it work again? All it takes is a talented director willing to make something more out of Robin than just a funny kid hanging around in Batman's shadow.

I said it worked before - as in BF - because the tone was campy enough (not too much in BF's case) to allow it. Then I said I hoped that much of camp wouldn't be back.

I think the lesson's been learned, so it shouldn't happen again.

Then Robin wouldn't happen again.

A single man that poses as a womanizer playboy shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed to adopt a boy to start with. A man in a mask who endangers a minor's life on a daily basis should and would be captured. I can undersytand Batman being a fugitive for his principles (he blames himself of a crime in order to protect the city's spirit), but for actual ilegal reasons...

[Mandalore464]

Hav eyou noticed those "Expectations vs Reality" memes? They're reflected on cinema in the fact that on paper everything sounds greatr. but when you have to actually do it, then things change.

Actually I write and direct myself, so let me tell you that while true that things look and sound different than what you expect them to on paper, it's actually often for the best.

Otherwise films would not be made, they'd be novels.

[El Payaso]

Congratz on that, Mand. So you know that I was not refering to the writing of Robin, because writing and drawing is different than writing and making a movie.

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think if Robin were represented like this:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/robiny.png
Or this:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTC7RfzAIB_cwv_GiW5dbcBLImLiADrv Vbf6HXmLXFSzxqAB3EsuQ
Or this:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAW_AfozQpWtSBSMDc9DBeKNuv5kET-v9OpmLlK3uuVEVuz8-1Xg

People would accept him in a more serious tone than Forever without the movie losing credibility.

[redfirebird2008]

I like quite a few aspects of Forever (Kilmer's Wayne, O'Donnell's Grayson, Carrey's performance) but there are some fatal flaws that cause it to land in the "mediocre" pile:



Two-Face. They ruined the character. Has to be one of the worst adaptations ever of a famous comic book character.
Chase Meridian. Other than the fact Nicole Kidman is hot, the character sucks.
Campy script. Poor dialogue. Not as bad as Batman & Robin, but pretty darn bad.
Silly production design. Neon lights, a goofy Batmobile, and on and on.

[Mandalore464]

Congratz on that, Mand. So you know that I was not refering to the writing of Robin, because writing and drawing is different than writing and making a movie.

Nope you kinda lost me there.

How can Robin be the easiest thing to write for the screen (your words) and then not work on screen?

If a good screenwriter and a good filmmaker write a good Robin for the screen, then he will work once on-screen.

Also, your point about a womanizer not being allowed to adopt etc. applies to a real world setting. My point is that Batman doesn't have to look real.

And if the guys over at WB have any sense, once Nolan is done and over with, the last thing they'll want to do is mimic his "real world" approach, so I think it's fair to expect a completely surreal -yet serious- Batman next.

[Ponyboy]

I still think the key to Robin is to EASE him into the arc. I'm fine with his circus tragedy origins and Bruce taking him in... but don't turn him into Robin in the same movie. Let it build (along with the relationship with Bruce) slowly and then Robin can come in at a time when Bruce (and Batman) need him the most.

[Llama_Shepherd]

See, I had been thinking that, too. It felt rushed in Forever as the movie is only two hours long. But if we could have a movie like The Dark Knight we could see a full transformation like Harvey into Two Face, and it could happen all in one movie, in The Dark Knight we see Harvey turn from bright young DA, to the White Knight, to a desperate man, to a murderer. I think the same can be done for Richard Grayson.

[Ponyboy]

That's a good point Llama, but I don't think it's necessary to see Robin's story arc come full circle within one film. I also think that spreading it across more than one film opens up the audience a bit when it comes to accepting Robin (for those of us that really don't particularly care for the character). Make us care about Robin, that's the hook. Then in the 2nd film you can reel it in. ;)

[El Payaso]

Nope you kinda lost me there.

How can Robin be the easiest thing to write for the screen (your words) and then not work on screen?

If a good screenwriter and a good filmmaker write a good Robin for the screen, then he will work once on-screen.

Also, your point about a womanizer not being allowed to adopt etc. applies to a real world setting. My point is that Batman doesn't have to look real.

And if the guys over at WB have any sense, once Nolan is done and over with, the last thing they'll want to do is mimic his "real world" approach, so I think it's fair to expect a completely surreal -yet serious- Batman next.

Okay. Ask an architect to draw a fantastic skycraper. Then ask him to build it. Then ask him if it was the same or he had some problems while building the thing.

If he answers, ah, building a skycraper is just as easy as drawing it, then I'll admit my misconception.

For that matter, ask a surgeon to plan a delicate surgery and then perform it.




I still think the key to Robin is to EASE him into the arc. I'm fine with his circus tragedy origins and Bruce taking him in... but don't turn him into Robin in the same movie. Let it build (along with the relationship with Bruce) slowly and then Robin can come in at a time when Bruce (and Batman) need him the most.

I don't see that working.

A child in the middle of anything Batman sounds completely off. If anything, the figure of Robin might justify such presence. but to drag it for so long would only perpetuate Batman's character as a father. And that's just plain wrong. Written or directed.



See, I had been thinking that, too. It felt rushed in Forever as the movie is only two hours long. But if we could have a movie like The Dark Knight we could see a full transformation like Harvey into Two Face, and it could happen all in one movie, in The Dark Knight we see Harvey turn from bright young DA, to the White Knight, to a desperate man, to a murderer. I think the same can be done for Richard Grayson.

I'm sorry. In BF it felt rushed because it was a 125 minute movie but in TDK it was okay because it lasted 25 more minutes?

I don't think BF felt rushed but if anything, it'd be due to Nolan's direction. He can make a lot of things happen at the same time.

[Ponyboy]

I don't see that working.

A child in the middle of anything Batman sounds completely off. If anything, the figure of Robin might justify such presence. but to drag it for so long would only perpetuate Batman's character as a father. And that's just plain wrong. Written or directed.



You jumped to a lot of conclusions there. I would rather that the Wayne foundation "adopt" Dick and yet Bruce would remain as much a stranger to Dick in the beginning as anyone else. Maybe the Wayne foundation would put Dick through school. Dick then has a hard time adjusting to "normal life"... Troubled, he's sent to Wayne Manor, where I see Alfred more as the father than Bruce. Just one way to look at it.

[Mistah K88]

To answer the topic at hand, I would say that Forever was a decent Batman movie...I suppose part of the reason I have a fondness of it is the fact that it was a part of my childhood. Like others have mentioned, the movie in itself has really dark themes...I'll have to find it, but if you have read the original script, it tends to mention Batman was a murderer in the past two movies. I know it was another scene other than the one where Bruce is mentioning to Dick about finding "another face, and another" to kill out of revenge.

Kilmer's Batman was poor, but is it a small feat that they managed to make Wayne as interesting, no, MORE interesting than Batman? Who was able to do that? Nolan tried in Batman Begins. The result? Back in the theatre, I was dying to see Bale putting on the cowl and cape and going nuts on criminals.

Yes this. One thing I feel Batman Forever did better than all other Batman movies was Bruce Wayne. From what I could remember, Bruce was a competent businessman in Forever...I was the same way with Batman Begins...I couldn't wait for him to put the Bat suit on.

Now I feel like watching it again (it's been years)...thanks guys...

[Mandalore464]

If he answers, ah, building a skycraper is just as easy as drawing it, then I'll admit my misconception.

For that matter, ask a surgeon to plan a delicate surgery and then perform it.

Ok, I understand your point perfectly, but how do these examples show that a well written Robin would not work well on the screen?

A very well designed building will be all the more easier to build for real. A very well planned surgery will be all the more easier to perform.

Those examples only prove that writing Robin well does not mean that there won't be additional challenges when adapting him to the screen, and I think it's pretty clear that we have different opinions as to whether or not those challenges can be overcome.

A child in the middle of anything Batman sounds completely off. If anything, the figure of Robin might justify such presence. but to drag it for so long would only perpetuate Batman's character as a father. And that's just plain wrong. Written or directed.

Two things : Robin doesn't have to be a child. As in a 12 year old child. Why could he not be 17 for instance? I know I would certainly go for an older Robin, not a 10 year old one.

As for the father figure thing, I understand that your conception of Batman is a lonely figure that should stay lonely, and if that's your thing, well, whatever floats your boat, but let me just ask you this question : Are you a fan of the 90s animated series and if you are what did you like (or dislike) about the way they handled Robin in it?

Personally I liked it. I think Dick was and older child from the get-go, and even a 20-something guy in the later episodes. We didn't see him every night patrolling with Batman. He was also a student that very often was doing just this : studying. But he had his great moments under the suit as well.

I'm one of those who think that Robin is necessary to the development of Batman. Batman is on a desperate crusade to end crime, and we all know he won't. There are those who think this darkly ironic fact should be what defines Batman : a desperate man fighting a desperate war without hope of turning the tide. I'm of those who think Robin is the one fight Batman has won (in the case of Dick Grayson), and has made Batman a better man. And I think it's always necessary to have some kind of evolution (positive or negative) in a character. If Batman's this dark, brooding figure from the start and stays that way, he becomes hopeless and therefore bland, in a way.

Just my opinion of course.

[El Payaso]

You jumped to a lot of conclusions there. I would rather that the Wayne foundation "adopt" Dick and yet Bruce would remain as much a stranger to Dick in the beginning as anyone else. Maybe the Wayne foundation would put Dick through school. Dick then has a hard time adjusting to "normal life"... Troubled, he's sent to Wayne Manor, where I see Alfred more as the father than Bruce. Just one way to look at it.

Yeah, well. I can see Wayne as a philantropist who could do that for EVERY child in need. With the rate of crime I doubt Dick Grayson is the only child out there who needs guidance and help. But Bruce personally choosing him and taking care of him parallel to his career...









Ok, I understand your point perfectly, but how do these examples show that a well written Robin would not work well on the screen?

A very well designed building will be all the more easier to build for real. A very well planned surgery will be all the more easier to perform.

Those examples only prove that writing Robin well does not mean that there won't be additional challenges when adapting him to the screen, and I think it's pretty clear that we have different opinions as to whether or not those challenges can be overcome.

Two things : Robin doesn't have to be a child. As in a 12 year old child. Why could he not be 17 for instance? I know I would certainly go for an older Robin, not a 10 year old one.

Ah, a very well designed building is different from a very well drawn building.

In comics, Robin is written and drawn this or that way. And thus, it could work fine. But that's miles and miles away from designing a Robin for the big screen. Same with the script. Sure you can write a story that sounds cool. Doesn't mean that Robin will look good or act good or even feel good next to Batman on screen.

Now I'm all for changes. In Robin's case I have always thought that the less Robin Robin is on screen, the better. Remove the elf shoes and becomes better, remove the yellow and it becomes better, remove that he's a 12 year old child and it becomes better. I always get to the point where I remove Robin completely and it can't be any better.

As for the father figure thing, I understand that your conception of Batman is a lonely figure that should stay lonely, and if that's your thing, well, whatever floats your boat, but let me just ask you this question : Are you a fan of the 90s animated series and if you are what did you like (or dislike) about the way they handled Robin in it?

Personally I liked it. I think Dick was and older child from the get-go, and even a 20-something guy in the later episodes. We didn't see him every night patrolling with Batman. He was also a student that very often was doing just this : studying. But he had his great moments under the suit as well.

I never completely liked the 90's BTAS, but not because of the stories but the design.

But then again, it is another example very similar to comic books. What works there doesn't work on screen so smoothly. That's why comics and cartoons can have a blue/grey spandex Batman alright, but it has to be black armoured for the screen.

Now, if you check my original post about the subject I actually liked what they did with Dick Grayson in BF, go figure. Problem is, same as in the cartoons, you need the right tone for it and that always demand some dose of camo and cheese.

I'm one of those who think that Robin is necessary to the development of Batman. Batman is on a desperate crusade to end crime, and we all know he won't. There are those who think this darkly ironic fact should be what defines Batman : a desperate man fighting a desperate war without hope of turning the tide. I'm of those who think Robin is the one fight Batman has won (in the case of Dick Grayson), and has made Batman a better man. And I think it's always necessary to have some kind of evolution (positive or negative) in a character. If Batman's this dark, brooding figure from the start and stays that way, he becomes hopeless and therefore bland, in a way.

Just my opinion of course.

Well, Nolan is proving that you can describe Batman's crimefighting career without Robin as a developmental cogwheel. A child or teenage figure next to the man would look just odd.

I mean, you'd have to come up with some really acting genius that could portray Robin as a force of nature or something like that.

I don't think becoming a fatherly figure is what Batman needs, nor is becoming "a better man."

[ALP]

I liked Batman Forever outside of TLJones and Robin

[jonathancrane]

I enjoy the film for a set of unique/similar reasons to other posters.

1. Childhood connection: while Batman Returns was the first film I saw, let alone superhero one, Forever was the one I remember being excited for, based on knowledge of its predecessor. I remember being excited after acquiring two of the McDonald's glasses-I recently purchased the entire set, out of nostalgia.
2. While the original vision was watered down, there are triumphant moments where it shines through. After reading the screenplay and researching and viewing deleted scenes, I can safely say that if the Red Book subplot and the other sequences were maintained as well as the resultant tone, this could have been one of the best films in the franchise.
3. I enjoyed the architecture of Schumacher's Gotham: while Burton went from Industrial/Gothic (Batman '89,) to Fascist (Batman Returns,) it was nice to see a medley of classicism, Art Deco, and Futurist.
4. In addition, I enjoyed the street gangs, as they make me think of what the Jokerz from Beyond would look onscreen.
5. Source Material: I love how the film functioned like AA, in the manner that it captured elements from several iterations of Batman, including the tv show, and the Steve Englehart run through Chase Meridian, who I see as Schumacher's variation of Silver St. Cloud.
6. Kilmer. Kilmer did an excellent job in capturing the duality.
7. Carrey. While the clown antics lighten down the darkness of the character, I have to admit that I find his interpretation of Nygma to be chilling, as I knew a guy who was falling down a similar path with his worship and obsession of a person.

[gvalladare]

well, the movie came when I was 16 years old, huge fan of Batman and Batman movies at that point, also having the "dark" version of U2, a great song and a great video, added a lot more fun.

it was definitly different from the previous movie, more flashy, bright and even had the "twisted camera angle" ala Batman tv show.

I liked the movie a lot at the time, maybe because it was a huge comic book brought to life, the fights, the crazy enemies, the great vehicles, etc. batman with the batsymbol at his back in many shots, robin, all was good.

now that I'm 32, I see the movie and I see its many flaws, and I understand why many ppl dont like it or say it's *****, I mean, it's kinda paintful at some points and I see that now.

to me, it's a meh movie, from a "critic" point of view, but the 16 years old version of me love it very much, not as much as B89 or BR.

by the way, what I remember the most of this movie was the trailer, the part where twoface says "if the bat wants to play, we'll play!" or something like that, I love that part...also pepsi throwed some mini comics here in my country, they were the *****, they were like 7 tiny comics, with the riddler, catwoman, etc, they were pretty good, I wish I still have them. recently I bought twoface and I'll buy the riddler...I got the 2pack with Batman and Robin, they look great....

[Cain]

^ t's funny cause I was 12 at the time and thought it was garbage when I saw it. I was a huge fan at the time too. I collected the comics, owned and played out the first 2 movies, really admired the cartoon series etc.

It wasn't until I got older that I learned to appreciate it and now there's a lot in it that I really dig.

Ironically it was the first time I saw a Batman flick at the cinema more than once cause I caught it again when my school took my entire grade to see it as a "surprise" cause it was such a popular movie at the time.

[GothamAlleys]

To be honest as much as I hate to admit it I loved the movie when I saw it in theaters in 1995. It was loud, colorful and heroic and full of action - what else a young boy can want. Plus it had Carrey whom I loved after seeing The Mask in theaters and Tommy Lee Jones who I liked very much in The Fugitive. Kilmer I liked already from Willow. All that being said, I could never really get over recasting Keaton but I accepted it. Once I got older and especially now I just hate the movie with passion and explained 1/3rd of the reasons on previous page I believe. I would honestly be embarassed to have it on dvd/bluray in my house cause I would think someone would laugh that I have kids movies for young teenage boys which Forever is, unlike expressionist and surreal Gothic art of Burton and deep psychological dramas of Nolan

[HolyPurpleSocks]

To be honest as much as I hate to admit it I loved the movie when I saw it in theaters in 1995. It was loud, colorful and heroic and full of action - what else a young boy can want. Plus it had Carrey whom I loved after seeing The Mask in theaters and Tommy Lee Jones who I liked very much in The Fugitive. Kilmer I liked already from Willow. All that being said, I could never really get over recasting Keaton but I accepted it. Once I got older and especially now I just hate the movie with passion and explained 1/3rd of the reasons on previous page I believe. I would honestly be embarassed to have it on dvd/bluray in my house cause I would think someone would laugh that I have kids movies for young teenage boys which Forever is, unlike expressionist and surreal Gothic art of Burton and deep psychological dramas of Nolan
Who cares what they think? If some part of you enjoys it, then you enjoy it.



I personally have no shame for my love of both BF and B&R. Neither film is flawless, but both are endlessly entertaining (for very different reasons than the Nolan or Burton films).

[GothamAlleys]

Who cares what they think? If some part of you enjoys it, then you enjoy it.



True, but my point was that Schumachers movies are basically cartoonish toy commercials

[HolyPurpleSocks]

True, but my point was that Schumachers movies are basically cartoonish toy commercials
B&R moreso than Forever. With Forever, he had alot of dark and violent images, scenes which gave depth to Bruce's character, relationship with his father, backstory, parents' death, etc..but they were cut out because WB wanted a summer blockbuster film and not another trip into the gothic, bizarre and dark like they got with Burton. I'd assume it was mainly due to the backlash from parents and marketing of BR. Forever was a pop culture Batman, with the hottest comedic actor and some of the brightest young hollywood prospects of the time, not to count the amazing soundtrack and commercial appeal. No, it wasn't B89 in terms of the mania surrounding it, the quality of script, tone to fit a 'dark, brooding' Batman persona, but it still was very much true to the comics. Other than stretching the age of Grayson when Bruce adopts him, it was one of the most faithful adaptations because (a) Batman doesn't kill, at least not maliciously or with intent (Two-Face was a decision to save two lives), (b) nods to every incarnation of the Batman character (even the 'going up the wall' Batmobile that tributed '66 Batman), (c) some actually delving into Bruce's psychological trauma over losing his parents and (d) bringing it full circle with an heir to the cowl in Robin.


Now sure, it wasn't perfect but it's not a complete abomination. If one of your friends is arrogant enough to come into your house and honestly criticize you for owning Batman Forever, you either tell him you like it for what it is, for its kitsch, or you just tell him to f*** off.

I don't think you need to explain yourself to anyone, or hold back from things you enjoy because of people's judgments.

[TruerToTheCore]

I prefer Batman Forever to the Burton movies and I might be the only one. The latter are just a bizarro version of the Adam West series to me.

[El Payaso]

I prefer Batman Forever to the Burton movies and I might be the only one. The latter are just a bizarro version of the Adam West series to me.

Wait, Burton's movies are a bizarro version of the Adam West show and not Schumacher's ones? I think yours is a bizarro post itself.

[circa81]

I've watched all the live action Batman moves(except the serials) and while Batman 89 is, to me, by far the best, I feel that Forever is my second favorite. Let me explain.
As I've said in other threads, I don't like Nolan's take AT ALL. It's just not batman too me. So their out for me. I like returns, but not that much, and the rewatchability factor is very low for me. B&R is pure crap. After Batman 89, Forever is the most 'batman-like" movie to me. Most people's complaints about Schumacher's take is that it's campy and bright, And ofcourse the characterization of two-face. I can't defend the latter, although he does have some serous moments, like the whole circus scene. The first two though can can be found in both of Burton's and Nolan's films. Just about everything with the Penguin in returns, nice coat", and "excuse me" and vaporizing the city's water supply in Begins. Everything with the Russian in TDK, plus the whole cell phone sonar thing, among others. And at least Gotham in Forever actually LOOKs like Gotham, as apposed to Nolan's take. I also feel that Kidman's character was the best and most natural fitting love interest in all of the movies. If anyone wants me to explain my reasoning further, please ask.

PS, Mask of the phantasm is my all time favorite Batman movie, btw.

[TruerToTheCore]

Wait, Burton's movies are a bizarro version of the Adam West show and not Schumacher's ones? I think yours is a bizarro post itself.

Burton's movies are a perversion of the Batman mythos. They are also not very well written.

[Ponyboy]

Burton's movies are a perversion of the Batman mythos. They are also not very well written.

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll54/Sparks_and_Sunshine/GIFs/sadface.gif

[Mister Meddle]

Burton's movies are a perversion of the Batman mythos. They are also not very well written.
http://troll.me/images/jackie-chan-whut/are-you-serious.jpg

[CConn]

Burton's movies are a perversion of the Batman mythos. They are also not very well written.
I always like your posts, because they're always a shining example of what not to think.

It's like an affirmation of my own sanity.

[Ponyboy]

I always like your posts, because they're always a shining example of what not to think.

It's like an affirmation of my own sanity.

:funny:

[MessiahDecoy123]

I was introduced to Batman via Batman 89, Batman Year One, and BTAS.

So to go from that to Batman Forever is a serious down grade. I remember seeing BF in the theater as a high school student and hating it with a passion.

[Elevator Man]

Burton's movies are a perversion of the Batman mythos. They are also not very well written.


pWdd6_ZxX8c

[GothamAlleys]

Burton's movies are a perversion of the Batman mythos. They are also not very well written.

Right. Superman in a gay Batman suit fighting cliche crime in candy city is better than bizarre gothic setting and gothic shadowy character. Not well written?? And you like Schumachers movies? Is this a joke or just a huge double standard?

I dont get how someone can say this is a perversion opf Batman mythos
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uB6XApK-v2w/TsCLqiisThI/AAAAAAAACLE/Kjq2RKPjEnE/s1600/darkvibe.png
And this is not
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_a-_k5RVWKY/TVM9Xwwg1UI/AAAAAAAABP0/ishUGPiqUSk/s1600/Batman_Forever_1995_043.jpg

[BatSpider]

Batman Forever is my favorite of the original 4 and always will be "forever" :cwink:

But to teh above post and the pic of Riddler. Isn't Batman Arkham City another bright adaptation to Batman, but it always gets praised?

[Spoonman]

^lol how is Batman Arkham City "bright"? I don't belive you've actually played the game then.

[El Payaso]

Right. Superman in a gay Batman suit fighting cliche crime in candy city is better than bizarre gothic setting and gothic shadowy character. Not well written?? And you like Schumachers movies? Is this a joke or just a huge double standard?

A good Batman movie shouldn't be afraid of showing us a nice bat-butt close-up I say! That's just being a purist. :woot:

[TruerToTheCore]

Right. Superman in a gay Batman suit fighting cliche crime in candy city is better than bizarre gothic setting and gothic shadowy character. Not well written?? And you like Schumachers movies? Is this a joke or just a huge double standard?

Visually the Burton movies were alright, at least the first one, the second one was already a world that didn't fit the Batman comics. Of course I know that people usually fall for those cheap thuganomics, but in the end nothing what Burton did was truly Batman. And when the **** did Bruce Wayne ever behave like he's suffering from ****ing Aspergers syndrome.

Batman's portrayal was okay in B&R and Batman Forever.

In Batman and Batman Returns it was not Batman from the comics at all.


I dont get how someone can say this is a perversion opf Batman mythos
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uB6XApK-v2w/TsCLqiisThI/AAAAAAAACLE/Kjq2RKPjEnE/s1600/darkvibe.png
And this is not
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_a-_k5RVWKY/TVM9Xwwg1UI/AAAAAAAABP0/ishUGPiqUSk/s1600/Batman_Forever_1995_043.jpg

The villains sucked in Batman Forever, that I have to admit. But Batman himself was so much better portrayed than what that strange Keaton guy did. And don't get me started on Black-goo-spitting-Penguin and his rocket friends and radioactive-zombie Catwoman. That's simply a Bizarro grimdark take on the Adam West show.

[TruerToTheCore]

I always like your posts, because they're always a shining example of what not to think.

It's like an affirmation of my own sanity.

Nay, it's just an affirmation of your low intelligence and lack of the ability to look beyond the nice pictures.

[Mister Meddle]

Visually the Burton movies were alright, at least the first one, the second one was already a world that didn't fit the Batman comics. Of course I know that people usually fall for those cheap thuganomics, but in the end nothing what Burton did was truly Batman. And when the **** did Bruce Wayne ever behave like he's suffering from ****ing Aspergers syndrome.

I admit you do have a point. In my honest opinion Burton's visuals are quite over rated. The Dark Knight himself doesn't belong in a dark, gothic-like universe. If anything he belongs in a brighter and more generic universe. Actually no, that's still too hardcore. How about something with colorful lights, glow in the dark thugs? Now that sounds kickass! I also think Bruce Wayne was de suckz. I mean sure I know a child could grow up a bit damaged if they went through the same thing. But damnit, this is Batman we're talking about! He should just man up, create an ordinary social life and stop acting so damn weird.

Batman's portrayal was okay in B&R and Batman Forever.

In Batman and Batman Returns it was not Batman from the comics at all. Agreed. Especially Kilmer. Sure he was much more emo than the 4 foot tall Michael Keaton but he was superior in every way. I don't know why but he just was. But nobody could touch George Clooney. Not even with a 10 foot pole. It's almost like Batman from the comics came to life with the dude that's dating Stacy Keibler.


The villains sucked in Batman Forever, that I have to admit. But Batman himself was so much better portrayed than what that strange Keaton guy did. And don't get me started on Black-goo-spitting-Penguin and his rocket friends and radioactive-zombie Catwoman. That's simply a Bizarro grimdark take on the Adam West show.Agreed. I personally hate this bizzarro crap as well. This fantasy crap is for children but they try to hide behind teh darkness to make it appealing to adults.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I also think Bruce Wayne was de suckz. I mean sure I know a child could grow up a bit damaged if they went through the same thing. But damnit, this is Batman we're talking about! He should just man up, create an ordinary social life and stop acting so damn weird.

Agreed. Especially Kilmer. Sure he was much more emo than the 4 foot tall Michael Keaton but he was superior in every way. I don't know why but he just was.

He already gave a reason why he prefered the Kilmer Batman, he thought the Batman in the Burton's was just a bit *too* weird.

and i have to agree, at points, the Burton BM was just annoying.

eg, after he saved Selina Kyle at the beginning of the film, y'know, she is a bit shaken up and nervous, and makes a wee joke about how to address Batman, and he looks at her like she has asked him why he doesn't scoop up dogcrap on his patrols, ie like she is a total weirdo.
That reaction just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, it looked like a real character reaction, not an act, and Keaton's Bruce Wayne was personable enough with other people right? so what's with the weirdo Batman reaction?
It was like they were getting a bit too pretentious with the whole 'damaged crusader' bit, and sometimes what you got was a bad mixture of an attempt at being mysterious and damaged, which added up to getting an annoying character moment.

edit: and i guess someone will come in and say 'Oh, that was him having some kind of pre-cursive feeling of kinship with Selina Kyle, and was weirded out by it...' well, you can read into it that way if you want, but to me, it always read as them trying to illustrate how mysterious and damaged he was, but it came off as too spazzy(U.S. meaning) and annoying.

and anyway, there are other examples of this annoying spazziness(U.S. Meaning).

edit: It was as if every time he put on his Batman suit, Keaton became spaz(U.S. meaning)-man, he was too frickin weird with Vicki in in the cave, and was ultra spazzy(U.S. meaning) weird in that scene in her apartment with the Joker, which imo, is the most cringe worthy moment in the whole 89-97 series, it is just annoying as ****, haha, just a wreckless spaz(U.S. meaning) having a spazzy(U.S. meaning) flake out.


Kilmer's Batman maybe had more opportunities to be shown as more likeable and personable, his interactions with Grayson primarily went a long way in making him a more likeable Batman/BW.

[CConn]

Nay, it's just an affirmation of your low intelligence and lack of the ability to look beyond the nice pictures.Wow, you must be a genius if you consider my IQ of 140 to be low.

And I actually wasn't a fan of BR's "nice pictures" (us adults call it cinematography and art direction, btw), but your own great intellect must provide you with a level of insight into my own mind that even I don't possess.

[El Payaso]

Visually the Burton movies were alright, at least the first one, the second one was already a world that didn't fit the Batman comics.

It fit the Batman world perfectly. Grim, dark, gritty. Opposite to, say, neon in every corner, Batcave included.

Of course I know that people usually fall for those cheap thuganomics, but in the end nothing what Burton did was truly Batman.

That picture of Batman in the cathedral alone was more Batman than 90% of what Schumacher did.

And when the **** did Bruce Wayne ever behave like he's suffering from ****ing Aspergers syndrome.

Because that was no Asperger syndrome. But people who has witnessed traumatic events, such as someone killing your parents, that live two lives sometimes tend to be introverted and confidential.

Batman's portrayal was okay in B&R and Batman Forever.

Of course. They're a testament on how Batman should be portrayed. A truly triumph.

Schumacher and Clooney themselves are nothing but proud about it. :woot:

The villains sucked in Batman Forever, that I have to admit. But Batman himself was so much better portrayed than what that strange Keaton guy did.

Wooden Kilmer did okay, but he was more pretending to be all that tormented that actually being it. And, as Batman, he tried his best to emulate Keaton's voice and gestures. I appreciated that.

And don't get me started on Black-goo-spitting-Penguin

Which was an improvement over his bland comic counterpart.

and his rocket friends

Yeah, because Penguin has never used birds as killing weapons.

and radioactive-zombie Catwoman.

Yeah, lots of radioactivity there. Guess if you can't bash properly, it is better to make some things up.

That's simply a Bizarro grimdark take on the Adam West show.

Oh, yeah, not like cackling comedian Riddler and Two-Face in those flamboyant suits with their thematic hide-outs. That was nothing like the Adam West show.

Not to mention that in the Adam West show, villians used to be black-goo-spitter radioactive zombies. Nice work trying to make the connection there.

[CConn]

Because that was no Asperger syndrome. But people who has witnessed traumatic events, such as someone killing your parents, that live two lives sometimes tend to be introverted and confidential.Actually, that characterization was an intentional decision on Burton's part.

His theory being that due to Bruce pouring so much of his time, energy and mind into his work as Batman, he leaves his Bruce Wayne an almost vacant shell of a person.

At its core, it's essentially the same type of psychosis that they portray Batman having in both the comics and Nolan's movies. The only difference being, Burton didn't have Bruce tack on that fake playboy persona.

But that's more of an afterthought - a veneer - not the psychosis itself.

[El Payaso]

How about something with colorful lights, glow in the dark thugs? Now that sounds kickass!

Yeah, ripping off Burton's Oogey Boogie Man was kickass!

I also think Bruce Wayne was de suckz. I mean sure I know a child could grow up a bit damaged if they went through the same thing. But damnit, this is Batman we're talking about! He should just man up, create an ordinary social life and stop acting so damn weird.

Yeah, a traumatized man should act like a normal man... what for exactly?

That said, when Bruce Wayne threw a party nobody seemed to have missed it. Or when he goes to talk to a billionaire like Schreck he's received and listened to.

Doesn't sound like a man without a social life to me.

Agreed. Especially Kilmer. Sure he was much more emo than the 4 foot tall Michael Keaton but he was superior in every way. I don't know why but he just was. But nobody could touch George Clooney. Not even with a 10 foot pole. It's almost like Batman from the comics came to life with the dude that's dating Stacy Keibler.

Oh, I've heard that the world, Clooney admitedly being on that list, wouldn't touch what he did to Batman with a ten foot pole.

Not that it's a flattering thing to say btw.

Agreed. I personally hate this bizzarro crap as well. This fantasy crap is for children but they try to hide behind teh darkness to make it appealing to adults.

Yeah, but few directors achieve this adult-toned world like Schumacher did in his bat-movies. :cwink:





eg, after he saved Selina Kyle at the beginning of the film, y'know, she is a bit shaken up and nervous, and makes a wee joke about how to address Batman, and he looks at her like she has asked him why he doesn't scoop up dogcrap on his patrols, ie like she is a total weirdo.

That might be because she was a total weirdo.

That reaction just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, it looked like a real character reaction, not an act, and Keaton's Bruce Wayne was personable enough with other people right? so what's with the weirdo Batman reaction?

Batman =/= Bruce Wayne, remember?

Some pat in the back and going "there, there" is not Batman's stuff. It would have laughable, given that there was a dozen of clown shooting people all around.

It was like they were getting a bit too pretentious with the whole 'damaged crusader' bit, and sometimes what you got was a bad mixture of an attempt at being mysterious and damaged, which added up to getting an annoying character moment.

Yeah, acting consistently with the character might annoy some people. It is nevertheless considered a good thing by most.

edit: and i guess someone will come in and say 'Oh, that was him having some kind of pre-cursive feeling of kinship with Selina Kyle, and was weirded out by it...' well, you can read into it that way if you want, but to me, it always read as them trying to illustrate how mysterious and damaged he was, but it came off as too spazzy(U.S. meaning) and annoying.

and anyway, there are other examples of this annoying spazziness(U.S. Meaning).

edit: It was as if every time he put on his Batman suit, Keaton became spaz(U.S. meaning)-man, he was too frickin weird with Vicki in in the cave, and was ultra spazzy(U.S. meaning) weird in that scene in her apartment with the Joker, which imo, is the most cringe worthy moment in the whole 89-97 series, it is just annoying as ****, haha, just a wreckless spaz(U.S. meaning) having a spazzy(U.S. meaning) flake out.

Thanks to this piece of information I can tell what a spazzy (U.S. meaning) post is. :oldrazz:

Kilmer's Batman maybe had more opportunities to be shown as more likeable and personable, his interactions with Grayson primarily went a long way in making him a more likeable Batman/BW.

Let's not forget when he meets Chase at the rooftop. She shows him her stuff and he just walks away from her giving her his back like he's too troubled to face the situation. Not since Scarlett O'Hara I had seen such a remarkable likeability.

[CConn]

The other thing that Burton does (and I can see why some people wouldn't like this) which I personally love, is he's always interjected a certain aspect of his own personality and psychology into his films. In Batman, Bruce's reclusive yet creative psyche was a nod to Burton's own personality.

Then, if you go through Burton's catalog with Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc. you start to see the various threads to Burton's own psychology weave themselves together.

One film might have a subplot that might be a thinly veiled reference to Burton's past, another might detail how Burton views and interacts with the world around him, and another may be an example of Burton's personality, etc.

Essentially, Burton's made his films into his own autobiography. All in all, I've never actually seen another director who's so cleverly and quite subtly interjected himself into his films. It's probably the most inventive, yet least talked about thing that Burton's done in his films.

But yes. I only like his movies for the pretty pictures.

[Thebumwhowalks]

That might be because she was a total weirdo.

She wasn't being weird there, just a normal way of coping with a traumatic scary situation, with levity, a pretty normal gag to make given that the guy she is speaking to does not have a normal name.



Batman =/= Bruce Wayne, remember?

Some pat in the back and going "there, there" is not Batman's stuff. It would have laughable, given that there was a dozen of clown shooting people all around.

There is always something of Bruce in Batman, Bruce and Batman are inseperable when he is talking to Selina in the finale, so why is there none of him there in that moment.

He could have at least given her a look that had a little empathy in there, he didn't have to say anything, y'know, a twinkle of the eye, a little spark of humour emerging from the mysterious personage. Instead of looking at here like she's the freak of the week, I mean, it's kind of funny in a way, because he is the one who is acting like the weirdo in that moment.

and the violence had wound down by that point, there was no more shooting in the background by that point, Batman's presence and the cops swooping in chased them all off.



Yeah, acting consistently with the character might annoy some people. It is nevertheless considered a good thing by most.

But, what i am saying is that this illustration of this mix of characteristics was annoying at points, like, if they had given him a little tiny sprinkling of humor into that reaction to Selina Kyle's gag, it would have been a much more satisfying scene imo. it is like they are too focused on the grim.



Thanks to this piece of information I can tell what a spazzy (U.S. meaning) post is. :oldrazz:

I am being very P.C.(not U.K. meaning)



Let's not forget when he meets Chase at the rooftop. She shows him her stuff and he just walks away from her giving her his back like he's too troubled to face the situation. Not since Scarlett O'Hara I had seen such a remarkable likeability.

He actually has a pretty upfront conversation with her, basically saying he has not had much luck with women in the past, I don't see anything weird about his reactions to her there, y'know, he's shy and hesistant, but he explains why.
He is a little tiny bit 'chauvanistic' when he sits his rubber bum back in the bat-mobile and says 'Women!', haha, but that is just a bit of humour, it is kind of funny when you see Batman saying that, I always found it amusing anyway, he's just a little freaked out and wants to go home to his batarangs, and is probably also scared that Alfred will find out about her, tell her that story about him falling off that horse into the mud as he escorts her into the batcave, and then he'll have to get on the phone to Superman to fly over and give another woman the old hypno-kiss.
But, aye, he is a bit shy about the attraction to her, that is another likeable aspect of Kilmer's Batman.

[Mister Meddle]

He already gave a reason why he prefered the Kilmer Batman, he thought the Batman in the Burton's was just a bit *too* weird.

eg, after he saved Selina Kyle at the beginning of the film, y'know, she is a bit shaken up and nervous, and makes a wee joke about how to address Batman, and he looks at her like she has asked him why he doesn't scoop up dogcrap on his patrols, ie like she is a total weirdo.
That reaction just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, it looked like a real character reaction, not an act, and Keaton's Bruce Wayne was personable enough with other people right? so what's with the weirdo Batman reaction?
It was like they were getting a bit too pretentious with the whole 'damaged crusader' bit, and sometimes what you got was a bad mixture of an attempt at being mysterious and damaged, which added up to getting an annoying character moment.

edit: It was as if every time he put on his Batman suit, Keaton became spaz(U.S. meaning)-man, he was too frickin weird with Vicki in in the cave, and was ultra spazzy weird in that scene in her apartment with the Joker, which imo, is the most cringe worthy moment in the whole 89-97 series, it is just annoying as ****, haha, just a wreckless spaz(U.S. meaning).


Kilmer's Batman maybe had more opportunities to be shown as more likeable and personable, his interactions with Grayson primarily went a long way in making him a more likeable Batman/BW.

I'll put the sarcasm to the side this time.

Maybe he was weird. But the question is this.... why is it a bad thing? What are we expecting? Some generic vigilante character that just happens to have a bat costume nearby?

I can't be too harsh on Forever and Kilmer. I don't dislike Batman Forever because it isn't terrible but it's hard to ignore the corny aspects. You said that Kilmer had the opportunity to be shown as a more likeable character. IMO that was the problem. He was too likeable. He seemed more like the grown child that witnessed the deaths of the Waynes rather than a grown man that is effected by it. The entire time it looked like the guy needed a hug. Where was the fire inside of him? Where was the anger and aggression to push him on a nightly basis?

[Cain]

spazzy(U.S. meaning) and annoying.

and anyway, there are other examples of this annoying spazziness(U.S. Meaning).

edit: It was as if every time he put on his Batman suit, Keaton became spaz(U.S. meaning)-man, he was too frickin weird with Vicki in in the cave, and was ultra spazzy(U.S. meaning) weird in that scene in her apartment with the Joker, which imo, is the most cringe worthy moment in the whole 89-97 series, it is just annoying as ****, haha, just a wreckless spaz(U.S. meaning) having a spazzy(U.S. meaning) flake out.





The parentheses in the bold were so weird & random yet consistent that I spilled my water from LOL'ing. Well played sir.

[CConn]

Ever notice that British people seem to slaughter the English language more than anything.

Your crusty old Anglo ancestors would be ashamed.

[Thebumwhowalks]

^I am Scottish! Hang out in Scotland for a while and you will understand the mangled nature of oor take on the auld lang.

Cain, i would explain that spaz(U.S. meaning) thing, but...i think it is best if i just look mysterious and damaged.


I'll put the sarcasm to the side this time.

Maybe he was weird. But the question is this.... why is it a bad thing? What are we expecting? Some generic vigilante character that just happens to have a bat costume nearby?

I can't be too harsh on Forever and Kilmer. I don't dislike Batman Forever because it isn't terrible but it's hard to ignore the corny aspects. You said that Kilmer had the opportunity to be shown as a more likeable character. IMO that was the problem. He was too likeable. He seemed more like the grown child that witnessed the deaths of the Waynes rather than a grown man that is effected by it. The entire time it looked like the guy needed a hug. Where was the fire inside of him? Where was the anger and aggression to push him on a nightly basis?

eh, BF was more about him coming out of the weirdo shell, finding a bona fide friend in Dick Grayson, and as i touched upon, his attraction to the Doc is handled pretty well in terms of him being all shy and hesitant about it, but slowly coming out of his shell over the course of the movie.

and in reagrds to the burton take...I do like a lot about Keaton's portrayal of BM/BW, it's just that sometimes I think they went a little too grim with the take on him being mysterious and damaged.
Sometimes it works very well, eg, his silence in the Bat-mobile when he's driving back to the cave with Vicki, his response to her 'where are we going?' being only to speed up the Bat-mobile to get some good mileage out of that big pile of leaves in the road. I mean, that is one of my all time fav onscreen Batman moments, the atmosphere, the music, that characterisation...
But that bit with Selina Kyle kind of annoys me as a Batman characterisation, she was being quite nice and funny, and he looks at her like she's a big weirdo, eh, i dunno, haha, a bit too grim there i think.

There's nothing really in the Kilmer characterisation i can fault , i mean even that bit with him almost breaking the fourth wall with the goofy grin, ok, we don't really want to see Batman with a big happy smile right? haha, but it fit in terms of where he was at in the story.

[Ponyboy]

The other thing that Burton does (and I can see why some people wouldn't like this) which I personally love, is he's always interjected a certain aspect of his own personality and psychology into his films. In Batman, Bruce's reclusive yet creative psyche was a nod to Burton's own personality.

Then, if you go through Burton's catalog with Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc. you start to see the various threads to Burton's own psychology weave themselves together.

One film might have a subplot that might be a thinly veiled reference to Burton's past, another might detail how Burton views and interacts with the world around him, and another may be an example of Burton's personality, etc.

Essentially, Burton's made his films into his own autobiography. All in all, I've never actually seen another director who's so cleverly and quite subtly interjected himself into his films. It's probably the most inventive, yet least talked about thing that Burton's done in his films.

But yes. I only like his movies for the pretty pictures.

I can agree with the comments that "Burton's Batman" isn't true to the comics. But that's okay... I still feel that Michael Keaton's version of Batman/Bruce Wayne is INFINITELY more interesting to watch than any of the others who have portrayed him.

I think Keaton gets unnecessary flack to this day from some bat-fans for being miscast (in terms of his physicality). Well guess what? Jack Nicholson wasn't exactly the spitting image of Brian Bolland's Joker (My ideal image of the Joker, skinny, a mop of green hair and that long chin)... but Nicholson gave us a great Joker right? Heath Ledger's look as the Joker was very "bizarro" to me... but he also gave us a great Joker. So to write Keaton off purely in terms of his physical appearance is an argument that, for me, doesn't hold any water.

Now you take Val Kilmer... he physically looked the part on some levels. I mean if you want to get down to it, Kilmer has blonde hair. So how is that any different than a balding Keaton?

As far as Keaton vs. Kilmer goes... You take out the visuals, and the Burton-eqsue-ness, and completely strip back what Schumacher did and look at just the two men. Keaton was arguably the better performer, in terms of his eyes, his voice, and even his schizoid physical behavior? Is it Batman of the comics to a T? No of course it isn't... but it made for some damn interesting visual cinema that we're all still debating 20 years later. :cwink:

[TruerToTheCore]

I admit you do have a point. In my honest opinion Burton's visuals are quite over rated. The Dark Knight himself doesn't belong in a dark, gothic-like universe. If anything he belongs in a brighter and more generic universe. Actually no, that's still too hardcore. How about something with colorful lights, glow in the dark thugs? Now that sounds kickass! I also think Bruce Wayne was de suckz. I mean sure I know a child could grow up a bit damaged if they went through the same thing. But damnit, this is Batman we're talking about! He should just man up, create an ordinary social life and stop acting so damn weird.

Agreed. Especially Kilmer. Sure he was much more emo than the 4 foot tall Michael Keaton but he was superior in every way. I don't know why but he just was. But nobody could touch George Clooney. Not even with a 10 foot pole. It's almost like Batman from the comics came to life with the dude that's dating Stacy Keibler.


Agreed. I personally hate this bizzarro crap as well. This fantasy crap is for children but they try to hide behind teh darkness to make it appealing to adults.

I am not even going to answer this pathetic piece of failed sarcasm.

He already gave a reason why he prefered the Kilmer Batman, he thought the Batman in the Burton's was just a bit *too* weird.

Yeah. At least someone.


edit: and i guess someone will come in and say 'Oh, that was him having some kind of pre-cursive feeling of kinship with Selina Kyle, and was weirded out by it...' well, you can read into it that way if you want, but to me, it always read as them trying to illustrate how mysterious and damaged he was, but it came off as too spazzy(U.S. meaning) and annoying.

and anyway, there are other examples of this annoying spazziness(U.S. Meaning).

edit: It was as if every time he put on his Batman suit, Keaton became spaz(U.S. meaning)-man, he was too frickin weird with Vicki in in the cave, and was ultra spazzy(U.S. meaning) weird in that scene in her apartment with the Joker, which imo, is the most cringe worthy moment in the whole 89-97 series, it is just annoying as ****, haha, just a wreckless spaz(U.S. meaning) having a spazzy(U.S. meaning) flake out.

Yeah, it's not like the Bruce Wayne I knew from the comics. At all.


Kilmer's Batman maybe had more opportunities to be shown as more likeable and personable, his interactions with Grayson primarily went a long way in making him a more likeable Batman/BW.

Kilmer was simply better. Put him and his characterization into Burton's movie and the movie would improve 300%.

Wow, you must be a genius if you consider my IQ of 140 to be low.

Did you take an internet test? :woot:

And I actually wasn't a fan of BR's "nice pictures" (us adults call it cinematography and art direction, btw), but your own great intellect must provide you with a level of insight into my own mind that even I don't possess.

What a lame rebuttal. I'm writing down to your intellect.

It fit the Batman world perfectly. Grim, dark, gritty. Opposite to, say, neon in every corner, Batcave included.

Meh. I'm mainly talking about Batman and how he was portrayed. Burton's Gotham looks better, his batmobile looks better, but the whole characterization is crap and just wrong, done by guys who didn't get Batman at all.



That picture of Batman in the cathedral alone was more Batman than 90% of what Schumacher did.

Visually. Again. And Batman has not always been noir n gothic. Not even the 70s.


Because that was no Asperger syndrome. But people who has witnessed traumatic events, such as someone killing your parents, that live two lives sometimes tend to be introverted and confidential.

Yeah, kitchen psychology applied to a fictional character. The Batman from the comics was not like that and that is all that counts.


Of course. They're a testament on how Batman should be portrayed. A truly triumph.

Schumacher and Clooney themselves are nothing but proud about it. :woot:


There was nothing wrong with their portrayal. It falls within the normal Batman range of the comics from 1939 to 1989. Keaton's "Let's blow some **** up, kill-the-poor-muscleman-but-killing-Walken-is-wrong and give a look like an idiot"-Batman does not.


Wooden Kilmer did okay, but he was more pretending to be all that tormented that actually being it. And, as Batman, he tried his best to emulate Keaton's voice and gestures. I appreciated that.

I guess Kilmer is not that tormented so he has to pretend to be. It's called acting.


Which was an improvement over his bland comic counterpart.


It had nothing to do with the comics and he turned into nothing more than a Bizarro Silver Age villain.



Yeah, because Penguin has never used birds as killing weapons.

Yeah, but that's more in tone with something you'd expect from an episode in the Adam West show. Just turned grimdark and bizarro.


Yeah, lots of radioactivity there. Guess if you can't bash properly, it is better to make some things up.

The cats probably got their dash of radiation from the bizarre "Christopher-Walken power plant that doesn't make any sense" and then brought her back to live so she could survive gunshots like it's nothing.

Typical Burton crap.



Oh, yeah, not like cackling comedian Riddler and Two-Face in those flamboyant suits with their thematic hide-outs. That was nothing like the Adam West show.

Partially. But it wasn't that far removed from the comics. Still, there's no point, I hated all the Batman villains in the old movies except for the Joker.

Not to mention that in the Adam West show, villians used to be black-goo-spitter radioactive zombies. Nice work trying to make the connection there.

They might have done that. But you know, kids are watching.

Actually, that characterization was an intentional decision on Burton's part.

His theory being that due to Bruce pouring so much of his time, energy and mind into his work as Batman, he leaves his Bruce Wayne an almost vacant shell of a person.

Thanks, Mr Burton, we had writers like Finger, Robbins, O'Neil, Englehart, Wein, Moench, Conway, Reed, Barr and Starlin before you, we didn't need your stupid Goth nerd insights.

At its core, it's essentially the same type of psychosis that they portray Batman having in both the comics and Nolan's movies. The only difference being, Burton didn't have Bruce tack on that fake playboy persona.

But that's more of an afterthought - a veneer - not the psychosis itself.

Ever read the comics BEFORE the stupid Burton movies? You know, the available source material from those days? it was portrayed totally differently.

The other thing that Burton does (and I can see why some people wouldn't like this) which I personally love, is he's always interjected a certain aspect of his own personality and psychology into his films. In Batman, Bruce's reclusive yet creative psyche was a nod to Burton's own personality.

I don't need Burton's personality in a fictional character that isn't supposed to be like Burton at all.

Then, if you go through Burton's catalog with Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc. you start to see the various threads to Burton's own psychology weave themselves together.

I'm not going through a bunch of bad movies. Burton peaked with Mars Attacks! and that's it.


One film might have a subplot that might be a thinly veiled reference to Burton's past, another might detail how Burton views and interacts with the world around him, and another may be an example of Burton's personality, etc.

Has no place in a Batman movie. At all. I would rather prefer Russ Meyer bringing his personality into the Batman movies.


But yes. I only like his movies for the pretty pictures.

Well, it cannot be the writing.

[TruerToTheCore]

I can't be too harsh on Forever and Kilmer. I don't dislike Batman Forever because it isn't terrible but it's hard to ignore the corny aspects.

The Burton movies are about as corny. The Penguin was as corny and over-the-top as Mr Freeze. Twins, indeed!

I'd actually pick an episode of the Adam West show (first two seasons only) over the Burton movies. At least those make sense, storywise and have better writing. Oh, and there's no midget Batman at work. And they actually stole the plot from an episode to make Batman Returns!

[CConn]

Did you take an internet test? :woot:No, I have a friend of my family's with a PsyD. Had it done relatively cheaply through him.

Do want to know what university he got his doctorate from too, or does that answer satisfy you?
What a lame rebuttal. I'm writing down to your intellect.It was actually just plain mockery.
Thanks, Mr Burton, we had writers like Finger, Robbins, O'Neil, Englehart, Wein, Moench, Conway, Reed, Barr and Starlin before you, we didn't need your stupid Goth nerd insights.

Ever read the comics BEFORE the stupid Burton movies? You know, the available source material from those days? it was portrayed totally differently.Bruce has always shown a preoccupation with Batman over his persona as Bruce Wayne. You can see it as from Finger to O'Neil to Miller.

Burton took Bruce's preoccupation a little farther than Finger or O'Neil did, but he was really just being more accurate psychologically accurate with it, and it was pretty much on par with Miller's Batman in Year One.

Again, minus Bruce's fake playboy persona.

I don't need Burton's personality in a fictional character that isn't supposed to be like Burton at all.

I'm not going through a bunch of bad movies. Burton peaked with Mars Attacks! and that's it.

Has no place in a Batman movie. At all. I would rather prefer Russ Meyer bringing his personality into the Batman movies.

Well, it cannot be the writing.I'm sorry, I really wasn't talking to you.

[TruerToTheCore]

No, I have a friend of my family's with a PsyD. Had it done relatively cheaply through him.

Do want to know what university he got his doctorate from too, or does that answer satisfy you?

I don't really care about the life of a loser.


It was actually just plain mockery.

Okay.


Bruce has always shown a preoccupation with Batman over his persona as Bruce Wayne. You can see it as from Finger to O'Neil to Miller.

Except there were times when it was implied that Bruce Wayne only became Batman when called by Gordon for "special cases". The idea that Batman has the psychological need to "patrol" the city each night is something that slipped in over time.


Burton took Bruce's preoccupation a little farther than Finger or O'Neil did, but he was really just being more accurate psychologically accurate with it, and it was pretty much on par with Miller's Batman in Year One.

That seems more like wishful thinking to me. His mannerism are totally different.

And Batman Returns was NOTHING like the comics. A dark movie doesn't mean it's a Batman movie. duh.

My TTCC official Batman-ness rating of the movies:

Batman (Adam West): 80%
Batman (89): 30%
Batman Returns: 10%
Batman Forever: 65%
Batman & Robin: 65%
Batman Begins: 90%
The Dark Knight: 80%

[The Joker]

You guys should chillax. Someone's going to get banned if the personal insults keep going.

[Ponyboy]

My TTCC official Batman-ness rating of the movies:

Batman (Adam West): 80%
Batman (89): 30%
Batman Returns: 10%
Batman Forever: 65%
Batman & Robin: 65%
Batman Begins: 90%
The Dark Knight: 80%

If you took Batman exactly from the comics to the screen you'd have a mess on your hands. The Batman show of the 1960s reflected the comics of the time. You cannot put that era of Batman onscreen now... it will flop. (Hello... Batman & Robin?)

Your 10% given to Batman Returns for it's Batman-ness is no more valid than your 90% given to Batman begins. Take Batman's costume in Batman Begins. It's not anymore "comic-ly" based visually than Burton's is. Probably LESS so in fact. Nolan's films don't even have the black & yellow bat symbol. And Heath Ledger's Joker, while great, is also a relatively new interpretation of the character visually.

I dont believe for one second that audiences would take Batman seriously (in Nolans or Burtons films) if Christian Bale or Keaton were dressed like Adam West. And I don't believe true fanboys or even general fans of Batman would want to see that.

[TruerToTheCore]

If you took Batman exactly from the comics to the screen you'd have a mess on your hands. The Batman show of the 1960s reflected the comics of the time. You cannot put that era of Batman onscreen now... it will flop. (Hello... Batman & Robin?)

Your 10% given to Batman Returns for it's Batman-ness is no more valid than your 90% given to Batman begins. Take Batman's costume in Batman Begins. It's not anymore "comic-ly" based visually than Burton's is. Probably LESS so in fact. Nolan's films don't even have the black & yellow bat symbol. And Heath Ledger's Joker, while great, is also a relatively new interpretation of the character visually.

...

The thing is: Batman Returns is loved just because it's grimdark. Batman & Robin is hated because it's so neon. But to me they are equally silly, but at least B&R is a little bit more rooted in the Batman mythos while Returns is just Burton's own soup (that kinda flopped because most people didn't like it).



I dont believe for one second that audiences would take Batman seriously (in Nolans or Burtons films) if Christian Bale or Keaton were dressed like Adam West. And I don't believe true fanboys or even general fans of Batman would want to see that.

Way to miss the point. No one wants Adam West back...

[GothamAlleys]

Wow, Im shocked by some of the complete ignorance on some fans part - Kilmer reflecting Batman? Burton's Batman nothing like comics? Batman not having issues with duality and not being an isolated loner? Wow, just wow. But what to expect from insulting, stubborn Schumachers Batman fan. Of course hell hate the total opposite of them and praise the neon cartoon over german expressionist Goth tale. Unless hes a fan of the Silver Age Batman then Id understand

[GothamAlleys]

Let me just repeat why Forever isnt a Batman movie at all
Personally I HATE Forever. To quote MTV.com, “Largely considered the film that began a slow, painful, camp-fueled death for the black-suited superhero (with "Batman and Robin" marking the final nail in that coffin), the "Forever" villains are often listed among the worst comic-book performances of all time”

For me it wasn’t a Batman movie, only in name. It was a generic superhero or more of a SpiderMan movie. The character was off, the feel was off, the imagery was off, the personalities of the characters were off and on and on. Where to start?

First of all, the movie starts with a dumb one liner. A Batman movie starting with a one liner! As oppose to all the other movies (sans B&R) which had some kind of buildup for the audience to see batman, the first thing we see IS Batman, or should I say Val Kilmer in a homosexual imitation of a Batman suit. But lets keep it all together. So one liners – I could never imagine Batman throwing so many stupid one liners at the same time and being so talkative. I mean: "You trying to get under my cape?", "It's the car, chicks dig the car", "I'll get drive through", "Try a fireman. Less to take off.”. The dialogue is cringe worthy and its not even a dialogue, its corny one liners exchange – “Im an open book, you read? I don’t blend on a family picnic – that’s all right, bring your scarred psyche”….
Then we have Batman saying obvious stuff like an idiot - “"You've been sucking Gotham's brain waves and now you've devised a way to read mens minds" - Captain Obvious here. Ok, so I guess that briefly covers the sorry excuse for dialogue in this movie

Now lets get to Batman whos not in the movie actually. All Kilmer does is being sad and depressed. He speaks so softly and so low hes barely audible. As I already said, he seems like he overdosed on Valium. Even when hes Batman, and thats my biggest issue. We never get to see any anger from him, any fire in his eyes. Just moping. Ive been a hardcore fan since 88 and Ive never seen Batman as CONSTANTLY a calm, expressionless, 100% self reserved half asleep character who never has any kind of expressions or feelings. Bale mirrors Modern Age Batman I came to know. Keaton mirrors the very earliest depiction. West mirrors Silver Age. Kilmer mirrors someone on Valium overdose. Both Keaton and Bale showcase the rage and anger that is the primary characteristic of Batman

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LK3QfcRC83E/TjtaTqrDn5I/AAAAAAAABvE/EAhQOJq0MuQ/s1600/whereishetkj.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTn-Tx7X1CI/AAAAAAAAA6o/djEQoKjW72g/s1600/angrybale.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6tqRM6hoRxU/TlMM4CFJWHI/AAAAAAAAB5Q/-8Ib2PMp09E/s1600/drivingoverbr.png

You NEVER see ANY emotions or anger or fury or losing control with Valium Kilmer. He has the same expression in every situation and as Batman he constantly looks spooked and startled
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-88.jpg
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-2545.jpg

Not to mention the imagery and feel of Batman. Keaton and Bale moved, looked and landed like a bat or a vampire, with spread out wings or covered by cape. They looked like a giant bat or a creature
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTX9RyqVJ_I/AAAAAAAAA3A/zTCzxYhcB_Y/s1600/landignroof.png
http://www.thefilmpalace.com/images/batmanbegins1.jpg

Valium Kilmer had none of that. Hes moves and presence resembled that of a generic superhero with flowing cape, descending on a rope like SpiderMan to a gasping Superman’s crowd :oh look, its Batman!”….
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-44.jpg
There should be some rage or emotions involved. At least make him do an angry face instead of being a Valium Man all the time even when hes about to loose everyone, even when his cave is destroyed etc etc

He even strikes a pose like Superman!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0n0hNAOcfU0/TVUnXMZK0BI/AAAAAAAABSM/Wf2Z-PvYpNM/s1600/batmanforever76wl3.jpg
http://www.supermansupersite.com/fleischer.jpg

What happened to the creature of the night? A guy who was hiding in the shadows?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTYHkk34WQI/AAAAAAAAA3U/8I0WOuEZDwk/s1600/batcage2b1.PNG
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a277/lovegunner/Batman/tdk_1229.jpg

Now the SpiderManBat lands in the middle of a crowd on a colorful street?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTbofsEruSI/AAAAAAAAA4k/49e6KvbIHc4/s1600/inthecrowd.JPG

And the feel? I mean images from Burtons and Nolans movies are QUINTESSENTIAL batman. Quintessential. The darkness, the mist, the setting, the imagery –

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uB6XApK-v2w/TsCLqiisThI/AAAAAAAACLE/Kjq2RKPjEnE/s1600/darkvibe.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TN5hncsDCSI/AAAAAAAAAgQ/Y0Z2OYXAfVs/s1600/batshadowret.PNG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTsZ9mBVugI/AAAAAAAAA7c/Kl9jZyEMPSs/s1600/balroof.PNG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TUsaRNZgbYI/AAAAAAAABI8/RRFBeeD427g/s1600/BBwatch.png

And what the hell is that? Not even Batman never stands, behaves or looks like Batman, but it just looks like a guy in a Halloween suit in a circus
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies/batmanforever/images/Bitmap-2511.jpg

And what happened to Gotham which is suppose to be a darker version of New York?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTX9cKuQhWI/AAAAAAAAA3E/0krGJhYSauQ/s1600/cathedra.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTbtafeX4II/AAAAAAAAA44/puHZKSWlaiQ/s1600/Batman_Forever_1995_003.jpg
Whats with the Barbie City?

And the batcave? Keaton and Bale had a cave with sporadic equipment scattered around
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTgDeJKEBEI/AAAAAAAAA5c/FUxpV7M0ZCY/s1600/spookybatcave.PNG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lkqR1KGWOGE/TjtZCEj7IbI/AAAAAAAABu8/YpFWgY6GDEA/s1600/13930963bbcave.jpg

What the hell is it with neon carshow display? This is suppose to be Batman?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TTgccN-YKqI/AAAAAAAAA5k/-zmJdEXJk_o/s1600/BFBatcave8.jpg

While Burton and Nolan took a very different approach and drew from different eras, the quintessential and defining core characteristics of Batman and his world are shared by Keaton and Bale. Schumacher’s movies are just not Batman movies. Theyre colorful generic superhero movies loaded with Saturday night superhero cartoon clichés and childish comic booky heorism

Then theres the pointless regression in the storyline. The whole parents thing again. It was already dealt with in the first movie and the revenge was completed. He moved on in Returns, the whole sudden depression and moping around as if it just happened the day before was unnecessary. He killed Joker and in Returns doesnt even mention his parents. He is STILL traumatic and affected by it (never said otherwise), but he moved on to another phase. Same in TDK - never mentions his parents, never stops to mourn about them. Its all about his life and companionship, as was Returns - the second film as well. Bale himself says he moved on from his parents death in TDK. Despite that, hes still affected and still the same Batman. Valium Kilmer suddenly turns into a hardcore Depression Man

And he says hes both Batman and Bruce Wayne cause he chooses to be. I mean, seriously? I dont know how soemone can miss the mark more with Batman. Bruce Wayne is just a mask, in the comics and in Burtons and Bales movies. Hes Batman, thats hes real identity.

Its amazing that Keaton and Bale were both chosen for their intensity and fire in the eyes, while Kilmer was chosen cause he was "handsome" and "young". But what to expect from a man who constantly dismissed Batman as just a comic book and continuously insisted this material cant be taken seriously cause "its Batman".


And I mean, making out in the suit? My god...

And whats up with being so enchanted with a cliche blonde holywood start-looking doctor? This is another thing I dont get. Chase was just a weird hottie who was in love with Batman like teenage girls with Justin Beaber. I dont know how she got his interest other than seductive looks and behavior. Vale was just a girl for him, he was dismissive of her and she had to chase after him when he didnt have much interest and had to even be pelted by Alfred to answer her calls. Catwoman was a fellow tarnished soul, a bride of Frankenstein. Rachel was someone who knew and understood Bruce from his childhood. But Chase? Just another cliche "hot blonde" who needs saving and yet he was so into her


Ok, lets movie on to the villains, shall we? Ill just mention them briefly – not only they look like descends of crayola pack, but theyre both ridiculously stereotypical overly flamboyant homosexuals and both act silly and goofy. Jones plays a homosexual, gullible and retarded cousin of Joker and Carrey plays a guy who REALLY needs to hold back with his homosexuality

Theres much more but I think I made my point already

[El Payaso]

Visually. Again. And Batman has not always been noir n gothic. Not even the 70s.

Batman has not always been anything axctually. The character keeps changing and finding new ways. Burton was one who made new ways, not just duplicated stuff, althoiugh you can find many comics-to-screen Batman stuff.

Yeah, kitchen psychology applied to a fictional character. The Batman from the comics was not like that and that is all that counts.

Yeah, well your 'Asperger syndrome' was rather poor.

But when you're making a movie what was in the comics is far from being all that counts.

There was nothing wrong with their portrayal.

There is when the very people who made such portrayal apologized to the world for it. :cwink:

It falls within the normal Batman range of the comics from 1939 to 1989. Keaton's "Let's blow some **** up, kill-the-poor-muscleman-but-killing-Walken-is-wrong and give a look like an idiot"-Batman does not.

Excuse me, so Batman killed a man and then he realized it was wrong? I mean, those people gave the character some development? That's a damn shame. I mean the fact that you didn't get it.

I guess Kilmer is not that tormented so he has to pretend to be. It's called acting.

No, that's called 'trying.'

It had nothing to do with the comics and he turned into nothing more than a Bizarro Silver Age villain.

Of course it had little to do with thee comics. That's why I called it an 'improvement over his comics counterpart,' see?

But it had to do with the basics of the character. Boy who's bullied by his looks and grows to become a villiain and has his revenge. The rest was improved over that basis.

Yeah, but that's more in tone with something you'd expect from an episode in the Adam West show. Just turned grimdark and bizarro.

Actually everything Riddler and Two-Face do is exactly what you can actually find in an Adam west TV show episode. In fact in B&R you can find the famous trumpet punch-effect when Batman punches one of the Fereze's henchmen (right before saying 'good night').

But birds with weapons is what you find in those little things called Batman comics.

The cats probably got their dash of radiation from the bizarre "Christopher-Walken power plant that doesn't make any sense" and then brought her back to live so she could survive gunshots like it's nothing.

Typical Burton crap.

Unlikely to be Burton thing here since that never ever happened in the movie.

Therefore this is typical TTTC thing. The kind of made up stuff you gotta use when you run out of actual arguments.

Partially. But it wasn't that far removed from the comics. Still, there's no point, I hated all the Batman villains in the old movies except for the Joker.

You gotta love the Joker. Since Riddler and specially Two-Face spent the movie ripping him off. Which makes those villiains, specially Two-Face, far removed from the comics.

They might have done that. But you know, kids are watching.

So, it never happened in the TV series, right?

Thanks, Mr Burton, we had writers like Finger, Robbins, O'Neil, Englehart, Wein, Moench, Conway, Reed, Barr and Starlin before you, we didn't need your stupid Goth nerd insights.

And then you have to think that movies need movie writers. Stan Lee himself, some respected comic book writer, could teach you a thing or two about it, just read my signature. :up:

Ever read the comics BEFORE the stupid Burton movies? You know, the available source material from those days? it was portrayed totally differently.

Actually it was very much portrayed like the 1939 comic books, you read them?

I don't need Burton's personality in a fictional character that isn't supposed to be like Burton at all.

I'm not going through a bunch of bad movies. Burton peaked with Mars Attacks! and that's it.

You can't also bother with some respected portrayal of the character when you can praise movies made by people who are publicly ashamed of those very movies. :woot:



Way to miss the point. No one wants Adam West back...

Way to miss the point. You liked Adam West stuff in Schumacher movies.





Wow, Im shocked by some of the complete ignorance on some fans part - Kilmer reflecting Batman? Burton's Batman nothing like comics? Batman not having issues with duality and not being an isolated loner? Wow, just wow. But what to expect from insulting, stubborn Schumachers Batman fan. Of course hell hate the total opposite of them and praise the neon cartoon over german expressionist Goth tale. Unless hes a fan of the Silver Age Batman then Id understand

Well, the fact that this perspective is defended in such a serious tone when Schumacher and Clooney themselves are not proud of them gives it a comedic tone very much like the tone of the Schumacher's bat-movies themselves.

[GothamAlleys]

The poster honestly embarasses himself to people who actually studied Batman comics and know more than the average bear. Hes completely unaware that Burtons Batman were based on the 39 batman, hes completely unaware that Clooney himself thought Batman is a stupid idea and pushed for his Batman to be a normal next door guy, hes completely unaware that Schumacher grew up with 60s Batman and said with B&R he went to the Batman HE knew from the 60s, hes completely unaware Schumahcer made it clear he has no idea why people would want a serious Batman movie, hes completely unaware that Batman in costume often referred to himself as Bruce as a separate person in his mind in the 80s...the list goes on

Theres a reason why Bale, Bruce Timm and Goyer all said they really dislike Schumahcers movies, and theres a reason why Nolan, Bale and Goyer praise Burtons so much

[Ponyboy]

Way to miss the point. No one wants Adam West back...

No you missed the point because that's not what I said. I said no one, fanboy or otherwise would WANT to see Keaton, Kilmer or Bale in an "Adam West" style costume. Even though Adam West costume is more correct in terms of it's comic-ness. To get a literal 100% adaptation of the comics to the screen would be a Batman & Robin-level disaster.

[El Payaso]

The poster honestly embarasses himself to people who actually studied Batman comics and know more than the average bear. Hes completely unaware that Burtons Batman were based on the 39 batman, hes completely unaware that Clooney himself thought Batman is a stupid idea and pushed for his Batman to be a normal next door guy, hes completely unaware that Schumacher grew up with 60s Batman and said with B&R he went to the Batman HE knew from the 60s, hes completely unaware Schumahcer made it clear he has no idea why people would want a serious Batman movie, hes completely unaware that Batman in costume often referred to himself as Bruce as a separate person in his mind in the 80s...the list goes on

Theres a reason why Bale, Bruce Timm and Goyer all said they really dislike Schumahcers movies, and theres a reason why Nolan, Bale and Goyer praise Burtons so much

I'm sure Schumacher and Clooney themselves could post in here some disclaimer reminding the world that they already apologized by their bat-movies and that opinions expressed by defenders are exclusive responsibility of those who give them. :woot:

[Ponyboy]

...

The thing is: Batman Returns is loved just because it's grimdark. Batman & Robin is hated because it's so neon. But to me they are equally silly, but at least B&R is a little bit more rooted in the Batman mythos while Returns is just Burton's own soup (that kinda flopped because most people didn't like it).


I missed this bit. I think you're incorrect. Batman & Robin is hated because of it's ridiculous dialogue, its "happy" Batman, it's nipples, it's butt shots and it's overall rape of the audience. It's not what people wanted to see. The HUGE drop in box office on Batman & Robin after the first weekend it opened is the indicator there. I still remember going to see that movie (and being excited about it)... I left the theatre with my brother and went angry. We even told our parents how it sucked. That didn't happen when we saw batman returns.

I think Batman Returns was misunderstood, largely by the soccer moms of America who thought it was safe to take their kids to. Wasnt it PG13? As in it's not suitable for children? Batman Returns was no more/less dark or sexual than the first film. In fact, there was no sex in Batman Returns (which there was in the first film)... but rather more overtly sexual dialogue. Batman "killed" people in both movies. I don't recall the 2nd film having a smoking corpse in it either. Batman Returns is a bit zanier... more wacky perhaps.

Also how did Batman Returns flop? Batman & Robin was the least financially successful film of the lot. I think time has proven which one is the greater Batman film...

[GothamAlleys]

Oh and lets not forget Goldsman (writer) hates it as well

[CConn]

I don't really care about the life of a loser.But do you care that I certifiably have an IQ high enough to belong to Mensa? Because I do.
Except there were times when it was implied that Bruce Wayne only became Batman when called by Gordon for "special cases". The idea that Batman has the psychological need to "patrol" the city each night is something that slipped in over time.I think you made some typo in your first sentence, because it really doesn't make much sense.

What I'm saying is, there's multiple times in Finger's run where Bruce drops everything because Gordon mentions something that pertains to crime fighting.

Which is pretty much what Burton's Bruce was. The reason why he was so befuddled at his banquet in B89 was because all of his attention was on observing Gordon, etc.

Again, I'll totally admit its more of an extreme than what Finger did. But, again, I'd argue having more extreme symptoms makes much more sense from a psychological perspective.
That seems more like wishful thinking to me. His mannerism are totally different.I'm talking about something a lot more subtle and in depth than mere mannerisms. The psychological commentary and analyzation of Batman is very similar in both Burton and Miller's work.

In both Batman shows an absolute disinterest in his identity as Bruce Wayne, shows a great deal of obsession to his mission and his work as Batman, and generally puts up a very strong guard against everyone outside of Alfred.
And Batman Returns was NOTHING like the comics. A dark movie doesn't mean it's a Batman movie. duh. I'm not gong to argue for BR's comic accurateness, but everyone who loves BR rarely brings up its "dark" nature. What I always see BR touted for is it's quiet commentary on Batman's own personality and psychosis through the analyzation of Penguin and Catwoman. That both villains are twisted mirror images of Batman himself, and both borrow from different aspects of Batman's personality and history.

From your various comments, it kind of appears to me that you're not very good at observing those minute character studies and introspections. You're too focused on the plot shortcomings and Burton's "weirdo gothic" visuals. Which is ironic, as you seem to be the one obsessed with imagery. Not me.

[cloverfan98]

As much as I admire the Nolen films for their very realistic feeling world, I also admire Burton and Schumacher for setting their films in clearly fantastic settings. (Schumacher much more so). Forever does have some great stuff in it. I do like Carry as Riddler although that may be because I don't have a very deep love for the comic character. The bat vehicles were awesome IMO, and I love their designs. I'm not a huge Robin fan at all, and I completly support Nolan not having the character in his films. That being said I really like how Robin is done in this film alot. Its a flawed film to be sure, but not one that I can't find things in it to really like about it.

[TruerToTheCore]

The poster honestly embarasses himself to people who actually studied Batman comics and know more than the average bear.

Except for the fact that's I'm exposed to Batman comics since 1980 and have every comic from 1968 to 1995, you are absolutely right. :whatever:

Hes completely unaware that Burtons Batman were based on the 39 batman,

What ********. That's what they claim, but it's not like that. Of course you people think "IT'S DARK, BATMAN KILLS, IT'S TEH 1939 BATMAN". Both Bruce Wayne and Batman are not portrayed like that.

hes completely unaware that Clooney himself thought Batman is a stupid idea and pushed for his Batman to be a normal next door guy, hes completely unaware that Schumacher grew up with 60s Batman and said with B&R he went to the Batman HE knew from the 60s, hes completely unaware Schumahcer made it clear he has no idea why people would want a serious Batman movie, hes completely unaware that Batman in costume often referred to himself as Bruce as a separate person in his mind in the 80s...the list goes on

Blalblablablabla.


Theres a reason why Bale, Bruce Timm and Goyer all said they really dislike Schumahcers movies, and theres a reason why Nolan, Bale and Goyer praise Burtons so much

Blabalaablabla.

I missed this bit. I think you're incorrect. Batman & Robin is hated because of it's ridiculous dialogue, its "happy" Batman, it's nipples, it's butt shots and it's overall rape of the audience. It's not what people wanted to see. The HUGE drop in box office on Batman & Robin after the first weekend it opened is the indicator there. I still remember going to see that movie (and being excited about it)... I left the theatre with my brother and went angry. We even told our parents how it sucked. That didn't happen when we saw batman returns.

Same could be said about Batman Returns.

I think Batman Returns was misunderstood, largely by the soccer moms of America who thought it was safe to take their kids to. Wasnt it PG13? As in it's not suitable for children? Batman Returns was no more/less dark or sexual than the first film. In fact, there was no sex in Batman Returns (which there was in the first film)... but rather more overtly sexual dialogue. Batman "killed" people in both movies. I don't recall the 2nd film having a smoking corpse in it either. Batman Returns is a bit zanier... more wacky perhaps.

Wrong. I was there. Kids AND adults hated it or where just totally confused.

Also how did Batman Returns flop? Batman & Robin was the least financially successful film of the lot. I think time has proven which one is the greater Batman film...

it flopped because it had double the budget and made 100 million$ less than the first one. That's a flop. of course, you guys know nothing about economic thinking, especially if you are talking opportunity costs into account it was close to being a real flop.

I don't what you guys want from me. I'm only defending Batman Forever. Batman & Robin is the same crap as Batman Returns.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Theres a reason why Bale, Bruce Timm and Goyer all said they really dislike Schumahcers movies, and theres a reason why Nolan, Bale and Goyer praise Burtons so much

Personally, I don't give two hoots who prefers what Batman films to the other, it doesn't affect my enjoyment either way, my own personal tastes are not so flimsy as to be swayed by other people so easily. I have preferred watching BF to the two Burton films since 1995.
Now, if the opinions of the various Batman filmakers are so important to *you*, when evaluating your own opinion, then you best also be citing the fact that Burton has went on the record as saying he doesn't rate his own 89 movie that highly, saying that it's actually not that great and is a bit of a drag(words to that effect).

[TruerToTheCore]

I'm sure Schumacher and Clooney themselves could post in here some disclaimer reminding the world that they already apologized by their bat-movies and that opinions expressed by defenders are exclusive responsibility of those who give them. :woot:

Moep. Again talking about Batman & Robin, not Batman Forever. And Schumacher actually didn't apologize for B&R, he just apologizes to the people that were disappointed.

But do you care that I certifiably have an IQ high enough to belong to Mensa? Because I do.

Good. Then make something out ouf your life, stop being a virgin, start doing science or a business carerr and stop spending your 20s(?) reading comics.


I think you made some typo in your first sentence, because it really doesn't make much sense.

It does. You need my 180 IQ to make sense out of it.

What I'm saying is, there's multiple times in Finger's run where Bruce drops everything because Gordon mentions something that pertains to crime fighting.

Now my IQ is too high again. What are you saying?

Which is pretty much what Burton's Bruce was. The reason why he was so befuddled at his banquet in B89 was because all of his attention was on observing Gordon, etc.

Then why was he looking at a wall and not Gordon? He had to turn around when Gordon asked him. And it's not like he reacted any different when he was having dinner / lunch / whatever with Vicky.


Again, I'll totally admit its more of an extreme than what Finger did. But, again, I'd argue having more extreme symptoms makes much more sense from a psychological perspective.

It's not more extreme, it's totally different. Batman / Bruce Wayne was largely a crime-fighting swashbuckler in those early stories, wise-cracking and not brooding at all, as far as i can remember.

No, it doesn't. What do you know about psychology? Nothing. You got your knowledge from comic books.



I'm talking about something a lot more subtle and in depth than mere mannerisms. The psychological commentary and analyzation of Batman is very similar in both Burton and Miller's work.

Only vague. Of course, Miller's work and Burton's combined was the death of Batman as a character to me.

In both Batman shows an absolute disinterest in his identity as Bruce Wayne, shows a great deal of obsession to his mission and his work as Batman, and generally puts up a very strong guard against everyone outside of Alfred.
I'm not gong to argue for BR's comic accurateness, but everyone who loves BR rarely brings up its "dark" nature. What I always see BR touted for is it's quiet commentary on Batman's own personality and psychosis through the analyzation of Penguin and Catwoman. That both villains are twisted mirror images of Batman himself, and both borrow from different aspects of Batman's personality and history.

Frank Miller doesn't know **** about Batman, and even he didn't like the Burton movies.

From your various comments, it kind of appears to me that you're not very good at observing those minute character studies and introspections. You're too focused on the plot shortcomings and Burton's "weirdo gothic" visuals. Which is ironic, as you seem to be the one obsessed with imagery. Not me.

I'm very well at that. When I see Batman Returns I see a movie that doesn't make sense, is totally campy in a grimdark way and has nothing to do with the comics. Keaton giving funny looks doesn't count then anymore.

I can understand and Burton's "artistic ambitions" and "it's-teh-German-expressionism"(which one of you has actually ever watched a movie out of that era?), but the movie is still a failure as a movie and a Batman movie.

[TruerToTheCore]

No you missed the point because that's not what I said. I said no one, fanboy or otherwise would WANT to see Keaton, Kilmer or Bale in an "Adam West" style costume. Even though Adam West costume is more correct in terms of it's comic-ness. To get a literal 100% adaptation of the comics to the screen would be a Batman & Robin-level disaster.

No, a adaption true to the comics would be possible, including the costume. At least I believe that. But then again, I am not a parrot that repeats things he's heard from other people!

[Cain]

Well I myself have seen a lot of expressionistic cinema. But I was also a very introverted kid who's only real "friend" was art. So I was always a whole lot more into things like film and comic books and music than my peers. I've been extensively studying cinema periods from the silent era and forward since I was about 11 or 12.

As somebody who always had a more ethereal imagination and admiration of the unknown I could certainly say I really do appreciate the exploration of the themes and tropes found in such films. From giving the actual atmosphere a personality and character and that being a huge symbolic supplement to the narrative. To it's use of gothic architecture and flair for the theatrical.

I think Burton's bat movies especially his second one do an excellent job at working with those tropes within a modern film context. It's probably some of the boldest **** I've seen in big budget hollywood filmmaking and one of the reasons I do appreciate his comic book based films so much.

It was a well executed attempt at moving superhero movies away from being the milquetoast and watered down entertainment they were perceived as being at the time. Even in light of Superman The Movie; and turning them into legitimate pieces of cinematic art.

It showed cinema fans that superhero material could be used to explore adult themes and be turned into films that resonate with cinema fans intellectually and could be revisited and studied for many years. They're the closest outside of the Ang Lee Hulk movie that superhero movies ever got to being "art films" for better or worse. When you have people talking about learning something new from a film they've seen hundreds of times with every view I don't think it's a reflection that said film was a failure as a movie.

On the contrary if they keep seeing more nuances and layers to the material with each re-view as their understanding of the cinematic language (a highly visual language) increases I would say it was quite successful as a movie. A movie that fails is not one that rewards the viewers with new perspectives on it and it's themes with subsequent viewings. That's what gives them strength and endurance (I mean here we are 20 plus years later discussing the merits of these flicks still). Burton's movies in this franchise succeed at the most essential component that any form of art should succeed at; being timeless.

[GothamAlleys]

Except for the fact that's I'm exposed to Batman comics since 1980 and have every comic from 1968 to 1995, you are absolutely right. :whatever:

So I learned something new then. I learned that just because youre a longtime fan doesnt mean you have to be well informed and knowledgable on the subject

What ********. That's what they claim, but it's not like that. Of course you people think "IT'S DARK, BATMAN KILLS, IT'S TEH 1939 BATMAN". Both Bruce Wayne and Batman are not portrayed like that.

Its not because of that at all. If you read some production boooks and interviews youd know that well before the movie was written it was already decided to focus on the first year of Batman most. Sam Hamm, Peters and other co producers stated so black on white. Do your research since youre diggin an even bigger hole for yourself exposing even more lack of knowledge on the subject. And btw, Batman was never portrayed like that? Lol, are you doing that intentionally? Batman always killed in every incarnation. It was an occasional kill, but he did and continues to do so. Again, research


Blalblablablabla.

Shouldve known who Im dealing with. So thats your response on the subject of Schumacher saying he wanted to go to the Batman he grew up with of the 60s? And thats also your response to all the praises of Nolan and BTAS team saying how Schumacher isnt Batman and how Burton was the only one on the right track? You must be lying. I dont believe for a second that an adult person would act like this, respond like this and would constantly lie about knowing about Batman mythos when some of your statements which are common for generic fans who are only passed the info from internet hearsays and legends are just laughable. Im a fan since the 80s too and Im in touch with people who are very hardcore Batman comic fans since early 70s. All of them are very intelligent and polite and we all get together sometimes to write some entries for Gotham Alleys


It's not more extreme, it's totally different. Batman / Bruce Wayne was largely a crime-fighting swashbuckler in those early stories, wise-cracking and not brooding at all, as far as i can remember.


Why are you doing this to yourself? You know what an ignorant statement that is? The first year Batman was largely based on horror movies such as The Bat Whispers and Dracula, as well as The Shadow - a dark and ruthless nightly crime fighter. Once Robin appeared the character changed completely. Theres tons of materials on that. Please at least pick up DC's Batman History by Les Daniels. Thats the least you can do

Personally, I don't give two hoots who prefers what Batman films to the other, it doesn't affect my enjoyment either way, my own personal tastes are not so flimsy as to be swayed by other people so easily. I have preferred watching BF to the two Burton films since 1995.
Now, if the opinions of the various Batman filmakers are so important to *you*, when evaluating your own opinion, then you best also be citing the fact that Burton has went on the record as saying he doesn't rate his own 89 movie that highly, saying that it's actually not that great and is a bit of a drag(words to that effect).

When did I say its so important to me? Im just saying that the Nolan team has the reason to admire Burton movies so much. Cheesh

[Thebumwhowalks]

When did I say its so important to me? Im just saying that the Nolan team has the reason to admire Burton movies so much. Cheesh

No, what you were doing was citing other Batman filmakers in order to try and back up your own opinions, and change the opinions of others who disagree with you. Because that is what you have been doing, trying to change people's opinions, re-posting the same massive post on BF and citing the filmakers who agree with you.

If you think that the opinions of these filmkers would be important to those who disagree with them, then it suggests that their opinions must be important in helping to shape your opinion to some degree. Or, at the very least, it suggests their opinions keep you safe and secure in the knowledge that your opinion is the right one, and everyone else is wrong. As if there is some science to this.

[GothamAlleys]

No. I just thought that the poster will at least listen to others arguments instead of ignoring other fans' arguments and opinions and continuously repeating how Burton films are not Batman but Schumachers are. No one is wrong when it comes to opinions, but who is wrong is the poster who just keeps posting statements that are not true and shoves it in everyones mouth which he did repeatedly showing his lack of knowledge of Batman mythos. Since the poster thinks and says we're all idiots and wrong for liking Burton, I was interested what he would say about Nolan team and Schumacher team saying the same thing. Are they stupid idiots too who dont know anything as well

[Thebumwhowalks]

I don't think he was saying anyone was an idiot because they liked the Burton films.

As far as I can see, there is just a difference of opinion here on the characterisation, no-one is calling anyone stupid for preferring one movie to the other. The discussion on characterisation got quite heated and some personal comments were thrown around, but as far as i recall it wasn't in that context.

You were saying some stuff about folk being ignorant about the source material, and that being the reason they are 'wrong', but that's not true.
Scholars of any kind of literature can disagree on interpretations, they disagree on their own insights into the material, not because one has read the books, and one hasn't.
When you start throwing around insults like that, it just makes you look like someone who thinks they are 'right', and has the proof to back it up, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because they have not been exposed to the same proof as you.
How about...they are also familiar with the same source material but have a different interpretation of it and just don't agree with you?

[GothamAlleys]

Its not that. When someone says Batman doesnt kill its not true. When someone says people think Burtons Batman is primarily based on the '39 batman just because he killed its not true as well. When someone says batman doesnt sit alone brooding its not true as well. When someone says Batman wasnt dark and was just a muskeeter type of a hero its not true as well. And when that person with those statements tells others theyre wrong and he knows better cause hes a fan for a longer tie, then when the stuff gets nasty

[Mister Meddle]

I am not even going to answer this pathetic piece of failed sarcasm.

That must be slang for "you're completely right and I'm wrong". :oldrazz:

The Burton movies are about as corny. The Penguin was as corny and over-the-top as Mr Freeze. Twins, indeed!

Welcome to the Batman Universe, little Jimmy. A lot of characters are over-the-top. Th Penguin dealt with all types of emotions. It's hard to neither hate or feel sorry for him. Mr. Freeze just had his toy gun, his puns and his blue nightlights all over his suit. One gave children nightmares, the other was meant to promote the Batman & Robin action figures toy line for kids.

I'd actually pick an episode of the Adam West show (first two seasons only) over the Burton movies. At least those make sense, storywise and have better writing. Oh, and there's no midget Batman at work. And they actually stole the plot from an episode to make Batman Returns!Have fun watching Batman surfing with the Joker on some local beach.

If Keaton is considered as a midget then you probably don't get out quite often. Somehow that's not surprising.

[GothamAlleys]

And btw, I know there are different interpretations and sources to draw from. Burton is mainly earliest batman and the early 40s. Schumacher is mostly 70s, Nolan is mostly 80s. But this is another instance where the poster is not right saying one of them is more Batman than the other when they draw from different eras and interpretations

[Cain]

And btw, I know there are different interpretations and sources to draw from. Burton is mainly earliest batman and the early 40s. Schumacher is mostly 70s, Nolan is mostly 80s. But this is another instance where the poster is not right saying one of them is more Batman than the other when they draw from different eras and interpretations


Not in Batman & Robin. That was totally more in line with the silver age Batman that will spend time being a scout master to boy scout troops & fight crime alongside a masked dog. Just without the charm because Clooney seems completely uncomfortable and tortured in the batsuit & he's not good at playing it straight.

[circa81]

They're the closest outside of the Ang Lee Hulk movie that superhero movies ever got to being "art films" for better or worse.

Oh wow, someone here other then me loves Ang Lee's Hulk. *salute*

[CConn]

Good. Then make something out ouf your life, stop being a virgin, start doing science or a business carerr and stop spending your 20s(?) reading comics.Um, I have a wife. And I have a rather successful career.

Do you have any other challenges for me that I've already completed?
It does. You need my 180 IQ to make sense out of it.Why don't you just say its, 230. It'd be just as believable.

Although people with astromically high IQs have often suffered from severe social inadequacies and struggled to successfully comprehend more ambiguous social and psychological concepts. That could be a pretty good description of you.
Then why was he looking at a wall and not Gordon? He had to turn around when Gordon asked him. And it's not like he reacted any different when he was having dinner / lunch / whatever with Vicky.Because on a certain level, he didn't give a **** bout Vicky. That's part of the psychosis. The people in Bruce Wayne's life are just there. Distractions. Nothing of real importance.
It's not more extreme, it's totally different. Batman / Bruce Wayne was largely a crime-fighting swashbuckler in those early stories, wise-cracking and not brooding at all, as far as i can remember.Generally I find all characters from that era had a very similar characterization ("swashbuckling" is a pretty good term for it), but when compared to Superman, Wonder Woman or some of the other popular characters from that era, Batman was definitely a darker, more somber character than most. And, again, he pursued his mission to fight crime rather obsessively.
No, it doesn't. What do you know about psychology? Nothing. You got your knowledge from comic books.Why would you assume any of that? I minored in Psychology. And even outside of that, I've investigated the science through various books and journals. It's kind of a passion of mine. And didn't you say I should explore science?
Only vague. Of course, Miller's work and Burton's combined was the death of Batman as a character to me.

Frank Miller doesn't know **** about Batman, and even he didn't like the Burton movies.Here's the thing though. You said Burton's Batman was a perversion to the comics. Not that it was a perversion to the comics you personally prefer.

Objectively speaking, Miller, Morrison, etc.'s work is just as valid and legitimate as O'Neil's or anyone else's.

But I don't think you quite grasp the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
I'm very well at that. When I see Batman Returns I see a movie that doesn't make sense, is totally campy in a grimdark way and has nothing to do with the comics. Keaton giving funny looks doesn't count then anymore.You just admitted it right there. It doesn't make sense to you. You're - for whatever reason - unable to comprehend anything outside of the aesthetical features of the film.
[quote]I can understand and Burton's "artistic ambitions" and "it's-teh-German-expressionism"(which one of you has actually ever watched a movie out of that era?), but the movie is still a failure as a movie and a Batman movie.[/QUOTEYyes, I understand that you can understand the visual aspect of Burton's films. The problem is, there's tons more ambiguous things about the films that you're totally oblivious to.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a giant Batman Returns fan myself. It is a bit too dark and gothic for my tastes. That said, I'm still perfectly capable of understanding it's merits, and why others hold it in such high regard. It's probably just my old IQ in action again.

[Ponyboy]

Same could be said about Batman Returns.

Wrong. I was there. Kids AND adults hated it or where just totally confused.

it flopped because it had double the budget and made 100 million$ less than the first one. That's a flop. of course, you guys know nothing about economic thinking, especially if you are talking opportunity costs into account it was close to being a real flop.

Sorry double post

[Ponyboy]

Same could be said about Batman Returns.

Wrong. I was there. Kids AND adults hated it or where just totally confused.

it flopped because it had double the budget and made 100 million$ less than the first one. That's a flop. of course, you guys know nothing about economic thinking, especially if you are talking opportunity costs into account it was close to being a real flop.


No the same can't be said about batman returns. It didn't have overtly campy dialogue, bat nipples or butt shots.

Kids AND adults hated it? That might be so in whatever podunk area of America you were living in at the time. I don't recall anyone hating Batman Returns and I was there also. I saw it in the theatre twice and never saw anyone walk or kids crying or any of that BS that was reported about it being too dark at the time.

Batman Returns didn't flop. Saying it made 100 million less than the first one doesn't make it a flop. Rarely do sequels surpass the originals in terms of box office anyway. Batman Returns also made huge revenue in the merchandising. Batman Returns didn't make as much as the studio would've liked... that's totally different than a flop.

[Ponyboy]

No, a adaption true to the comics would be possible, including the costume. At least I believe that. But then again, I am not a parrot that repeats things he's heard from other people!

I never said it wasn't possible. Boy, you are a piece of work. It's totally possible... they could make it EXACTLY like the comics. They could make Batman look exactly like Breyfogle's Batman... white eyes... huge pointy ears and a the gray and blue suit. Would it succeed? THAT is what is questionable. Since you are now resorting to INSULTS I daresay you're walking the troll line. Careful partner.

[CConn]

I never said it wasn't possible. Boy, you are a piece of work. It's totally possible... they could make it EXACTLY like the comics. They could make Batman look exactly like Breyfogle's Batman... white eyes... huge pointy ears and a the gray and blue suit. Would it succeed? THAT is what is questionable. Since you are now resorting to INSULTS I daresay you're walking the troll line. Careful partner.
Don't let it upset you too much. I don't think he even comprehends half of what he's reading.

[Cain]

No the same can't be said about batman returns. It didn't have overtly campy dialogue, bat nipples or butt shots.

Kids AND adults hated it? That might be so in whatever podunk area of America you were living in at the time. I don't recall anyone hating Batman Returns and I was there also. I saw it in the theatre twice and never saw anyone walk or kids crying or any of that BS that was reported about it being too dark at the time.

Batman Returns didn't flop. Saying it made 100 million less than the first one doesn't make it a flop. Rarely do sequels surpass the originals in terms of box office anyway. Batman Returns also made huge revenue in the merchandising. Batman Returns didn't make as much as the studio would've liked... that's totally different than a flop.


Batman Returns was in the top 10 high grossers of that year and doubled it's production budget domestically. Nothing was ever going to surpass the juggernaut that was the 1989 movie for quite sometime. It was a pop culture phenomenon. The movie was an event and it's commercial success reflects that.

Not even Forever could do it; it just out grossed BR domestic by about 20 mill. The '89 movie was WB's highest earner of all time until The Matrix came out. Then a few years later Batman & The Joker returned to reclaim that spot once again.

It's not an every day occurence that movies gross the amount of money that Batman did; adjust it's domestic take for inflation and it's only 33 million dollars short of TDK's domestic take. It's not something every movie manages to achieve. BR may not have had done the business WB wanted but it was hardly bad bank that it made back nevertheless. It was a financial success.

[Cain]

Oh wow, someone here other then me loves Ang Lee's Hulk. *salute*

My favorite piece of Hulk media outside of the comics so far :up:

[Frodo]

BR wasn't a flop by any means. But it wasn't recieved by the public the way B89 was . There were a few reasons for that but as someone who was around and aware back then I can maybe shed light on a few reasons .

1)This film was released to a 1992 america which was much more socially conservative then as opposed to today. Hence the complaints of parents groups about Catwoman's sexiness and the violence among other things. B89 did get some flack from parents in terms of the Joker handshake scene, but you didn't have the boycott of McDonald's or whatever that BR got. This was also the pre Marvel, Nolan, and Watchman era of comic book flicks in which truely mature and thoughtfull comic book films were a decade away. Superman, Batman, the Hulk tv show, and the Crow were the exceptions at the time, not the rule.

2) You also have to keep in mind that when people thought of the Penguin in 1992 , they thought of the 60's show version. When Burton showed up with this radically different version of the Penguin who looked horrid and bit noses off , audiences were pretty shocked. It was a radical break from the status quo. Yes, Devito and Burton stated in interviews that this Penguin would be different ,but in those days you didn't have the social and ad media you have today ,so the majority of people going in weren't prepared for what they were gonna see. You had the making specials of course , but those were few and far between in those days.

3)It was a big hit money wise, but like Spiderman 3 ,there was a feeling that the film missed the mark or was considered "too dark". Hence WB decided to shift gears and go lightier a few years later. In other words , the reaction wasn't so bad that the francise was dead , i.e. Batman and Robin, but the studio did wanna make changes to appeal to the families , and hence make more money. There was a reason WB shifted in tone , so its not like it was an irrational decision on their part . And to be fair , BF make more money then BR , though much of that I believe was due to the growing success of Jim Carrey.

4) Batman 89 was a cultural phenom and I suppose any sequel to it would have had a high bar to reach. However people were pretty psyched in 1992 for the Batman 2 so its not like alot of the excitment disappeared over 4 years. Ultimately, it wasn't the film the GA were expecting , or ready to see at the time.

That's why I think , we always have to keep in mind the context of the times in which these films are made in . I wouldn't be suprised if the next generation starts picking apart the Nolan films and saying" They didn't do this or that ...".

[Cain]

Well I was 9 and I will say amongst kids the movie was the ****. Every kid in my school thought Keaton was bad ass and loved how grimy and "adult" everything felt. I will say I guess that's exactly why parents had a titty attack but my parents were always somewhat liberal in the sense that I've been watching R-rated movies with their approval all my life.

The Exorcist was scary, Tony Montana was violent compared to them in my eyes Batman was child's play. But yeah as an adult looking back you could see why parents had a fit. S&M costumes and references in a movie with a happy meal tie-in isn't exactly the most wholesome thing in the world.

I literally grew up on action, sci-fi and horror more so than animated movies and family flicks like most other kids did. Commando, Robocop, Aliens, The Terminator, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Thing, 48 Hrs. <---- that was a huge bulk of my childhood. So to me the movie never felt "scary" nor "really violent" or anything.

This was another reason BF didn't intially resonate with me. It felt like watered down **** compared to the Burton movies which felt to me like "real movies" since it was more in line with my more precocious sensibilities as a kid. I kind of grew up backwards or "grew down" lol in that now I find charm and likeability in BF as a 28 year old but as a 12 yr old it repulsed me when it's the opposite effect with other bat fans, that's interesting.

[TruerToTheCore]

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...

[GothamAlleys]

Of course. thank you. Youre so right. I only like it because I was a kid at the time it came out. Im so stupid. Why would anything I like would be relevant because of the box office success. Thank you very much. I shouldve realized that before. What I like , whatever the arguments and reasons are, its stupid cause Im just stuck with my childhood and nevermind the history, nevermind the reasons, Im just a dumb guy who should get a wife and forget the past. How I could not see that before? Burtons movies are nothing like Batman, Schumacher got it right but nevermind, who would care when theres Nolan around? Everything else is crap and irrelevant no matter what Nolan says

[Ponyboy]

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...

Age doesn't make one wise.

What you should be saying is that you're giving it a rest because you cannot reasonably support your opinion even moderately well. You seemingly want a Batman film direct from the source material without any deviation.

Here's a case in point for a film which differs radically from the source... Arguably one of the greatest sci-fi films of our time is Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. It's loosely based on a book by Philip K. Dick entitled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Now, the film differs from the book in many ways including the actual time during which the story takes place, some of the central themes, and even many of the characters. But that doesn't mean that Scott's film version is a failure, or a flop, or any less credible or valid as an adaptation of Dick's story.

What Burton did with Batman was to adapt the character to the screen and give us a world that was believable. The concept that Keaton isn't a good Batman is alien to me. Anyone that appreciates nuance, subtlety, and underlying pain can appreciate Keaton's performance. I believe he gave something to the role of Bruce Wayne that we hadn't quite seen; making us understand why he was driven to be this Batman.

I think Burton also gave the film a psychological complexity (however deep it may or may not have been) that intrigued casual movie goers that may have had no prior interest in Batman (perhaps because of the TV show). It's an grand take on the legacy, and it's also why the character endures in film today. To say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the obvious, of which I can only imagine must stem from some misguided sense you have of what Batman should and should not be.

[The Morningstar]

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...

Burton's movies are grimdark camp?

Nolan's movies are grimdark melodrama with more spoon feeding than a nursery, crap action scenes, no visual flair, barely any Batman iconography and the most boring Batman ever.

Anyway, Batman Forever is decent. It had some truly great moments. Unfortunately, no where near enough. Which is annoying, because it had so much potential.

[CConn]

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...And this is what we call waving the verbal white flag.

[Bathead]

I remember Neal Adams being quoted as saying about Batman Forever, that it was "getting closer" to what Batman was about.
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

[Thebumwhowalks]

The thing that bugged/bugs me about that Burton film is that he chose to portray Batman as a killer.
Now, you might say, 'he killed in the early comics', but, so what? When you have the first chance to see a live action serious attempt at a Batman movie, and maybe the only chance(if it flops, or doesn't make enough to warrant a sequel)who the hell wants to see a representation of the character before he was fully developed?
It's like Donner choosing to do a non-flying jumping Superman for the first movie, and fans who complain about that being rebuffed by 'It's still faithful to the comics.' It's a frickin annoying creative choice to have made.

I always remember back in 89 my pal asking me 'Why doesn't Batman just shoot the Joker when he busts in through that window(at the art gallery)?' In other words, 'if Batman is the kind of guy who will blow up a bunch of crooks with explosives, why doesn't he just carry a gun?'
and I couldn't really give him an answer as to why, because it doesn't make sense why he doesn't carry a gun.
He is prepared to kill the Joker and his henchmen when they make veiled threats to attack the populace during the parade...so why doesn't he just gun them all down when they are flooding the city with infected products? Sure, he figured out the formula by that time, but they were obviously going to do other similar deadly things right?

He carries a gun now and again in the early comics right? But again, the characvter didn't make make as much sense then, why go to the trouble of dressing up as a bat and fighting hand to hand, when you can just go round shooting folk? So, the character developed in the books to have a 'no kill' policy and we got the more interesting distinctive character that we all know.

Being 'faithful to the comics' is not always a good thing, when there are many different variations on the character, because the thing is, there were interpretations that did not make sense(the killer Batman), and ones that were pretty unpopular in the long run(sci-fi Batman).

Anyway, I am getting tired of talking about these movies, it's just the same stuff everyone disagrees on, and talks about all the time.
But that is part of the reason why i prefer watching BF, it's more faithful to the comics that worked in the long run, and were more popular, the type of Batman that will go on Forever in print. and the portrayal of the psycho killer Batman annoys me.

[TruerToTheCore]

And this is what we call waving the verbal white flag.

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage. Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

Of course. thank you. Youre so right. I only like it because I was a kid at the time it came out. Im so stupid. Why would anything I like would be relevant because of the box office success. Thank you very much. I shouldve realized that before. What I like , whatever the arguments and reasons are, its stupid cause Im just stuck with my childhood and nevermind the history, nevermind the reasons, Im just a dumb guy who should get a wife and forget the past.

Well... getting a wife helps. :cwink:

And I don't hate the first Burton movie. I can see why people like it, what mainly does it for most people is the visuals and the score. I was just very disappointed back then. Because I felt that Keaton looked wrong and behaved totally odd. I was raised on the swinging Moench Batman who had four women at one (Nocturna, Julia Remarque, Vicki Vale, Catwoman).

But I still consider Batman Returns an insult and betrayal.


How I could not see that before? Burtons movies are nothing like Batman, Schumacher got it right but nevermind, who would care when theres Nolan around? Everything else is crap and irrelevant no matter what Nolan says

Schumacher got it partially right, especially when it comes to Batman / Bruce Wayne. The neon and the camp was of course too much, but not that odd when you compare it to a 50s or 60s comic.

Age doesn't make one wise.

Usually it does.


What you should be saying is that you're giving it a rest because you cannot reasonably support your opinion even moderately well. You seemingly want a Batman film direct from the source material without any deviation.

How the **** can anyone support a feeling?

No, it doesn't really need to be direct from the source material, that would be odd, since Batman is not a single novel.

Here's a case in point for a film which differs radically from the source... Arguably one of the greatest sci-fi films of our time is Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. It's loosely based on a book by Philip K. Dick entitled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Now, the film differs from the book in many ways including the actual time during which the story takes place, some of the central themes, and even many of the characters. But that doesn't mean that Scott's film version is a failure, or a flop, or any less credible or valid as an adaptation of Dick's story.

I prefer the book. Like the Burton Batman the movie mainly looks good. I still like the movie, too. But well, Batman is an icon, so I expect him to be rooted in the source material. But this old "adaption" versus "interpretation" is found in every forum. It's boring, I just feel that Burton didn't get Batman.

What Burton did with Batman was to adapt the character to the screen and give us a world that was believable. The concept that Keaton isn't a good Batman is alien to me. Anyone that appreciates nuance, subtlety, and underlying pain can appreciate Keaton's performance. I believe he gave something to the role of Bruce Wayne that we hadn't quite seen; making us understand why he was driven to be this Batman.

Keaton was AsBats (Asperger-Bats), not the real Batman. Fine performance for a different character, but wrong for Batman. Next time he should wear a cow mask to bring new light into Batman's psychology.


I think Burton also gave the film a psychological complexity (however deep it may or may not have been) that intrigued casual movie goers that may have had no prior interest in Batman (perhaps because of the TV show). It's an grand take on the legacy, and it's also why the character endures in film today. To say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the obvious, of which I can only imagine must stem from some misguided sense you have of what Batman should and should not be.

I'd rather see the real Batman on screen, especially since it's was his first big exposure to the worldwide audience since the 60s. And thus he gave the people wrong ideas about the characters and we got those crappy 90s Batman comics.

Burton could have written an elseworld book instead.

Burton's movies are grimdark camp?

Radioactive Secretary-Turned-Martial-Arts-Catwoman, Black-Goo-spitting-Penguin-being-buried-by-a-bunch-of-penguins, Rocket Penguins, Penguin-Controlling-The-batmobile-while-riding-a-giant-duck, Poodle-Catches-The-Batarang, I-Save-A-Baby-And-They'll-Want-Me-For-Mayor, Bruce-Wayne-is-sitting-and-suddenly-giant-batsignals-flash-which-would expose his identity in no time...

Seriously. It's so campy and it cannot be meant to be serious. Batman Returns is a campfest like the Adam West show, but the latter one was at least better written.


Nolan's movies are grimdark melodrama with more spoon feeding than a nursery, crap action scenes, no visual flair, barely any Batman iconography and the most boring Batman ever.

Nolan's movies are not so dark IMO. And crappy action scenes.. gimme a break.. Burton's were even worse. The best action scenes are actually in the Schumacher movies (what probably no one wants to admit...)


Anyway, Batman Forever is decent. It had some truly great moments. Unfortunately, no where near enough. Which is annoying, because it had so much potential.

It had potential. Like Batman 89. But at some point both movies failed. What a waste. Thank god for Nolan's Batman Begins who had the dignity to approach the material by taking it seriously and not turning it into another fairly tale-camp party.


I remember Neal Adams being quoted as saying about Batman Forever, that it was "getting closer" to what Batman was about.
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

:word: And Neal knows what he's talking about it.

BTW, many comic book creators didn't even like the Burton movies, don't kid yourself. The list includes Frank Miller, John Byrne, Paul Dini, Neal Adams and many more.

[TruerToTheCore]

The thing that bugged/bugs me about that Burton film is that he chose to portray Batman as a killer.
Now, you might say, 'he killed in the early comics', but, so what? When you have the first chance to see a live action serious attempt at a Batman movie, and maybe the only chance(if it flops, or doesn't make enough to warrant a sequel)who the hell wants to see a representation of the character before he was fully developed?

It's like Donner choosing to do a non-flying jumping Superman for the first movie, and fans who complain about that being rebuffed by 'It's still faithful to the comics.' It's a frickin annoying creative choice to have made.

Well, yeah. Batman not killing is kinda a basic compound of the character. But since it was there originally I wouldn't even have a problem with it.

I always remember back in 89 my pal asking me 'Why doesn't Batman just shoot the Joker when he busts in through that window(at the art gallery)?' In other words, 'if Batman is the kind of guy who will blow up a bunch of crooks with explosives, why doesn't he just carry a gun?'
and I couldn't really give him an answer as to why, because it doesn't make sense why he doesn't carry a gun.
He is prepared to kill the Joker and his henchmen when they make veiled threats to attack the populace during the parade...so why doesn't he just gun them all down when they are flooding the city with infected products? Sure, he figured out the formula by that time, but they were obviously going to do other similar deadly things right?

Burton's movies don't make sense. They have no internal logic. A killer can hold a parade and no policeman shows up. And then, Batman has no problem killing poor henchmen (who probably have a sick kid at home and only do it because there's no universal healthcare) but then he doesn't kill the big fish. Seems odd to me. Bad writing.



He carries a gun now and again in the early comics right? But again, the characvter didn't make make as much sense then, why go to the trouble of dressing up as a bat and fighting hand to hand, when you can just go round shooting folk? So, the character developed in the books to have a 'no kill' policy and we got the more interesting distinctive character that we all know.

IIRC he didn't really carry a gun IN the stories themselves, he used one which he took from a crook to defend himself and stuff like that.


Being 'faithful to the comics' is not always a good thing, when there are many different variations on the character, because the thing is, there were interpretations that did not make sense(the killer Batman), and ones that were pretty unpopular in the long run(sci-fi Batman).

Depends. By faithful to the comics I usually think about the stuff that is a pretty consistent part of the mythology. What I don't like is changing the characters in a major way.


Anyway, I am getting tired of talking about these movies, it's just the same stuff everyone disagrees on, and talks about all the time.
But that is part of the reason why i prefer watching BF, it's more faithful to the comics that worked in the long run, and were more popular, the type of Batman that will go on Forever in print. and the portrayal of the psycho killer Batman annoys me.

Agreed.

[Thebumwhowalks]

IIRC he didn't really carry a gun IN the stories themselves, he used one which he took from a crook to defend himself and stuff like that.


Ok, i wasn't sure about that, I haven't taken a look at any of the old 'killer Batman' stories I have in a long while(I haven't read them all), but i recalled him having some kind of gun holster on his belt, maybe in that Doctor Death story, could be me mis-remembering, or it was just something that looked like a gun holster.

[TruerToTheCore]

I think the gun holster was there, just no gun. It's been years. Of course there is one panel where he holds a smoking gun but that's not actually part of the story.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Aye, and I think there is a cover to an early Detective Comics where you see a gun holster on his belt( one where he is leaping down onto two gangsters in a open top car.)
So, i wasn't sure if there had actually been a couple of stories i hadn't read where he actually carried and used a gun.

[circa81]

Age doesn't make one wise.

What you should be saying is that you're giving it a rest because you cannot reasonably support your opinion even moderately well. You seemingly want a Batman film direct from the source material without any deviation.

Here's a case in point for a film which differs radically from the source... Arguably one of the greatest sci-fi films of our time is Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. It's loosely based on a book by Philip K. Dick entitled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Now, the film differs from the book in many ways including the actual time during which the story takes place, some of the central themes, and even many of the characters. But that doesn't mean that Scott's film version is a failure, or a flop, or any less credible or valid as an adaptation of Dick's story.

What Burton did with Batman was to adapt the character to the screen and give us a world that was believable. The concept that Keaton isn't a good Batman is alien to me. Anyone that appreciates nuance, subtlety, and underlying pain can appreciate Keaton's performance. I believe he gave something to the role of Bruce Wayne that we hadn't quite seen; making us understand why he was driven to be this Batman.

I think Burton also gave the film a psychological complexity (however deep it may or may not have been) that intrigued casual movie goers that may have had no prior interest in Batman (perhaps because of the TV show). It's an grand take on the legacy, and it's also why the character endures in film today. To say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the obvious, of which I can only imagine must stem from some misguided sense you have of what Batman should and should not be.




totally agree, are you my alternate personality? :) Really though, While Batman 89 is by far my favorite live action movie Batman movie, Forever is second to me for the same reasons you stated. I love Batman, not for how tough he is or how mysterious he is, but by his psychological complexity and his sense that he does what he does because it's the only way he can live with his trauma. He's a tragic character, who just happens to be a "superhero".

[GothamAlleys]

The thing that bugged/bugs me about that Burton film is that he chose to portray Batman as a killer.
Now, you might say, 'he killed in the early comics', but, so what? When you have the first chance to see a live action serious attempt at a Batman movie, and maybe the only chance(if it flops, or doesn't make enough to warrant a sequel)who the hell wants to see a representation of the character before he was fully developed?



Eh. Batman didnt kill only in his first year. He occasionally killed in every decade and every incarnation and continuous to kill in comics to this day. There are tons of examples and in Mignola's story Sanctum its confirmed hes actually considered a murderer

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage. Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

Well... getting a wife helps. :cwink:

Its not for me. I like changing partners every few weeks and I dont like commitments

[Thebumwhowalks]

Eh. Batman didnt kill only in his first year. He occasionally killed in every decade and every incarnation and continuous to kill in comics to this day. There are tons of examples and in Mignola's story Sanctum its confirmed hes actually considered a murderer

They introduced the 'no kills' character trait after that first year or whatever it was, ie he was a superhero who did not want to kill criminals, it was against his morals.
Of course, over the course of decades of stories, you are going to have incidents where he may kill in self defence or in defence of others whose lives are *directly* in danger, or by accident, etc...but the character was changed to fit that credo.



Its not for me. I like changing partners every few weeks and I dont like commitments

haha, seems like we have a real swinger in here, and I don't know what that Alan Parker movie has got to do with anything. :huh:

[GothamAlleys]

They introduced the 'no kills' character trait after that first year or whatever it was, ie he was a superhero who did not want to kill criminals, it was against his morals.
Of course, over the course of decades of stories, you are going to have incidents where he may kill in self defence or in defence of others whose lives are *directly* in danger, or by accident, etc...but the character was changed to fit that credo.



Not really. I mean sure, plenty of kills were either in self defense or accidental, but there were and still are many straight up kills - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

As for the gun, he also used it many times throughout the years. probably most famous instance would be Year Two

[Thebumwhowalks]

Not really. I mean sure, plenty of kills were either in self defense or accidental, but there were and still are many straight up kills - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

As for the gun, he also used it many times throughout the years. probably most famous instance would be Year Two

ok, i will look at that link in a wee while to see what you are talking about, but I dare say there is nothing in there to compare to the cold blooded murder of the crooks at axis chemicals in 89.


and as for the gun use in Year Two, he only used it to disarm criminals, never to kill, if you recall, he could not even bring himself to kill Joe Chill with it.

edit: ok, i looked, and just about all of them are in self defence or accidental.
You have one 'murder' from that Brave and the Bold, where he 'knocks an unconcious guy into a river'(as they describe it), but we don't know if he survived or what, maybe the water woke him up.

there was also some story quoted there that says he forces Joe Chill to kill himself...I'd need to see the context of that story to judge...and I never read the 10 nights of the Beast, so I don't know if he left the KGBeast there to die of starvation ultimately.
But aye, those are the only three examples i could see that may not fit in with the criteria of self defence/accidental, and they are scare anamolies to say the least.

Y'know, apart from the very early stories that we were already talking about(and the incident in All Star B&R, which takes place in that early time in a different continuity)

[GothamAlleys]

What about pushing a statue on the entire crowd? Or knocking a guy out to make him drive into a pole and kill himself? Or throwing a grenade into a guy in Batman #271? There are more instances like that, and remember those are just few examples, these arent ALL the instances.

As for the gun, I never said he used it to kill in Modern Age (he did in the first year of his existence tho), but he did use guns in fight

[Thebumwhowalks]

What about pushing a statue on the entire crowd? Or knocking a guy out to make him drive into a pole and kill himself? Or throwing a grenade into a guy in Batman #271? There are more instances like that, and remember those are just few examples, these arent ALL the instances.

I cannot see what panels you are referring to in the case of the statue being pushed, or 'ko-ing a guy to make him drive into a pole and kill himself'(which from your description sounds like a case of death by misadventure, a casualty that arises in the process of defending himself or others, ie he may have punched the guy, but maybe did not intend for him to drive into a pole and kill himself.)
and I cannot read the speech bubbles in the case of Batman 271, which is described above it as a case of 'when the enemy is too dangerous to be kept alive, Batman does what's necessary.', so i don't know the context to judge for myself.

in any case...these are anamolies, they hold up the rule through being the scarce exceptions that they are, and I'm not even sure if they are solid examples of murder.



As for the gun, I never said he used it to kill in Modern Age (he did in the first year of his existence tho), but he did use guns in fight

aye, i was just wondering about whether he had ever carried and used a gun in the early comics, as i have not read all of them, and recalled a couple of times where he had a gun holster on his utility belt.

[CConn]

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage.Yeah, it's real frustrating when you keep losing arguments.

Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton... Thanks, but as shocking as this may be, you're not the only person in the world who has read a Batman comic before 1990.

I've read at least a dozen issues from each decade. I know how Batman was in the 40s, the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and, of course, 00s. And I actually have a great appreciation for most of those interpretations.

[Ponyboy]

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage. Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

And I don't hate the first Burton movie. I can see why people like it, what mainly does it for most people is the visuals and the score. I was just very disappointed back then. Because I felt that Keaton looked wrong and behaved totally odd. I was raised on the swinging Moench Batman who had four women at one (Nocturna, Julia Remarque, Vicki Vale, Catwoman).

But I still consider Batman Returns an insult and betrayal.

Schumacher got it partially right, especially when it comes to Batman / Bruce Wayne. The neon and the camp was of course too much, but not that odd when you compare it to a 50s or 60s comic.

How the **** can anyone support a feeling?

No, it doesn't really need to be direct from the source material, that would be odd, since Batman is not a single novel.

I prefer the book. Like the Burton Batman the movie mainly looks good. I still like the movie, too. But well, Batman is an icon, so I expect him to be rooted in the source material. But this old "adaption" versus "interpretation" is found in every forum. It's boring, I just feel that Burton didn't get Batman.

Keaton was AsBats (Asperger-Bats), not the real Batman. Fine performance for a different character, but wrong for Batman. Next time he should wear a cow mask to bring new light into Batman's psychology.

I'd rather see the real Batman on screen, especially since it's was his first big exposure to the worldwide audience since the 60s. And thus he gave the people wrong ideas about the characters and we got those crappy 90s Batman comics.

Burton could have written an elseworld book instead.

Radioactive Secretary-Turned-Martial-Arts-Catwoman, Black-Goo-spitting-Penguin-being-buried-by-a-bunch-of-penguins, Rocket Penguins, Penguin-Controlling-The-batmobile-while-riding-a-giant-duck, Poodle-Catches-The-Batarang, I-Save-A-Baby-And-They'll-Want-Me-For-Mayor, Bruce-Wayne-is-sitting-and-suddenly-giant-batsignals-flash-which-would expose his identity in no time...

Seriously. It's so campy and it cannot be meant to be serious. Batman Returns is a campfest like the Adam West show, but the latter one was at least better written.

Nolan's movies are not so dark IMO. And crappy action scenes.. gimme a break.. Burton's were even worse. The best action scenes are actually in the Schumacher movies (what probably no one wants to admit...)

It had potential. Like Batman 89. But at some point both movies failed. What a waste. Thank god for Nolan's Batman Begins who had the dignity to approach the material by taking it seriously and not turning it into another fairly tale-camp party.

BTW, many comic book creators didn't even like the Burton movies, don't kid yourself. The list includes Frank Miller, John Byrne, Paul Dini, Neal Adams and many more.

There's been no fanboy rage from me at least... I'm trying to prove my point to you that Burton's adaptation is valid and is just a version of Batman (as is Nolans and Schumachers). But you, once again, didn't back up a single thing you said with a valid argument, or even a half-hearted (convincing) opinion.

[GothamAlleys]

I cannot see what panels you are referring to in the case of the statue being pushed, or 'ko-ing a guy to make him drive into a pole and kill himself

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TOHmot-3ktI/AAAAAAAAAis/WaORIJXggAw/s1600/DC39.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TN5wW4KtndI/AAAAAAAAAgg/g1If99lWD5Q/s1600/akill6dc47.jpg
in any case...these are anamolies, they hold up the rule through being the scarce exceptions that they are, and I'm not even sure if they are solid examples of murder.

Yes, theyre rare and occasional, but theyre there. Batman does kill occasionally in each incarnation, just like he occasionally kills in Burtons movies

[C. Lee]

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...

Thank you....you are too too kind. That you actually give me your permission to have my own opinion...I'm just overwhelmed by your kindness.

[Thebumwhowalks]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TOHmot-3ktI/AAAAAAAAAis/WaORIJXggAw/s1600/DC39.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TN5wW4KtndI/AAAAAAAAAgg/g1If99lWD5Q/s1600/akill6dc47.jpg


Yes, theyre rare and occasional, but theyre there. Batman does kill occasionally in each incarnation, just like he occasionally kills in Burtons movies

No, none of those examples are like how he kills in Burton's movie. And those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics. I thought you were talking about modern interpretations, but anyway, as i said, they are still not as bad as the stuff in BM89.
There are no examples of him just cold bloodely killing a whole gang of crooks, where there were other options availiable.

[El Payaso]

No, none of those examples are like how he kills in Burton's movie. And those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics.

Yeah, leaving someone in a moving vehicle to his own demise with a sarcastic remark before leaving. That's more like Batman Begins. :woot:

There are no examples of him just cold bloodely killing a whole gang of crooks, where there were other options availiable.

When people are gassing your city to death. Yes, that's where you don't wait.

[CConn]

Those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics. I thought you were talking about modern interpretations.I have to raise issue with this. And it's not with you in particular, but hearing people say it, and it irks me every time...

When talking about comic accuracy, we cannot exclude old comics, or comics we don't like...they're all equally valid interpretations of the character.

Technically, the dark and serious Batman of '39 is just as valid as the bright as campy Batman of the '60s, or the current version of the character.

Now, obviously, that doesn't affect quality in the least...but almost no one should be going around saying something is inaccurate to Batman...just because it's not from their preferred era of Batman comics.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I have to raise issue with this. And it's not with you in particular, but hearing people say it, and it irks me every time...

When talking about comic accuracy, we cannot exclude old comics, or comics we don't like...they're all equally valid interpretations of the character.

Technically, the dark and serious Batman of '39 is just as valid as the bright as campy Batman of the '60s, or the current version of the character.

Now, obviously, that doesn't affect quality in the least...but almost no one should be going around saying something is inaccurate to Batman...just because it's not from their preferred era of Batman comics.


I already said what my opinion on that was, so won't go over it again. I was saying that basically i didn't think it was the best creative choice to make.

But still, I don't think there was anything in those comics that was like what they had him do in BM 89.

and this is in reply to El Payaso as well...they basically had Batman acting like any other 80s action hero, machine gunning down the doors and blowing up all the bad guys with explosives. When what the movies could really have used at that point was a different kind of action hero, like the more prevalent interpretation of Batman.
It was so annoying to go to the movies and see Batman reduced to the standard movie action hero trope in that regard.

and also, i do think there were alternatives to blowing them all up.
I don't even recall how he found out they were at Axis Chemicals, how far in advance he knew their base of operations was there, but there were other options than the standard 80s action hero approach.

[GothamAlleys]

No, none of those examples are like how he kills in Burton's movie. And those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics. I thought you were talking about modern interpretations, but anyway, as i said, they are still not as bad as the stuff in BM89.
There are no examples of him just cold bloodely killing a whole gang of crooks, where there were other options availiable.


That borders with nitpicking: "yeah, he did that but..". Its either yes or no, and Batman did occasionally killed. Also, he still does, I think blowing up a building with hundreds of enemies is as cruel as shooting thugs with machine gun (which he did as well).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9KC9LzO72Vs/TozqjQbK-VI/AAAAAAAAB8E/xSrMd7ey6vQ/s1600/dc814killo2.jpg

And it was to save the city asap when situation was hot. The Axis Chemicals was blown up to prevent the attack on the city and eliminate the threat of Joker. The Ray Charles thug was in self defense as well, done in a way that Batman did a lot of times (the leg lock)

The only straight up cruel kills were in Returns


Btw, I dont see why going back to genesis of the character is considered wrong. Worked perfectly in Batman. Worked for Joker in TDK. And those earliest stories were fantastic (most of them)

[CConn]

I already said what my opinion on that was, so won't go over it again.

But still, I don't think there was anything in those comics that was like what they had him do in BM 89.

and this is in reply to El Payaso as well...they basically had Batman acting like any other 80s action hero, machine gunning down the doors and blowing up all the bad guys with explosives. When what the movies could really have used at that point was a different kind of action hero, like the more prevalent interpretation of Batman.
It was so annoying to go to the movies and see Batman reduced to the standard movie action hero trope in that regard.

and also, i do think there were alternatives to blowing them all up.
I don't even recall how he found out they were at Axis Chemicals, how far in advance he knew their base of operations was there, but there were other options than the standard 80s action hero approach.Like I said, I'm not even specifically talking about you - as you do argue how similar the kind of killing is to the comics...and that makes sense - I just mean in general.

[GothamAlleys]

I already said what my opinion on that was, so won't go over it again. I was saying that basically i didn't think it was the best creative choice to make.

But still, I don't think there was anything in those comics that was like what they had him do in BM 89.

Yes there was
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TN5ODvo5YCI/AAAAAAAAAfk/sLTX_5a1CYU/s1600/attack+from+above.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-78QOiN042bA/Tjb1dFnn7KI/AAAAAAAABgA/hKsy5uE8iAo/s1600/Btmn_1008.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TN5YuG_qvkI/AAAAAAAAAfw/SRPDhddB1Nk/s1600/Batman390019.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TOImoQBkBnI/AAAAAAAAAjU/q4pkZXaZgTM/s1600/dropdown.PNG

When talking about comic accuracy, we cannot exclude old comics, or comics we don't like...they're all equally valid interpretations of the character.

Technically, the dark and serious Batman of '39 is just as valid as the bright as campy Batman of the '60s, or the current version of the character.

Now, obviously, that doesn't affect quality in the least...but almost no one should be going around saying something is inaccurate to Batman...just because it's not from their preferred era of Batman comics.

Bravo!

[Thebumwhowalks]

eh, i never said I had a problem with him flipping the Joker thug in the church, to me, that comes under self defence.
I also never said I had a problem with him shooting at the parade, in actual fact, I don't recall him hitting any of the crooks, the firing on joker *must* have been a warning shot, otherwise it was a dumb (film)shot.
Anyway, I already said that I don't really have a problem with Batman using deadly force in self defence, or in the *immediate* defence of other people when their lives are in danger, which is what the parade scene comes under imo. That is the same as a cop doing his job, it's not cold blooded murder.

All i have been talking about is the 80s action movie scene with the blowing up of the crooks in cold blood in Axis Chemicals, and you have shown me nothing that corresponds to an action like that from the books.

[GothamAlleys]

I just did above

That borders with nitpicking: "yeah, he did that but..". Its either yes or no, and Batman did occasionally killed. Also, he still does, I think blowing up a building with hundreds of enemies is as cruel as shooting thugs with machine gun (which he did as well).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9KC9LzO72Vs/TozqjQbK-VI/AAAAAAAAB8E/xSrMd7ey6vQ/s1600/dc814killo2.jpg

And it was to save the city asap when situation was hot. The Axis Chemicals was blown up to prevent the attack on the city and eliminate the threat of Joker. The Ray Charles thug was in self defense as well, done in a way that Batman did a lot of times (the leg lock)

The only straight up cruel kills were in Returns


Btw, I dont see why going back to genesis of the character is considered wrong. Worked perfectly in Batman. Worked for Joker in TDK. And those earliest stories were fantastic (most of them)

[Thebumwhowalks]

I don't consider the Axis Chemicals scenario to be an immediate threat where he had no other options. I have considered the possibility before when it was raised, but I have to say there were plenty of other options.

I don't know what the context of that scene is that you posted(also, i never noticed that post before), so maybe if I did, I would agree that it fell into the category of no-other-choice-immediate-defence-of-innocents scenario. Unlike the Axis Chemicals scenario.

Batman and the cops could have easily surrounded and swooped down on the factory in plenty of time to stop anything getting out.
He even said his next move was the parade, it wasn't like he was about to set off a bomb or anything.

[CConn]

Hm. As a fair and impartial observer in this discussion, I think I'm going to have to give GothamAlleys the point and the win.

He's made it pretty clear that Batman has killed to a pretty thorough extent in the comics. Anything beyond that is mainly semantical.

[GothamAlleys]

Thanks. As a quick response to Bum's post - the masses were being targeted the very same night. there was n time to act since it was the very same night of the attack. As far as Police - Batman never rarely tips to the police, he knows he can do it faster and better. He knows police fails sometimes and this is why he exists - to do something police cant. Actually his comic book backstory even touches upon it ; Chill is never found by the police in the comic book continuity, so because of that it plants the thought in his head that police is not enough

[Thebumwhowalks]

Hm. As a fair and impartial observer in this discussion, I think I'm going to have to give GothamAlleys the point and the win.

He's made it pretty clear that Batman has killed to a pretty thorough extent in the comics. Anything beyond that is mainly semantical.

Semantics?! No, not when it comes to the taking of life.
If it's done in the same vein as a police officer, in self defence, or in the *immediate* defence of another's life, then that is not murder.
If he's just swooping in to blow up a bunch of crooks, when there are other options availiable, then that is just cold blooded murder.

edit: and i see no evidence of that type of action in anything he has presented, I don't even know what he is talking about in that last post, the scene at Axis chemicals, or the the context of the scene from the comic he posted.
Because, if he doesn't know the context of the evidence he posted, then it's irrelevant, he/they've just posted up an image of a bat-wing blowing something up, with no context as to the situation.

[GothamAlleys]

Then read that comic instead of accusing me of lying or making statements about something I dont know. Im not tRUERtOtHEcORE. I read and make statements when Im fully sure what Im talking about, not hearsays or guesses. Its amazing how some are trying to weasel out of the facts even after so many blatant examples are shown

[ALP]

Batman has been a murderer in the past. I recall seeing a comic panel from the 30s where he hung a man from the batwing. What is going on in this thread, some kind of George Lucas revisionism? lol

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well, in Man of Steel should Superman be unable to fly, have no vision powers etc and should kill too. He's done all those things in the past.

In Silver Age continuity (1954-1986) he killed about 5 people, in DCU continuity (1986-2011), Batman has only killed about 10 people max and in DCnU he hasn't at all. It was only ever a brief period from 1939 to to 1941 in which he killed, which is about 26 comics he appeared in, compared to the thousands since then.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Then read that comic instead of accusing me of lying or making statements about something I dont know. Im not tRUERtOtHEcORE. I read and make statements when Im fully sure what Im talking about, not hearsays or guesses. Its amazing how some are trying to weasel out of the facts even after so many blatant examples are shown

But...it's true that you don't know. You haven't read the comic and don't know the context, all you have done is post two panels from another site, and the site itself does not explain the context either, so how can I judge whether it's the same situation as in Axis Chemicals, the way I regard it anyway, ie it was unnecesary bloodshed.

You are the one who has 'weaseled out' of taking onboard my points, it's not about whether Batman has ever killed anyone in the books, it's about whether he has ever killed a bunch of crooks in cold blood, where there were other options to take them down.

I don't like that Axis Chemicals scene in Burton's film because it mis-represents the character, to the point where it is an insult.
Anyone can be a murderer and go around shooting the place up and blowing folk up with explosives in cold blood. The scene is basically saying anyone can be Batman with enough money, which is not true.

[バット人]

Well, in Man of Steel should Superman be unable to fly, have no vision powers etc and should kill too. He's done all those things in the past.

In Silver Age continuity (1954-1986) he killed about 5 people, in DCU continuity (1986-2011), Batman has only killed about 10 people max and in DCnU he hasn't at all. It was only ever a brief period from 1939 to to 1941 in which he killed, which is about 26 comics he appeared in, compared to the thousands since then.


See, the argument is, "Batman has never killed in the comics". I don't care what age, what issues or what circumstances there are, you can't pick and choose interpretations to twist and support your argument.

The fact of the matter is Batman has killed, period. It doesn't matter if it's a majority of stories or not. So, because the initial Batman stories had a killer Batman and it was only a few dozen comics where he killed, it shouldn't count? Okay then, lets disregard those early Detective Comics, oh wait, oops, no Batman.

There's a difference between "your interpretation of Batman" and "THE Batman". "THE Batman" can be anything from a dark, creature of the night or a smiling, "aw chucks", deputy of the law. There is no validity, so essentially it is all "comic accurate" and it depends entirely on one's personal taste.

I don't see what the problem is.

[GothamAlleys]

But...it's true that you don't know. You haven't read the comic and don't know the context, all you have done is post two panels from another site, and the site itself does not explain the context either, so how can I judge whether it's the same situation as in Axis Chemicals, the way I regard it anyway, ie it was unnecesary bloodshed.

You are the one who has 'weaseled out' of taking onboard my points, it's not about whether Batman has ever killed anyone in the books, it's about whether he has ever killed a bunch of crooks in cold blood, where there were other options to take them down.

I don't like that Axis Chemicals scene in Burton's film because it mis-represents the character, to the point where it is an insult.
Anyone can be a murderer and go around shooting the place up and blowing folk up with explosives in cold blood. The scene is basically saying anyone can be Batman with enough money, which is not true.


Its no matter how many examples I post, no matter what examples I post, theres always going to be some :but: from you. Its pointless. Youre right, batman doesnt kill. he never did. I just twist facts to make other believe he ever did, I drew those comics myself

[Thebumwhowalks]

Its no matter how many examples I post, no matter what examples I post, theres always going to be some :but: from you. Its pointless. Youre right, batman doesnt kill. he never did. I just twist facts to make other believe he ever did, I drew those comics myself

Ok man, again you are dodging my point about the morals of Axis Chemical scene, so i'm gonna ask you point blank so you can't avoid it...

*I am talking about mis-representing Batman as a murderer, not as someone who has taken life.*


Do you know the difference between killing in defence and being a murderer?

*You can kill people and not be a murderer.*

Cops arn't allowed to go round just blowing criminals away, they are only allowed kill in self defence, or in the *immediate* defence of others.
and following this same rule keeps Batman a hero.
It's not semantics, it's about mis-representing the character onscreen, and that's what the Axis chemicals scene does, it mis-represents Batman as a murderer.
Your argument for why Batman had to blow up the factory was poor, so you have just fell back on insulting me as 'weasling out' of an argument, very poor form mate.
I have a feeling this will be our last debate.

[GothamAlleys]

And I already adressed that. Machine gunning people from the air, hanging people and blowing up buildings or ships with them isnt self defense.

[バット人]

If purposely breaking necks and shooting unarmed villains in cold blood is self defense well hot damn, count me in!

Plus, was Batman even in the Batmobile? I'm not apologizing for the character here but programming the Batmobile to go into the heart of a factory that's making poisonous products headed by a madman and destroy it is a little different then driving in yourself, machine guns blazing, taking out thugs one at a time behind the wheel.

Unless I'm mistaken, voice commanding a vehicle from a good distance away to blow up a factory is a TAD different from driving in like a madman, taking out as many thugs as you can before blowing up the place but that's just me.

[バット人]

If purposely breaking necks and shooting unarmed villains in cold blood is self defense well hot damn, count me in!

Plus, was Batman even in the Batmobile? I'm not apologizing for the character here but programming the Batmobile to go into the heart of a factory that's making poisonous products headed by a madman and destroy it is a little different then driving in yourself, machine guns blazing, taking out thugs one at a time behind the wheel.

Unless I'm mistaken, voice commanding a vehicle from a good distance away to blow up a factory is a TAD different from driving in like a madman, taking out as many thugs as you can before blowing up the place but that's just me.

[Mister Meddle]

He wasn't in the Batmobile. It was probably at a time when you wouldn't expect workers to be present. But why should Batman care if a few crooks were blown up? It's better to let them go along with the factory that produced the deadly toxin than having even more innocent people dropping dead like flies.

[El Payaso]

Well, in Man of Steel should Superman be unable to fly, have no vision powers etc and should kill too. He's done all those things in the past.

In Silver Age continuity (1954-1986) he killed about 5 people, in DCU continuity (1986-2011), Batman has only killed about 10 people max and in DCnU he hasn't at all. It was only ever a brief period from 1939 to to 1941 in which he killed, which is about 26 comics he appeared in, compared to the thousands since then.

Oh, and Batman has had Robin for 99% of his career. He appeared after only 1 year.

But le oh no. Nolan and Burton never used him. He never existed in any movie of any of those directors. Treasonous!

[GothamAlleys]

And Joker was a physical match for batman in just the firt 2 issues of his appearance. What a blasphemy that TDK went back to those first 2 issues and used so many ideas from it!

[Llama_Shepherd]

Oh, and Batman has had Robin for 99% of his career. He appeared after only 1 year.

But le oh no. Nolan and Burton never used him. He never existed in any movie of any of those directors. Treasonous!

Actually, Tim Burton really wanted to put Robin in his Batman films. He was in Batman '89, but cut out by producers, then when Batman Returns was going to be a two parter along with Batman Continues he was going to have Robin. Then when Batman Returns came out, it was supposed to be the Marlon Wayans mechanic, but was written out due to an already filled plot.

But besides the only director who hasn't wanted to use Robin is Nolan, and to be fair, he has never said Robin doesn't exist in TDKR, admittedly, I don't expect to see him, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he had a Thrillkiller type Robin in John Blake.

[GothamAlleys]

Thats not true. In every single interview he had he said the studio suggested it but he never wanted to do it and the producers didnt want it either. Eventually he got lucky cause it was decided that it wouldve been too many characters. He always kept repeating that Batman should stay in the shadows, not talk too much and be very folded within himself. A loner and outsider type

[ALP]

Its no matter how many examples I post, no matter what examples I post, theres always going to be some :but: from you. Its pointless. Youre right, batman doesnt kill. he never did. I just twist facts to make other believe he ever did, I drew those comics myself

You mastermind!:wow:

[バット人]

Bull, you can tell that Burton was vehemently AGAINST the idea of any kind of Robin character.

In fact, he was kind of like how Nolan was before this "epic conclusion" stuff came along. Basically, if the studios didn't push for Robin, Burton wouldn't use him but the character could be utilized somewhere down the line in the future, either by him or by someone else eventually.

[ALP]

Actually, Tim Burton really wanted to put Robin in his Batman films. He was in Batman '89, but cut out by producers, then when Batman Returns was going to be a two parter along with Batman Continues he was going to have Robin. Then when Batman Returns came out, it was supposed to be the Marlon Wayans mechanic, but was written out due to an already filled plot.

But besides the only director who hasn't wanted to use Robin is Nolan, and to be fair, he has never said Robin doesn't exist in TDKR, admittedly, I don't expect to see him, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he had a Thrillkiller type Robin in John Blake.

You see to be stretching the facts to fit your own justification here. Burton never desperately wanted Robin in his films. He merely thought about it and decided against it on his own. Remember, he had full creative control over Batman Returns. If he wanted Robin in that film, he would have been in there.

Sam Hamm: "We had some huge structural challenges to work out. Originally Robin was suppose to be in the movie but the structure we worked out for the movie really did not admit Robin."

Tim Burton: "I think almost everybody across the board were happy with no Robin. I can't recall one person that was going 'we gotta have Robin'."

Michael Uslan: "There's also a historic reason why Robin shouldn't be in B'89 because in the first year of the comics, Batman worked solo."

2iCAn6qSpR4

Batman Returns:

Dan Waters: "We got very little directives from the studio like 'you must have Robin.' There was none of that really. We did try something (with Robin). Tim was big about not making a big deal about it. We wanted to maybe work in a Robin character but I could tell Tim was not enthusiastic about it from the get-go."

Tim Burton: "At some point there was a discussion of Robin. And again, the only way I could see it was try and find a profile that worked. But what ended up happening... but at the end of it all, we realized we had too many characters. And even without Robin, people would complain there's too many characters. But maybe in the third or fourth film."
JTAxBmxLl2I

[El Payaso]

Actually, Tim Burton really wanted to put Robin in his Batman films. He was in Batman '89, but cut out by producers, then when Batman Returns was going to be a two parter along with Batman Continues he was going to have Robin. Then when Batman Returns came out, it was supposed to be the Marlon Wayans mechanic, but was written out due to an already filled plot.

I think the writers tried. but I've never heard Burton saying anything pro-obin "We really tried but sadly we copuldn't." On the contrary, like ALP says, he said that nobody cared about the character.

But besides the only director who hasn't wanted to use Robin is Nolan, and to be fair, he has never said Robin doesn't exist in TDKR, admittedly, I don't expect to see him, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he had a Thrillkiller type Robin in John Blake.

Yeah, Nolan has never said Robin doesn't exist. He's just telling Batman's career without him. Which is, you know, the same thing.

[Lead Cenobite]

How did a thread about Batman Forever turn into an argument about the merits of the Burton movies?

[Thebumwhowalks]

And I already adressed that. Machine gunning people from the air, hanging people and blowing up buildings or ships with them isnt self defense.

Again, you are deliberatly avoiding another point of my argument. Self defence isn't the only reason to excuse him from being a murderer, killing in the immediate defence of others, as i said, is also valid. It's not the same as the Axis Chemicals scene if he is doing it in the immediate defence of other people.
See that image you posted of him shooting from the plane? Well, you don't see it there(presumably because it is cropped), but iirc there is a speech bubble in that panel with Batman saying 'I hate taking human life, but here there is no choice...' or words to that effect. and iirc, that is from the same situation where he hangs the Hugo Strange monster man from the plane, as he sees no choice but to kill them when they are on their rampage.
That's not the case with the Axis Chemicals scene, there was a choice, there were other options.

and neither of us know the context of those two panels where the bat-wing/plane blows up a building, so it's not proof of anything until we know, right?

[El Payaso]

How did a thread about Batman Forever turn into an argument about the merits of the Burton movies?

Same as usual: one single person thinks that it'd be fun to bash a movie that he personally dislikes in a different movie's thread.




Again, you are deliberatly avoiding another point of my argument. Self defence isn't the only reason to excuse him from being a murderer, killing in the immediate defence of others, as i said, is also valid. It's not the same as the Axis Chemicals scene if he is doing it in the immediate defence of other people.
See that image you posted of him shooting from the plane? Well, you don't see it there(presumably because it is cropped), but iirc there is a speech bubble in that panel with Batman saying 'I hate taking human life, but here there is no choice...' or words to that effect. and iirc, that is from the same situation where he hangs the Hugo Strange monster man from the plane, as he sees no choice but to kill them when they are on their rampage.
That's not the case with the Axis Chemicals scene, there was a choice, there were other options.

and neither of us know the context of those two panels where the bat-wing/plane blows up a building, so it's not proof of anything until we know, right?

Look, the mere presence of the Batmobile machine-gunning should have been warning enough to those thugs. If they wanted to stay, it's their choice.

That said, Batman also had a choice to save Ra's al Ghul in that train and..... yes....

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think the writers tried. but I've never heard Burton saying anything pro-obin "We really tried but sadly we copuldn't." On the contrary, like ALP says, he said that nobody cared about the character.

Yeah, I was mistaken it was Sam Hamm who wanted Robin in the films, but both his scripts for Batman and Batman Returns had him written out. Tim Burton was entirely apathetic to most of the development.

Yeah, Nolan has never said Robin doesn't exist. He's just telling Batman's career without him. Which is, you know, the same thing.

Wait, you've seen The Dark Knight Rises? How does it end? Actually, don't tell me, just gimme hints! Nah, obviously I'm not expecting Robin in the capacity he was in Forever, but a lot of places (hell, even BoF) is reporting the possibility of John Blake fulfilling a Robin role. Personally, I'd rather see him as a Thrillkiller style Robin throughout the film rather than the Batman replacement.

[El Payaso]

Yeah, I was mistaken it was Sam Hamm who wanted Robin in the films, but both his scripts for Batman and Batman Returns had him written out. Tim Burton was entirely apathetic to most of the development.

Samm Hamm's a funny guy.

He literally puts his hands to the air claiming he didn't come up with the idea of Joker killing the Waynes and Alfred taking Vicky to the bat-cave. Yet he was against Batman wearing his cape. :doh:

Wait, you've seen The Dark Knight Rises? How does it end? Actually, don't tell me, just gimme hints! Nah, obviously I'm not expecting Robin in the capacity he was in Forever, but a lot of places (hell, even BoF) is reporting the possibility of John Blake fulfilling a Robin role. Personally, I'd rather see him as a Thrillkiller style Robin throughout the film rather than the Batman replacement.

There will be no Robin, take it from me. A different character filling the role - if there happened to be one - doesn't cut it.

[GothamAlleys]

and neither of us know the context of those two panels where the bat-wing/plane blows up a building, so it's not proof of anything until we know, right?

Its really offensive what youre accusing me of. I would never claim or state things if I wouldnt know about them. Again, Im not truerToTheCore. Why would I be so bold and pompous to post a screencap if I wouldnt know the context and wouldnt read the comic book? Batman lead a masked group called The Body to the waterfront and bfirst threw some of them off the building then blew them off. They were a menace to the city, quick acting was required , as with Jokers gang where he had vitually no time for preemptive attack. And btw, in the same issue he also killed some of them off with his Batmobile
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5pnXSSYV5lE/TtZZYsBj_iI/AAAAAAAACL4/Llexurj5IDk/s1600/maksedbody.jpg

[El Payaso]

Wow, GothamAlleys, you draw like a pro. :up:

[Llama_Shepherd]

Samm Hamm's a funny guy.

He literally puts his hands to the air claiming he didn't come up with the idea of Joker killing the Waynes and Alfred taking Vicky to the bat-cave. Yet he was against Batman wearing his cape. :doh:

Yeah, Sam Hamm is very hit and miss, he was better as the guy who came up with the ideas, like Goyer is to TDK.

There will be no Robin, take it from me. A different character filling the role - if there happened to be one - doesn't cut it.

There's quite a few ninjas saying Blake is more than just a cop. And one saying he was seen in Bat garb (I hope that's untrue). I could definitely see a Dick Grayson cop/ Thrillkiller Robin hybrid being in the movie.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Its really offensive what youre accusing me of. I would never claim or state things if I wouldnt know about them. Again, Im not truerToTheCore. Why would I be so bold and pompous to post a screencap if I wouldnt know the context and wouldnt read the comic book? Batman lead a masked group called The Body to the waterfront and bfirst threw some of them off the building then blew them off. They were a menace to the city, quick acting was required , as with Jokers gang where he had vitually no time for preemptive attack. And btw, in the same issue he also killed some of them off with his Batmobile
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5pnXSSYV5lE/TtZZYsBj_iI/AAAAAAAACL4/Llexurj5IDk/s1600/maksedbody.jpg

:lmao: I asked you the other day what the context of that bat-wing/plane scene was and all you said was '*you* read the comic'. So, of course, that sounded like you had not read the comic, didn't see why you should have to go searching it out in the shops(or on the net), and thought *I* should do the 'leg' work.
So, now you have found some more images from it on the net(that re not posted in the Gotham Alleys website), and you know what happened in it...

so....Question of the day is....If you knew the context the other day when I asked what it was, why didn't you just say so?

man, you're funny. haha

anyway, I don't think there was no other option in the case of the Axis chemicals scene, and I don't see any compelling evidence as to why he had to zoom in and kill them all like that.
So, in the case of that comic, he apparently had to zoom in and blow them up, in the Burton movie, he did not, imo.

[GothamAlleys]

I didnt say so because I dont see any harm in anyone checking the issue for themsleves if they think someone would be dumb enough to post some panels AND issue number and claim something something thats not in the issue, plus you never trust me anyway so I wanted you to see for yourself

[Mister Meddle]

Even if you do explain the context he will still disagree with you. People these days.

[CConn]

Wait, that's the issue number again?

[Cain]

Detective Comics #814 or if you read TPB's in the collection of the single issues of that arc: City of Crime.

[ALP]

Lets come to a compromise: Batman used rubber bullets!

[Thebumwhowalks]

Even if you do explain the context he will still disagree with you. People these days.

No, if he had posted up a scenario description where Batman went in and blew up a bunch of crooks for no good reason, where there were other options, then I would have said, 'Ok, he has done something the same as that Axis Chemicals scen in the books, you're right.'
I would have still thought it was a betrayal of the character, when told in a modern book, but I would have conceded that such a scene existed of course.

But, he didn't, he posted something that he should have know I would consider a very different situation, so of course i don't agree.
He posted up further panels from the book, and a more detailed description, that went some way to proving he had eventually read the book himself. Because now i know some of the actual context, insteda of just two panels from another website.

He knows I don't agree that the Axis chemicals scenario demanded that Batman had to go in and kill everyone in there with a bomb, and i see no compelling argument as to why that should be so.
The example he posted from the book was not the same situation imo, so I don't know why he thought he would be showing me something I would consider the same as that scene in the movie.

[ALP]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tcNQmOUSTM4/TBU-9EG4RxI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/I-NjG56Jgc8/s1600/scarecrow_oz.gif

Careful Bum, breath to heavy and you might knock down your own strawman.

[Mister Meddle]

I can't believe you're still going on about the Axis scene. Let me ask you this.... how was Batman supposed to know that people were inside of Axis chemicals? At a time when most people would normally be at home with their families or counting the money that they stole earlier that day? All what he wanted to do was destroy Axis because they were creating the deadly toxin that was killing all different types of people in unusual locations. The Joker was so close to killing hundreds or even thousands with his toxin at the parade so how is it that you're acting like he was hardly a threat? In our society somebody like that would get labeled as a terrorist. And why should Batman care if he unintentionally blew up a few goons? In the end of the day Batman knew that nobody else would ever die from the deadly toxin. News anchorwoman, supermodels, parents or grandparents at a museum, etc.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I can't believe you're still going on about the Axis scene.

listen man, I wouldn't have said anything further if you hadn't called my inegrtity into account with that last remark, and i'm not making a big deal out of you saying that, I'm just explaining myself to you.

Let me ask you this.... how was Batman supposed to know that people were inside of Axis chemicals? At a time when most people would normally be at home with their families or counting the money that they stole earlier that day? All what he wanted to do was destroy Axis because they were creating the deadly toxin that was killing all different types of people in unusual locations.


I know this because right after the Axis scene the Joker is seen taunting Batman from his helicopter because he didn't succeed in killing him.
That helicopter scene is meant to illustrate the fact that Batman fully intended to kill the Joker and his gang, but failed to get the Joker.

He didn't take any precautions to ensure anyone wasn't in there either did he? When he knew there would be a good chance of that.


The Joker was so close to killing hundreds or even thousands with his toxin at the parade so how is it that you're acting like he was hardly a threat? In our society somebody like that would get labeled as a terrorist. And why should Batman care if he unintentionally blew up a few goons? In the end of the day Batman knew that nobody else would ever die from the deadly toxin. News anchorwoman, supermodels, parents or grandparents at a museum, etc.

I didn't say he was hardly a threat, I have been saying that there were other ways of dealing with that situation.
Swoop into the place gurellia style, like he does in the books, alert the cops as well, get them to surround the place so's nothing gets out, and after you have taken out the factory, get the cops to prevent the Joker from even going anywhere near the parade.
as to your last point...people *did* die of the toxin at the parade, it was a shabby operation all round.

Why should Batman care if he blew up some goons? Because it just makes him a murderer, even apart from it being morally wrong and unbecoming of a superhero, who is to say he won't kill the wrong person next time when he decides to do something like that, someone innocent, and there is no going back after a kill, unlike wrongful arrest or beating them up.

[The Joker]

I didn't say he was hardly a threat, I have been saying that there were other ways of dealing with that situation.
Swoop into the place gurellia style, like he does in the books, alert the cops as well, get them to surround the place so's nothing gets out, and after you have taken out the factory, get the cops to prevent the Joker from even going anywhere near the parade.

I agree with this. Just blowing up Axis was not the only solution. There was several less dramatic options, like the ones you mentioned, to dealing with it.

They were just closing down a chemical plant, not taking over another country.

[CConn]

I think bum makes some valid points, but he's digging way too deeply into them.

[CConn]

Detective Comics #814 or if you read TPB's in the collection of the single issues of that arc: City of Crime.
I knew I had seen those panels before!

God, that was a boring story. But yeah, Batman killed people in it.

[circa81]

Could we please get back on topic?

[CConn]

This topic's actually kind of interesting, though.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Could we please get back on topic?

ok, i will rattle off some things about Two-Face in the film, and why I don't mind the characterisation as much as most other BM fans seem to...

- The opening sequence with Two-Face in BF is more entertaining to me than the Two-Face finale of TDK. I still feel they should have saved Two-Face for another film after TDK, and the character was not exactly done properly, in fact, the character as done in BF was just as valid an interpretation, just differing wildly in what they got right and wrong.

what they got right -

- Two-Face's obsession with Batman, blaming him for his scarring.

- much like BTAS added a further explanation for Harvey's extreme descent into madness, here they added the fact that the scarring had given him some brain damage.

- Two-Face's mood swings, going from one extreme to another, much like his dual personality, and not even at the flip of his coin, just because he is caught between two personas in his mental state.

what they got wrong -

- a bit too much of a cackler, sure, he had his moments in the books of cackling, enjoying his crazy schemes, but he was also a hard boiled old fashioned gangster who carried himself with decorum, albiet with some eccentricities like any of the BM rogue's gallery.
The brain damage in this incarnation does explain this though, in BTAS they added the pre-scarring personality problems to explain his extreme descant into madness, here they used brain damage.

But...he does have his moments of being a serious gangster throughout the movie, it's a popular misconception that he is serious in the first moments of the opening sequence and then goes all out cackling for the rest of the film...when he is laughing wildly, it is always because he is excited at that moment because he is getting closer to destroying Batman, it's a logical part of the characterisation.

He is serious when he confronts the Riddler in his hideout and when he attacks the Nygmatech party, even to an extent when he holds the circus to ransom.

so, even though the cackling Two-Face was not the greatest representation of the character, and they overdid it to the point where it became overbearing for a lot of BM fans, it did make sense in the context of the characterisation they went for.

[El Payaso]

So Batman in comic books has let villiains on trains to die with a sarcastic remark about what his obligations are not. And he has taken the blame for crimes and turned into a fugitive for 8 years in comics too?

No? Le betrayal!

Now, at the point of the movie when Batman blows AXIS, criminals of Gotham already know what he's capable of. Once again, that alone and the presence of Batmobile was warning enough for then thugs to elave. And yes, it is better to kill them off but having Gotham free from poisoned products at once.

The only criticism I'd accept is that Batman knew about the poisoned products, and that Joker was responsible, when he took Vicky to the Batcave. God knows why he waited so long to visit AXIS. I always assumed he took Vicky to the Batcave first because he needed her to take the files to her newspaper asap so people could avoid being posioned (plus he had to take Vicky's film out of her bra :D). So then the following night (Batman doesn't work in daylight) he went to AXIS.



Why should Batman care if he blew up some goons? Because it just makes him a murderer, even apart from it being morally wrong and unbecoming of a superhero, who is to say he won't kill the wrong person next time when he decides to do something like that, someone innocent, and there is no going back after a kill, unlike wrongful arrest or beating them up.

Police are corrupt to no end.

[GothamAlleys]

First theres a statement that Batman doesnt kill. I showed ootherwise. Then it was 'oh, it was in self defence'. I provided examples of contrary. Then it was 'oh, it was just in the first year'. I presented examples from each decade, including very recent comics. The it was 'it wasnt cold blooded, we dont know the context'. I provided the context. Then it was 'its not the same', then provided more examples from the very same issue showing Batman kiling with batmobile guns aside from blowing up building full of enemies. And its still not enough. I see some will just keep finding excuses and believe what they want to believe no matter what

[C. Lee]

There is a thread about BATMAN 89 http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=364195&page=4

Shouldn't the AXIS bombing discussion be in there?

[SmellTheWeird]

The Batman "killing" issues is a matter of interpretation. Some people don't really get it.

Batman himself isn't a hero. He's an anti-hero. A vigilante, hero ... not a superhero boy scout. Sometimes things are just NECESSARY. That is the most enduring and interesting form of the character. Not the deputized, do gooder, who runs around with little boys in red and green tights with elf booties on (very pedophile like, I might add) in broad daylight, shakes hands with commissioners and stupid stuff like that.

I personally have no problem with Batman killing if it's out of absolute necessity. It's a logical answer that at some point in Batman's dangerous endeavours, villains may get offed from time to time. Like in real life, there are times where it is in escapable. I see no problem in the deaths in B89, Batman Forever (even though it sucks), Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Hell, Bruce Wayne killed a dude in "the man who falls" one of the very stories Batman Begins is based from.

Now with that said, its when Batman becomes a deliberate killer with no good reason, where there is a clear cut choice in the equation that I have a problem with ... such is the case in Tim Burton's deformed atrocity, Batman Returns.

Like the scene where he offs the big guy Penguin thug by strapping a bomb to him and watching him BLOW to pieces. Literally. I mean really? A cunning, super skilled combantant like Batman couldn't find a way of taking the guy down without blatantly killing him for NO reason? One punch, he gives up and says "eff it" and blows him up?

Lazy writing, and completely out of character. Even for dark, mysterioso 1939's / dracula style Batman that the first two Burton films were based from. Batman Returns sucks, plain and simple.

[CConn]

Mmm, sure it is.

And TTTC is as smart as he thinks he is.

[The Sage]

Stay on topic, fellas, leave the insults out.

[bullets]

I thought it was a bit too campy at the time but now it seems more amusing. Stuff like this :

http://www.agonyboothmedia.com/images/articles/Batman_Forever_1995/Batman_Forever_1995_033.jpg

[circa81]

Honestly, with all it's flaws, Forever feels more like a Batman movie then Nolan's films. Put away the straitjacket, please :)

[CConn]

To me, BF has always been a near perfect film adaptation of the campy and over the top interpretation of Batman from the late 60s or early 70. Unlike B&R that went WAY too far with the concept, BF had a great mixture of Batman's somber core, and his villains' inherent outrageousness.

The one big flaw I legitimately think it does have, is Schumacher's damn garish art direction. It's one thight to be campy, it's another to have the screen so filled with red or purple that your eyes start to go blurry.

[circa81]

To me, there's a difference between garish and campy. In Forever, Gotham looks like Vegas on steroids, and Vegas is renown for it's corruption and depravity.

[CConn]

Either way, there were some scenes in BF that overloaded the senses a bit too much.

[nogap87]

I'm a Batman Forever fan. The only thing I didn't like about it was that Robin was too old. As for its version of Gotham City, its my second favorite after BTAS.

[CConn]

I don't think a younger Robi would've worked though.

In all honestly, I think Chris O'Donnell was a great Robin. If there was one thing I'd change, I would've just preferred they used his Nightwing-esque costume from B&R in BF.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I liked the Robin outfit in BF, but I would have preffered it if they had given him the Nightwing type mask, instead of the flat rectangular one we got.
I did like the Nightwing-esque costume in B&R as well, seeing a modern live action version of the classic design was great.

[ALP]

I quite liked the production design in BF. It was garish but I liked it. The neon and strobe lights flashing everywhere, reminded me of a place like Japan at night.

In B&R, the novelty wore off and it was just sickening.

[babbage]

To me there's nothing redeeming about Batman Forever except for the fact that it's not completely unwatchable, like Batman & Robin is. Forever = dumb. B&R = torture porn.

[babbage]

I have been saying that there were other ways of dealing with that situation.
Swoop into the place gurellia style, like he does in the books, alert the cops as well, get them to surround the place so's nothing gets out, and after you have taken out the factory, get the cops to prevent the Joker from even going anywhere near the parade.

I would have really liked something that. Much more in the Batman I prefer's style. I like Batman 89 pretty okay, but I think it's apparent that the film was the result of a very claustrophobic production, with action set pieces that weren't that deeply thought out in any storytelling sense.

[GothamAlleys]

Early Batman did not cooperate with police, he was outside the law and chased as well - as in the movie. Even in modern continuity he was still a chased outlaw in his first year

[Thebumwhowalks]

Early Batman did not cooperate with police, he was outside the law and chased as well - as in the movie. Even in modern continuity he was still a chased outlaw in his first year

Early Batman also did not have a butler, the Burton film was not beholden to those early books, they used elements from a lot of eras, as well as playing by their own rules with the character.
All I meant was a similar scene to the one we got in Batman Begins, when he goes in guerilla style to the docks, but alerts the police as well so they can all be arrested of course.

[El Payaso]

Early Batman also did not have a butler, the Burton film was not beholden to those early books, they used elements from a lot of eras, as well as playing by their own rules with the character.

But that is so wrong!!!! :cmad:

Not like every Batman director has not done the exact same thing though.

All I meant was a similar scene to the one we got in Batman Begins, when he goes in guerilla style to the docks, but alerts the police as well so they can all be arrested of course.

Well I rather have a scene where I can see Batman. Then again with Gotham police, arresting them and setting them free is the same thing.

[ALP]

The action scenes in B'89 were mediocre. Clearly because of the restricted suit. But at the same time it allowed for some cool scenes like when Batman simply kicks the sword guy in the face. Or in the Axis chemical scene where he punches the guy in the face as he comes at him. Cool and effective, but other scenes were more constricted with the action.

I actually liked the action in BF. It was a bit silly and over the top but I thought Batman doing flips was cool. But even in BF there were a few scenes where the suit was clearly restricting. I remember Kilmer saying he could barely turn his head and couldn't hear a thing.

[Thebumwhowalks]

We have been told to take this offtopic discussion into another thread, the other reason i continued it is because other folk are quoting me and debating, so I'll take this into the BM89 thread.

[Thebumwhowalks]

keeping this one in this thread as it is a bf/bm89 comparison...


The action scenes in B'89 were mediocre. Clearly because of the restricted suit. But at the same time it allowed for some cool scenes like when Batman simply kicks the sword guy in the face. Or in the Axis chemical scene where he punches the guy in the face as he comes at him. Cool and effective, but other scenes were more constricted with the action.



BM89 wise, some of the action was very enjoyable because it was unique to what you usually got in the movies at that time. When they were using the Batman type tricks from the comics, in a simple but effective manner, it was very satisfying.

- The reconstruction of his 1st appearance in the books on the rooftop was very good.
- when he confronts Nicolson at Axis for the first time and does the disapearing act.
-when he leaves the crook dangling by the rope and Gordon gets a look at Batman for the first time.
- the grappling hook feature on the Batmobile was pretty nifty, but aye, the most effective hand to hand combat scene was with the guy with the swords, the images of BM deflecting the swords and thr sparks flying looked much better than the usual strained punches and kicks you get in the Batman movies(that for the most part don't look like they have much power behind them).
-the drive back to the batcave was the best scene in the film imo, that was pure classic Batman.

I actually liked the action in BF. It was a bit silly and over the top but I thought Batman doing flips was cool. But even in BF there were a few scenes where the suit was clearly restricting. I remember Kilmer saying he could barely turn his head and couldn't hear a thing.

Aye, again, the best action scenes in the film are not the restrictive martial arts scenes.
I said this earlier, but BF benefits from John Dystryka coming onboard and his CG innovations in the movie, although, most of the stunts are still done with Kilmer or real life stuntmen.
- The whole opening sequence is a doozy, I especially love the moment when Batman's cape suddenly drapes over the front of the helicopter window, just when they think they have gotten rid of him. Classic Batman.

- Daft as it is, the Batmobile sequence is not bad.
- Dick Grayson fighting the gang is superb, as is the moment when Batman is just hanging back on the rooftop, like the supernatural entity that knows just when and where to be in times of trouble, waiting for the moment when they spot him and his rep does the rest, the gang running away at the sight of him, giving him his cue to swoop down.
Now the way that was shot, proved that Schumacher did know Batman, and how to shoot a great Batman moment onscreen, using Batman's mere presence as the deterant, he only swoops into the mellee *after* the crooks have already begun to disperse.
and fug it, day-glo bashers be damned, it looked great in that scene, the gang popping out of the screen just like the gangs in Miller's DKR with their tribal make-up.

- the martial arts at the Ngymatech ball at least have the feeling of having some power behind the hits, but it is all too obviously not Kilmer in the suit unfortunately, but, y'know, that is a similar gripe with any number of action movies.
but, again, the best action comes when the constricted rubber suit martial arts stop...when Batman is trapped in the gas chamber, and Robin makes his first appearance saving him from death(just like the scene in the book when BM first meets Tim Drake)
- and the finale with Batman saving both Chase and Robin is another doozy, superb last second rescue comicbook thrills.

[babbage]

Edit- Oops, I'll take it to the other thread

[TruerToTheCore]

k

BM89 wise, some of the action was very enjoyable because it was unique to what you usually got in the movies at that time. When they were using the Batman type tricks from the comics, in a simple but effective manner, it was very satisfying.

It was clumsy.

- The reconstruction of his 1st appearance in the books on the rooftop was very good.


Of course. Batman should be shot every time he appears.


- when he confronts Nicolson at Axis for the first time and does the disapearing act.

Of course. A smoke bomb that hides actually... nothing.


-when he leaves the crook dangling by the rope and Gordon gets a look at Batman for the first time.

Not a bad moment.



- the grappling hook feature on the Batmobile was pretty nifty, but aye, the most effective hand to hand combat scene was with the guy with the swords, the images of BM deflecting the swords and thr sparks flying looked much better than the usual strained punches and kicks you get in the Batman movies(that for the most part don't look like they have much power behind them).

No. They all suck, done by a character that understands nothing when it comes to real action.

-the drive back to the batcave was the best scene in the film imo, that was pure classic Batman.

Yes, but it's mostly the music. And of course, it doesn't make sense. Why does Batman that long to deliver his revelatiions about Gotham's shopping nightmare?



Aye, again, the best action scenes in the film are not the restrictive martial arts scenes.

Very clumsy martial arts scenes. Done by a guy who doesn't get Batman at all.


I said this earlier, but BF benefits from John Dystryka coming onboard and his CG innovations in the movie, although, most of the stunts are still done with Kilmer or real life stuntmen.
- The whole opening sequence is a doozy, I especially love the moment when Batman's cape suddenly drapes over the front of the helicopter window, just when they think they have gotten rid of him. Classic Batman.

The whole beginning of Batman Forever shows the real Batman.


- Daft as it is, the Batmobile sequence is not bad.
- Dick Grayson fighting the gang is superb, as is the moment when Batman is just hanging back on the rooftop, like the supernatural entity that knows just when and where to be in times of trouble, waiting for the moment when they spot him and his rep does the rest, the gang running away at the sight of him, giving him his cue to swoop down.
Now the way that was shot, proved that Schumacher did know Batman, and how to shoot a great Batman moment onscreen, using Batman's mere presence as the deterant, he only swoops into the mellee *after* the crooks have already begun to disperse.
and fug it, day-glo bashers be damned, it looked great in that scene, the gang popping out of the screen just like the gangs in Miller's DKR with their tribal make-up.

Yeah.

[/QUOTE]

[El Payaso]

Take it to the right thread. ;)

[Spoonman]

- Daft as it is, the Batmobile sequence is not bad.
- Dick Grayson fighting the gang is superb, as is the moment when Batman is just hanging back on the rooftop, like the supernatural entity that knows just when and where to be in times of trouble, waiting for the moment when they spot him and his rep does the rest, the gang running away at the sight of him, giving him his cue to swoop down.
Now the way that was shot, proved that Schumacher did know Batman, and how to shoot a great Batman moment onscreen, using Batman's mere presence as the deterant, he only swoops into the mellee *after* the crooks have already begun to disperse.
and fug it, day-glo bashers be damned, it looked great in that scene, the gang popping out of the screen just like the gangs in Miller's DKR with their tribal make-up.

- the martial arts at the Ngymatech ball at least have the feeling of having some power behind the hits, but it is all too obviously not Kilmer in the suit unfortunately, but, y'know, that is a similar gripe with any number of action movies.
but, again, the best action comes when the constricted rubber suit martial arts stop...when Batman is trapped in the gas chamber, and Robin makes his first appearance saving him from death(just like the scene in the book when BM first meets Tim Drake)
- and the finale with Batman saving both Chase and Robin is another doozy, superb last second rescue comicbook thrills.

Loved this portion of your post, that's exactly how I feel about those scenes and part of why I enjoy Batman Forever so much.

[Invisiboy]

Personally, just looking at the story and characters (you know, the part that actually matters), I think BF is an enjoyable movie, if flawed. Kilmer and O'Donnell are solid in their respective roles, Carrey and Jones are both fun-to-watch characters, even if not actual intimidating or threatening villians, and there are a few genuinely dark and serious moments that really help to develop the characters (the vengeance talk between Bruce and Dick). My gripes would be the weird behavior of Kidman's character (one scene she's a serious professional, the next she's ****ting herself up for Batman and Nygma? I know it's a comic book movie, but some consistent characterization would be nice), as well as the villian's motives not making much sense (Two-Face wants Batman, Nygma wants Bruce Wayne....so why do they team up before they realize they're after the same guy?). Overall, it's not the perfect Batman (that doesn't exist) but I would definitely call it an enjoyable watch.

[Thebumwhowalks]

as well as the villian's motives not making much sense (Two-Face wants Batman, Nygma wants Bruce Wayne....so why do they team up before they realize they're after the same guy?).

Nygma is on the beginnings of his super-villan trip when he spots Two-Face doing his thing on tv at the circus.
Y'know, at that point Nygma is trying to think of a way to compete with and ultimately trump Bruce Wayne.(and has already posted him his first riddle iirc)
He sees Two-Face, loves his act(I really like that scene where he is laughing at the tv), and realises that this could be a good way to make some money, as in order to compete with Wayne, he needs to be rich and get his business off the ground.
He also knows that he has the kind of tech to entice T-F into a partnership, as he will soon be reading the minds of Gotham City if he gets his project off the ground, and will be in an ideal position to find out who Batman is.

[El Payaso]

Nygma is on the beginnings of his super-villan trip when he spots Two-Face doing his thing on tv at the circus.
Y'know, at that point Nygma is trying to think of a way to compete with and ultimately trump Bruce Wayne.
He sees Two-Face, loves his act(I really like that scene where he is laughing at the tv), and realises that this could be a good way to make some money, as in order to compete with Wayne, he needs to be rich.
He also knows that he has the kind of tech to entice T-F into a partnership, as he will soon be reading the minds of Gotham City if he gets his project off the ground, and will be in an ideal position to find out who Batman is.
So, they end up in a mutually beneficial partnership, and as the way of most comic books coincidences go, Riddler is after Bruce, T-F after Batman, lo and behold, they are the same person.

That is true. Riddler went to Two-Face to get some funding.

[raybia]

I don't know. Maybe I've changed. I was so starved for a Batman movie than anything at that time that had Batman on it would have put a smile on my face. Nolan's movies have giving me great satisfaction but its unfair to hold BF by today's standards.

BF served its purpose and it served as a necessary building block to get the franchise where its at today. Regardless of what it wasn't or what it could have been, its was entertaining and had its moments.

[OutRiddled]

One of the problems I now have with BF is the riddles don't serve much purpose. Classic Riddler would leave the police/Batman riddles as clues to his next crime. This Riddler was more of a stalker sending "love letters" to Bruce Wayne, teasing him with his identity. Not sure if I liked that angle.

[El Payaso]

One of the problems I now have with BF is the riddles don't serve much purpose. Classic Riddler would leave the police/Batman riddles as clues to his next crime. This Riddler was more of a stalker sending "love letters" to Bruce Wayne, teasing him with his identity. Not sure if I liked that angle.

All the riddles were to spell: Mr. E. I mean................. that's it??? I thought that brtainwashing machine would make him the smartest human being?

Oh but then again on TV they said that the police also received riddles. But they were never shown.

[CConn]

I always thought it was kinda cool that it spelled out so many things.

Mr. E. Mystery. Enigma. Mr. E. Nygma. Edward Nygma.

Stickley's suicide was obviously a computer generated forgery.

[El Payaso]

I always thought it was kinda cool that it spelled out so many things.

Mr. E. Mystery. Enigma. Mr. E. Nygma. Edward Nygma.

Stickley's suicide was obviously a computer generated forgery.

But of course! The fact that he spelt his name throuigh three riddles could only mean that he digitally faked Stickley's death!

[Ponyboy]

Mr. E. Mystery. Enigma. Mr. E. Nygma. Edward Nygma.

Stickley's suicide was obviously a computer generated forgery.


:funny: yeah that was pretty out there

[bullets]

I always thought it was kinda cool that it spelled out so many things.

Mr. E. Mystery. Enigma. Mr. E. Nygma. Edward Nygma.

Stickley's suicide was obviously a computer generated forgery.



I just watched this today after so many years. I'd forgotten how easy the riddles were but that line cracked me up. It was like Kilmer just broke the fourth wall to speed up the scene.

[OutRiddled]

Oh but then again on TV they said that the police also received riddles. But they were never shown.

Yeah, I thought that was kind of lame. Kind of like how they showed Two-Face's origin.

[Mandalore464]

You know, the ONLY thing I've ever liked about Two-Face in this film - cause yes, he definitely was its weakest link - is that he was already an established villain on the run at the start of the film.

Too much exposition can kill a film. Or book, or whatever else. The TV newscast showing his origins was a short and efficient way of bringing non-fans up to date with who the character is and how he came to be.

[El Payaso]

I just watched this today after so many years. I'd forgotten how easy the riddles were but that line cracked me up. It was like Kilmer just broke the fourth wall to speed up the scene.

At that time, they didn't know that it was butlers' function to do that. :woot:

Yeah, I thought that was kind of lame. Kind of like how they showed Two-Face's origin.

Yes. Btw, I never got that Harvey Dent usd that folder to protect his face from the acid, but somehow he just carefully protected half of his face. And then he protected it all but somehow the acid burnt the face and half of the folder. Never got that sequence right msyelf.

[Mister Meddle]

I never liked the way Two Face looked. Even when I was a kid. I always thought Two Face (in a live action film) should have half of his face literally look like it was burned off. Instead of applying pink face paint with such a perfect border line down the center of his face (he should at least have fading burn marks). I pretty much wanted Two Face to look the way he did in TDK.

http://i2.listal.com/image/1816997/500full.jpg

vs

http://geektyrant.com/storage/page-images/Two_Face_6711.jpeg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1291 400392056

[circa81]

two face's look in TDK is so over the top it's unintentionally funny, and nowhere near "realistic".

[babbage]

Unintentionally funny? :doh: The internet, sometimes...

[Mister Meddle]

two face's look in TDK is so over the top it's unintentionally funny, and nowhere near "realistic".

:whatever: Another "teh realism" guy. I guess having a half pink face with a perfectly painted borderline down the center of his face is much better and more realistic.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Ya I never liked the makeup job for TF even as a kid it was very poorly done.

[circa81]

:whatever: Another "teh realism" guy. I guess having a half pink face with a perfectly painted borderline down the center of his face is much better and more realistic.

I'm not a realism guy, Nolan is, and almost nothing in TDK is realistic. Burton was the best.

[The Joker]

two face's look in TDK is so over the top it's unintentionally funny, and nowhere near "realistic".

It's not meant to be "realistic" any more than ninjas living in the Himalayas plotting to destroy a city with a Microwave emitter is realistic.

Nolan never claimed his Batman movies are realistic. His Two Face is probably the most visually striking and terrifying looking Batman villain on screen yet.

[The Guard]

Regarding Two-Face being pink...

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/141_4_000000234.jpg

In the 60's and some of the 70's he was bright green. BATMAN: TAS had him a ridiculous blue color. There's a precedent for it.

[Mister Meddle]

Maybe if the pink color was applied better or with a different shade. It just looks like standard hot pink face paint that you'd find at a local Hot Topic. And it's not like the burnt side fades out in the center of the face. Two Face's face job was just as bad as the overall character.

http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/t/tommy-lee-jones-batman-forever-1995--645-75.jpg

[nogap87]

I'm torn when it comes to TDK Two Face. Sure he looks cool but his ****ed up side doesn't look like it could handle a gentle poke from a new born baby without experiencing unbearable pain, let alone a punch from Batman. For that, he loses intimidation points.

[Bruce Malone]

I'm torn when it comes to TDK Two Face. Sure he looks cool but his ****ed up side doesn't look like it could handle a gentle poke from a new born baby without experiencing unbearable pain, let alone a punch from Batman. For that, he loses intimidation points.


That's the point though, he's supposed to be in immense pain but his rage is blocking all that out. Gordon talks about how he's turning down pain killers. He's running on pure adrenaline that's intense.




Also something i made when i was bored a little while ago haha

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4830/tttb.jpg

[Mister Meddle]

That's the point though, he's supposed to be in immense pain but his rage is blocking all that out. Gordon talks about how he's turning down pain killers. He's running on pure adrenaline that's intense.

Agreed.




Also something i made when i was bored a little while ago haha

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4830/tttb.jpg

With that smile I sure hope he stays away from the playgrounds during the day time.

[nogap87]

That's the point though, he's supposed to be in immense pain but his rage is blocking all that out. Gordon talks about how he's turning down pain killers. He's running on pure adrenaline that's intense.

Meh. One good slap to the left side of his face and he'd be down for the count.

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

That's why he has a gun on him...

...also like i said this man does not even pay attention to pain at this point. Half his face has been charred to a crisp he probably doesn't even have any never endings there left to feel pain.

[Mandalore464]

I like Two-Face's look in TDK, and I like it in BF as well. Never had a problem with his scarred side being a clean straight line, that's the way he's always been portrayed in other Batman media, never seen anyone complain about it till TDK came along.

My issue with the character is his portrayal. Not his looks.

[nogap87]

^^^

That's why he has a gun on him...

...also like i said this man does not even pay attention to pain at this point. Half his face has been charred to a crisp he probably doesn't even have any never endings there left to feel pain.

Agree to disagree. I felt Two Faces's look was more style over substance.

[El Payaso]

Agree to disagree. I felt Two Faces's look was more style over substance.

In TDK?