The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[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:

Or this:

Or this:


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:

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

[Mandalore464]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mandalore464

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

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.

Originally Posted by Mandalore464

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]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

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]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

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...

Originally Posted by Mandalore464

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.

Originally Posted by Mandalore464

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.

Originally Posted by Mandalore464

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by HolyPurpleSocks

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]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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