The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Mister Meddle

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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Did you take an internet test?

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]

Originally Posted by CConn

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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

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

Originally Posted by 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






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



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



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 h look, its Batman!”….

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/-0n0hNAOcfU...rever76wl3.jpg


What happened to the creature of the night? A guy who was hiding in the shadows?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...batcage2b1.PNG
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...n/tdk_1229.jpg

Now the SpiderManBat lands in the middle of a crowd on a colorful street?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...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-v2...0/darkvibe.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...tshadowret.PNG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...00/balroof.PNG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...00/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...itmap-2511.jpg

And what happened to Gotham which is suppose to be a darker version of New York?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...0/cathedra.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...r_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/_JrMAg7gZ5F...okybatcave.PNG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lkqR1KGWOG...0963bbcave.jpg

What the hell is it with neon carshow display? This is suppose to be Batman?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

There was nothing wrong with their portrayal.

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

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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

No, that's called 'trying.'

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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

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

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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?

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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

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

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Ponyboy]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

...

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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

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]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

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]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CConn

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]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

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]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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.

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

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

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

Originally Posted by Thebumwhowalks

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]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

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?