Batman Forever: HBO First Look

[Two-Face]

I haven't seen this before so I thought I share this with you guys/

Part 1:
[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1MiAszO_ni0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1MiAszO_ni0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]


Part 2:

[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0osweWSEUqA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0osweWSEUqA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]

 

[Catman]

Holy HBO Special, Batman!

 

[Haunted Knight]

"joel is the perfect kind of person to direct a film like this"
:facepalm

 

[Haunted Knight]

But Thanks for posting, though. The rest of it was interesting!

 

[david icke]

"joel is the perfect kind of person to direct a film like this"
:facepalm

Y'know that is what I thought when he was announced as the successor to Burton. I loved 'Falling Down' and thought it was a great vigilante film, that combined with 'The Lost Boys' could make a person think Shumacher would have pulled off a gritty but stylish Batman film. As was, we got a popcorn blockbuster type film.

BF is my fav out of the 4 movies of this series though, it's the closest to the comics I'd say, I thought Kilmer was a better BM/BW too.

 

[Haunted Knight]

BF is my fav out of the 4 movies of this series though, it's the closest to the comics I'd say, I thought Kilmer was a better BM/BW too.

I have to say I agree with you about Val Kilmer. I do like his Bruce Wayne better than the others' (Second to Bale- unoriginal I know, but his Bruce/Bats is the best). Kilmer's Batman actually isn't too bad either.

 

[david icke]

I have to say I agree with you about Val Kilmer. I do like his Bruce Wayne better than the others' (Second to Bale- unoriginal I know, but his Bruce/Bats is the best). Kilmer's Batman actually isn't too bad either.

Bale is the Chris Reeve of Batman to me, just like the best of the comics, he proved himself in the 'swear to me' scene in BB.

Watching that hbo special brought back lots of memories, I used to watch my vhs of BF over and over, whenever I would get home drunk I would put it on without fail.

Cheers for posting the hbo vids Two-Face, just got done watching them, good stuff. they should've put that on the se dvd.

 

[bulletbillx]

I agree with you on Val Kilmer, though his performance as well as the movie would be much improved if they recut the movie to fit the script and reinserted all the deleted scenes.

 

[BatMatt]

I agree with you on Val Kilmer, though his performance as well as the movie would be much improved if they recut the movie to fit the script and reinserted all the deleted scenes.

Leave out the one where Batman accidentally walks into a barbershop during a pursuit, and the hairdresser asks if he wants a little "off the ears." Good god, that was awful

 

[Two-Face]

"joel is the perfect kind of person to direct a film like this"
:facepalm

I think it was Chris O'Donell who said that.

But Thanks for posting, though. The rest of it was interesting!

You're welcome.

Y'know that is what I thought when he was announced as the successor to Burton. I loved 'Falling Down' and thought it was a great vigilante film, that combined with 'The Lost Boys' could make a person think Shumacher would have pulled off a gritty but stylish Batman film. As was, we got a popcorn blockbuster type film.

BF is my fav out of the 4 movies of this series though, it's the closest to the comics I'd say, I thought Kilmer was a better BM/BW too.

I totally agree. I loved Phone Booth starring Colin Ferrell and he did this movie BF & B&R, stupid WB didn't let him what he wanted do.

I have to say I agree with you about Val Kilmer. I do like his Bruce Wayne better than the others' (Second to Bale- unoriginal I know, but his Bruce/Bats is the best). Kilmer's Batman actually isn't too bad either.

I liked Val Kilmer as Batman/Bruce, I loved him doing dark Batman film.

 

[Catman]

stupid WB didn't let him what he wanted do.

WB never asked him to put nipples on the batsuit and create a neon Gotham City. Schumacher is as much to blame as WB.

 

[Two-Face]

Well WB did want a kiddie friendly movie though.

 

[Catman]

Well WB did want a kiddie friendly movie though.

Kid-friendly doesn't equal nipples on the batsuit.

 

[Two-Face]

No it doesn't and I agree. nipples on the Batsuit doesn't bother me at all.

 

[BatmanForNever]

I think a lot of people blame Schumacher for Bartman Forever. Which isn't far, it's his style, the neon suits, the nipples, the over the top theme.

When in fact one should blame Burton for making Returns so dark that there was a backlash, and thus the studio went with a lighter direction and director.

 

[El Payaso]

I think a lot of people blame Schumacher for Bartman Forever. Which isn't far, it's his style, the neon suits, the nipples, the over the top theme.

When in fact one should blame Burton for making Returns so dark that there was a backlash, and thus the studio went with a lighter direction and director.

If WB executives decided a lighter Batman then let's put the blame where it belongs: the WB executives. If there's nipples, bat-butt shots and a clowny Two-Face in the movie, then again let's blame the right guy: Schumacher.

Burton did nothing of the aforementioned things.

 

[Prison Mike]

it's fun, looking back at the actors trying to justify what they put on screen...

 

[Bat-Mite]

I think a lot of people blame Schumacher for Bartman Forever. Which isn't far, it's his style, the neon suits, the nipples, the over the top theme.

When in fact one should blame Burton for making Returns so dark that there was a backlash, and thus the studio went with a lighter direction and director.

Returns, while dark, isn't nearly as bad as it has a reputation for being. Remember, there's a lot of humor in the film (especially concerning Devito's Penguin) that balances things out. Burton himself considers the first film to be darker, and I can definitely see where he's coming from there. The first film, even though it had the Joker, just didn't have as much humor as Returns.

I don't think you can really blame Burton for making a Burton movie when he'd done previous films (i.e. Beetlejuice and especially Edward Scissorhands) that gave people a good dose of his dark humor and let people know what they were in for. IMO, Burton can hardly be blamed for ignorant soccer moms who disregarded the tone of his previous films, disregarded the film's rating, and threw a fit when they took their little child to a movie with dark, violent, sexual themes without bothering to screen it ahead of time. He can't be held accountable for whiny, irresponsible parents.

 

[BatmanForNever]

If WB executives decided a lighter Batman then let's put the blame where it belongs: the WB executives. If there's nipples, bat-butt shots and a clowny Two-Face in the movie, then again let's blame the right guy: Schumacher.

Burton did nothing of the aforementioned things.

But what Burtin did lead to the executives wanting the lighter more kid friendly Batman image. If Burton wasn't given so much leash and Returns had a better balance as in the first Batman, then Batman Forever would have been a different film.

We can't fully blame the executives, because what they did was a direct reaction of what Burton did in Batman Returns. And the box office numbers spoke, Batman was a big success, Batman Returns didn't make as much, and Batman Forever did better than Returns, but then Batman & Robin did poor.

Domestic Total Gross for all 4 Batman films:
Batman: $251,188,924
BR: $162,831,698
BF: $184,031,112
B&R: $107,325,195


The executives hold some blame, but the film always suffers when the director is given too much leash and too much power over the project. The first film of each director is always superior to the second film they did. Returns and Batman & Robin suffered from this effect. Nolan since has broken curse as The Dark Knight did better than Batman Begins.

Batman Begins: $205,343,774
The Dark Knight: $533,345,358

Granted the hype machine, and Ledger boosted it's lure. I can't blame parents for getting upset at Batman Beturns looking back I was 7 when it came out and mom sold my VHS copy soon after I got it as a gift as it was too dark, too violent, and too sexual for a child. And one always has to remember that Batman is a movie that needs to be enjoyed by children and adults. For me Batman Forever had a better balance of dark and light, as did the first flick. Returns suffered from too much dark and Batman & Robin suffered from too much light-heartedness.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Schmucher can be blamed for HIS movie just as much as Burton can be blamed for Batman Returns. Personally, putting the balance of dark and light aside, I think Batman Returns is a better film than Batman Forever, but Batman Forever was a much easier sell commerically. But whatever you don't like about either movie, the director who made said film deserves the blame for it. Please, no more of this "Batman Forever is Burton's fault" nonsense.

 

[Two-Face]

I find BF watchable than BR though BR had better storyline. BF is fun popcorn flick.

 

[BatmanForNever]

Schmucher can be blamed for HIS movie just as much as Burton can be blamed for Batman Returns. Personally, putting the balance of dark and light aside, I think Batman Returns is a better film than Batman Forever, but Batman Forever was a much easier sell commerically. But whatever you don't like about either movie, the director who made said film deserves the blame for it. Please, no more of this "Batman Forever is Burton's fault" nonsense.

This is always going to be the case with some many Burton-worshippers amongst the boards and Bat fans. They are in denial. It's simple action A cause B. Burton overly dark film lead to the more light-hearted Batman Forever. If he didn't make it so dark and it was more accepted we would have most likely gotten a Burton trilogy that felt more cohesive.

 

[El Payaso]

But what Burtin did lead to the executives wanting the lighter more kid friendly Batman image.

What executives did was just their own decision. They&#8217;re all adults and can&#8217;t blame other people for their own actions.

If Burton wasn't given so much leash and Returns had a better balance as in the first Batman, then Batman Forever would have been a different film.

Now you know who usually gives directors so much leash, right? :wink:

That said, BF could have been a different film all the same if Scumacher didn&#8217;t equal &#8220;kid-friendly&#8221; to &#8220;poor writing, nipples and butt shots.&#8221;

We can't fully blame the executives, because what they did was a direct reaction of what Burton did in Batman Returns.

Again, they could have gone &#8220;less darkness, but not so much corniness.&#8221; But they didn&#8217;t. Executives are fully responsible for their bad decisions.

And the box office numbers spoke, Batman was a big success, Batman Returns didn't make as much, and Batman Forever did better than Returns, but then Batman & Robin did poor.

Domestic Total Gross for all 4 Batman films:
Batman: $251,188,924
BR: $162,831,698
BF: $184,031,112
B&R: $107,325,195

Not always the balance between dark and light works. Numbers have spoken.

And what were executives reacting to when they thought of B&R? BF had worked with the audience, so how did they screwed it up?

It certainly looks like it was just a bad decisions they can't blame no one for other than themselves.

The executives hold some blame, but the film always suffers when the director is given too much leash and too much power over the project.

According to your own logic:

- Executives hold some blame.

- Then there&#8217;s the fact that directors are given too much power over the project.

- Since it&#8217;s executives who give directors the power; executives are completely guilty of the results.

According to your own logic.

The first film of each director is always superior to the second film they did. Returns and Batman & Robin suffered from this effect. Nolan since has broken curse as The Dark Knight did better than Batman Begins.

So, in other words: The first film of each director is NOT always superior to the second film they did.

But nowadays there&#8217;s a completely different approach to this mind of franchises. They do the first movie thinking of sequels. 20 years ago, you had one shot at a time, so you better use the best elements in the first movie. That&#8217;s why Burton and co never thought of keeping the Joker for a second movie as Nolan did.

I can't blame parents for getting upset at Batman Beturns looking back I was 7 when it came out and mom sold my VHS copy soon after I got it as a gift as it was too dark, too violent, and too sexual for a child. And one always has to remember that Batman is a movie that needs to be enjoyed by children and adults.

Financially yes; from the perspective of the executives, sure.

But a Batman film doesn&#8217;t have to in order to be good. TDK is not made for children, it&#8217;s too long, Joker is quite a scary figure and the humour is limited (thanks God). Even when violence is quite controlled for the kids to watch, it&#8217;s not a kid-friendly film and it did great.

And according to you B89 is darker than BF but made more money.

For me Batman Forever had a better balance of dark and light, as did the first flick. Returns suffered from too much dark and Batman & Robin suffered from too much light-heartedness.

That doesn&#8217;t make BF a better film though. It completely destroyed the Two-Face character an had Batman acting in some cringeworthy ways. And I can&#8217;t help but mention the bat-butt shot again.

This is always going to be the case with some many Burton-worshippers amongst the boards and Bat fans. They are in denial. It's simple action A cause B. Burton overly dark film lead to the more light-hearted Batman Forever. If he didn't make it so dark and it was more accepted we would have most likely gotten a Burton trilogy that felt more cohesive.

Well, you can't blame this thread's level of denial on Burton-worshippers, because after all, it's just a reaction to your original post (A causes B, right?) so - according to your logic - it is you who hold the blame for it.

 

[BatmanForNever]

I'm done trying to get through to you. Buton's darker Batman film (which wasn;t even very good) lead the to travesty of Batman & Robin. If the film was made with a better balance like the first flick, we would have never gotten Batman & Robin.


And, It is me who holds the blame? What!? What are you mumbling about. Parents complained, there was a backlash of it being too dark, thus they made it super light. I love my Batman Dark and always thought that Returns was just a bit too much.

Schumacher wanted to do a movie version of Miller's Batman: Year One, for a more intimate, darker movie. But guess what studio listened to moms who complained that Batman was too dark (he's suppose to be, but ******ed soccer moms are clueless) The studio pushed for bigger, bolder, brighter, more kid friendly, and to sell toys.

The movie suffered, so it wasn't even what Schumacher wanted, he just made the movie the studio wanted it.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm done trying to get through to you.

Okee dokee.

Buton's darker Batman film (which wasn;t even very good) lead the to travesty of Batman & Robin. If the film was made with a better balance like the first flick, we would have never gotten Batman & Robin.

Burton led to B&R. But it was B&R's mess which led to the reboot and that led to TDK.

So in your own logic, we must thank Burton for TDK.

It is me who holds the blame? What are you talking about.

You're to blame for "this thread's level of denial on Burton-worshippers." And don't ask me why because it's right ther in my post too. You see, proper reading is essential to get the points before replying.

Parents complained there was a backlash of it being too dark. I love my Batman Dark and always thought that Returns was just a bit too much.

So basically the studios reacted to the parents' complaints.

Schumacher wanted to do a movie version of Miller's Batman: Year One, for a more intimate, darker movie. But guess what studio listened to moms who complained that Batman was too dark (he's suppose to be, but ******ed soccer moms are clueless) The studio pushed for bigger, bolder, brighter, more kid friendly, and to sell toys.

The movie suffered, so it wasn't even what Schumacher wanted, he just made the movie the studio wanted it.

I remember Michael Keaton was of the same opinion. He wanted something dark and related to Batman's origin. But then he realized the studio (not Burton or any other individual) wanted kid-friendly. But opposite to Joel, Keaton said NO.

So, okay, the studio forced Schumacher to go kid-friendly and light. But it was Schumacher's decision - and no one else's - to stay and do the movie he didn't want and hence he's to blame. That said, kid-friendly or light doesn't equal butt shots, bad writing or nipples. THAT you cannot blame the studios for, for it was Joel's personal "artistic" choices. And, in his own words, if you don't get nipples, you "need go out more."