Batman Forever: Scene by Scene

[Homer J. Fong]

​

Hype is a curious and dangerous thing. Batman Forever is the first movie I ever anticipated (in my first post of the Batman Returns: Scene by Scene thread, I initially referred to BR as that, but then remembered I was 3 when that came out, so that was impossible), and it was as simple as 'It's gonna be amazing.' (And it was. Or, I thought it was.) But I was 6. To maintain a huge level of either eagerness or apathy months - if not years - before we see a film is unwise and unfair; if The Dark Knight Rises isn't as incredible as The Dark Knight (for those who subscribed to the consensus that TDK was incredible), or as the movie in one's head, that's not as important as if it's a good movie. This kind of thing is sometimes unavoidable, though - we all bear and bring the burden of expectations at times - but it can also be managed. I usually try for cautious optimism when I'm looking forward to something. As you'd think, The Dark Knight Rises is my most anticipated movie of 2012, and I am trying to keep my excitement at bay because I know I'll enjoy the movie more if I keep my expectations in check (plus, a third installment in a superhero series has never been wholly satisfying). My point is this: If Christopher Nolan had been fired/left, and the helm of this Batman series had been handed over to, say, Brett Ratner, with Christian Bale being replaced by, say, Armie Hammer, I would be weighed down with disappointment and skepticism. I do think that's better, to be reserved, but watching Batman Forever...among other things, it reminds me of what it was like to have such pure feelings about a movie, and for that to be okay. I kind of miss that. I didn't have that skepticism with BF, I didn't know to be disappointed by the absence of Tim Burton and Michael Keaton even though I loved BR. And I ended up loving it. BF doesn't want to be analyzed or thought about with much detail at all, but guess what? Bad luck for Batman Forever.

I prefer my Batman, and the stories he occupies, to be grim, brooding, and both inspiring and cynical, but I don't need them to be all of those things to be acceptable. The only Batman story that I'll dismiss is one that turns Batman himself into a joke. Warner Bros. (and I don't know who specifically to refer to here, so I'm going to use the generic "Warner Bros.") reacted to the parental furor over Batman Returnsby nudging Burton out the door, as director anyway, and bringing in a director who promised a lighter tone, Joel Schumacher. Schumacher was a safe choice, but not a bad one: He'd had some commercial successes, some critical successes, and he'd directed several different kinds of movies. He didn't - and still doesn't - have the visual panache or directorial presence of Burton, but he wasn't a bad choice. And the choice to step out of the shadows, so to speak, wasn't necessarily a bad one either. Batman Forever could have been mostly weightless entertainment and still consistent, complete, and all-around satisfying...but it wasn't. The movie we have is unfinished and uneven. Fittingly for a movie with Two-Face as a villain, it is of two minds, partly a film that wants to continue from where Burton left off and reveal what's at the root of Batman's existence, partly a ludicrous lark.

I like a good deal of it, but let's break it down, shall we?

[YT]r8D0ckow0ck[/YT]​

 

[Homer J. Fong]

1. [post=22773271]Drive-Through Credits[/post]
2. [post=22786305]Of Two Minds[/post]
3. [post=22829485]Steel Trap[/post]
4. [post=22839819]'Copter Chaos[/post]
5. [post=22845073]"Too Many Questions"[/post]
6. [post=22886679]Getting Under His Cape[/post]
7. [post=24089209]Terminating Stickley[/post]
8. [post=24122291]Riddles to Solve[/post]
9. [post=24215423]Not Exactly What They Seem[/post]
10. Big Top Tragedy
11. Welcome to Wayne Manor
12. Happening Again
13. Broken Wings Mend
14. Ambush
15. Riddler Comes Calling
16. New Criminal Couple
17. Secrets Aloft and Below
18. We're All Two People
19. Ride in the Other Car
20. A Part of This
21. NygmaTech Tango
22. Party Crashers
23. Needed Guidance
24. The Lady Decides
25. Bats on the Brain
26. Crimefighter Decides
27. Unhappy Halloween
28. Intruders
Secret of the Batcave
29. Counting on Batman
30. Partners
31. By Air and Sea
32. Taking a Dive
33. Clash on Claw Island
34. Double Jeopardy
35. Flipped Out
36. Now a Choice
37. Batman's Identity
38. New Dream
39. End Credits

 

[Homer J. Fong]

1. DRIVE-THROUGH JUSTICE

(Running time: 0:00:00 - 0:02:15)

The first stylistic/cosmetic change comes right away: The Warner Bros. logo morphs into a Bat emblem, then fades away to be followed by the names of each of the five principal cast members swooping around and then zipping past us. (Flying CG titles – how ‘90s!) The Tim Burton movies opened with main title sequences carefully designed to set a particular mood and lure you into the darkly fascinating world of Gotham City. Schumacher gives you the headlining names, the title, and then throws you into the action – an approach that has since become the norm, and which is definitely the right one for this movie, one so adamant to never slow down but keep charging forward.

The movie proper begins with a slick suiting-up montage that shows off (A) Schumacher’s concerted effort to present Batman as even more of an icon, and particularly an Icon of Cool, and (B) the new fetishization of Batman’s suit, his gear, and his toys. On point A, mission accomplished. It doesn’t have the brooding excitement of the first suiting-up montage, but it has its own heroic grandeur. On point B…well, it will get worse. Surprise surprise, this is an aspect I’m not too comfortable with, but it’s one to get into later, because again, it will get worse.

So much new stuff is on display in this little two-minute introduction: new suit, new cave, new gadgets, new Batmobile, new Batman. Everything’s very sleek and shiny, and the Batcave especially has received a large increase in scale. It’s a full-blown, high-tech underground base of operations now. It’s an impressive set, and thankfully, we’ll see much more of it throughout the film. The new Batmobile, which is given an unveiling of its own, is not as memorable and striking a design as the previous model, but it shares the quality of looking like a creature of the night itself. It looks more “organic” and almost alien, but not so bizarre as to be totally impractical. The new suit – the “panther suit,” as it’s often called – is a move away from the armored warrior look and back to the sculpted musculature of the ’89 suit, but with much more importance placed on anatomy. The Batman & Robin costumes in Schumacher’s films were inspired both by statues of Greek gods and by the impossibly perfect physiques of comic book superheroes, in their form-fitting tights. That’s okay, but where it becomes cringe-inducing when we’re treated to loving close-ups on sculpted rubber chests and buttocks. But this first scene isn’t embarrassing in that way. The “panther suit” is a good design, it’s well made, Val Kilmer looks good in it, and he moves well in it.

Stephen Goldblatt was nominated for an Oscar for his cinematography of Batman Forever, which remains slightly surprising to me. It’s easy to get lost in complaining about all the neon, but most of the movie exhibits more controlled use of color than we remember, and the camerawork is very flashy and dynamic in the comic book way that’s intended. This opening shows off a Batcave and a Batman that, while no longer bathed in those shadows, still have a shadowy allure.

Definitive though Danny Elfman’s main theme was – combining the macabre and the heroic aspects of the Batman character – it wouldn’t have fit in this movie, to these images. Sure, Elfman’s main theme and his "Finale" theme were used in trailers for Schumacher’s movies, but putting them in the movies is very different. Elliot Goldenthal’s new anthem, as it should be, is a perfect fit for this movie with its new tone and spirit, playing up the more playful, adventurous side of Batman and his world. It’s a good piece, effective in both its more up-tempo, rousing and slower, moodier modes. It’s not half as good as Elfman’s, but it works.

Things are going well until this exchange:

Alfred: Can I persuade you to take a sandwich with you, sir?
Batman: I’ll get drive-through.

Val Kilmer’s Batman is actually a serious and credible one for the most part, so it’s more disappointing to have him grapple with lines like that than it is with anything George Clooney does in Batman & Robin. “I’ll get drive-through” is a glib throwaway, and these movies were never that good at those. Plus, it just feels like the (non-specific) product placement it is; every time I watch this, I half-expect a cutaway to a McDonald’s commercial.

Other notes
-Originally, BF opened with Harvey’s breakout from Arkham Asylum, followed by Bruce Wayne meeting with Edward Nygma at WayneTech, noticing the Batsignal, charging to the Batcave through the secret entrance in his office, and then heading to the 2nd Bank of Gotham to stop Two-Face. There have been a bunch of fan reedits that have gone that route, but the finished structure of things is more appropriate: Show us Batman right up front, cut to the chase, start the action.

 

[Macphisto]

Everything about the introduction to the new Batman is perfect until Kilmer utters the infamous line: I'll get drive through. Then again, 'nice coat' is just as bad as far as mood killers go.

I do like Goldenthal's main theme. I find it heroic and fun yet haunting and tragic.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

2. OF TWO MINDS

(Running time: 0:02:16 - 0:05:27)

Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face. It’s interesting to consider, isn’t it? Williams is an Icon of Cool himself, but the role of Two-Face could have offered him one of the greater acting challenges of his career. Maybe not in this movie, under Schumacher's direction…but then, if we’d had Billy Dee instead of Tommy Lee, we might have seen a very different, much more dangerous portrayal of Two-Face. We might not have. There’s obviously no way of knowing. But I am still disappointed, retroactively, that they opted to release Williams out of his contract and bring on Tommy Lee Jones instead. Jones is always a good actor, sometimes a great one, and he was probably never a bigger star than he was in 1994, coming off of his Oscar win for The Fugitive. I wouldn’t know that if I only went by his work in Batman Forever, though. I feel like, even in this same movie, Billy Dee would have tried to bring more humanity, more menace, and more pathos to the role, because he’d already established Harvey Dent in the first movie. Oh, well. Nothing to do but think what could have been. The 1989-1997 Batman series really did operate the same way the 1962-2002 James Bond movies did: with a very loose continuity. It doesn’t matter that Harvey Dent went from black to white in between movies, just as it doesn’t matter that Bruce Wayne behaves differently in each movie, just as it doesn’t matter that Bruce/Batman looks so damn different with each movie, because one Batman movie is not a true sequel to the previous Batman movie. They’ll make references to their predecessors, but that’s about it. It was the same with the first wave of Bond movies. Both series ended disastrously, so the franchises laid low for a few years, and then returned with reboots that wiped the slate clean, and now they both have true continuity.

Tommy Lee Jones is actually excellent in this, his first scene. He begins as cool and calculated, a genuine threat, and his malice builds as he talks to the guard he has pinned to the floor about the only real form of justice in this world: luck. This is not subtle acting, but it works because there’s more going on than there is with the rest of Jones’ performance in the film: It’s clear that this Harvey Dent is a fiercely intelligent man, but his ideals have been totally lost. Any sense of good or evil he had has been shattered, and all that’s left is the flip of a coin. That fierce intelligence is accompanied by a fierce anger, and as he speechifies about luck, his maniacal villainy boils over. This is the one scene (or perhaps one of two scenes) where there is some duality to this version of Two-Face; sure, it’s not as serious as the one in The Dark Knight, but it’s not trying to be. The Dark Knight’s Harvey Dent was a white knight with some suppressed anger issues, and those anger issues manifested themselves after an accident through which he lost the love of his life and half of his face. Gotham’s greatest hope lost his perspective on law and order, and that lucky coin of his became a symbol of his destruction. The gravest of moral decisions were left up to the all-too-powerful coin. Batman: The Animated Series did much the same thing in 1992, but emphasized Dent’s latent rage problems, to the point of his already having the alternate personality of Big Bad Harv before his accident. Batman Forever goes for a much more simplistic take than either of these; this Harvey Dent was a good and honorable District Attorney who had acid thrown in his face, and, as a result of that trauma, generated this alternate, evil personality, and leaves him “in a world where normal rules of right and wrong no longer apply.” I’m not complaining about the lack of psychological complexity. No, my point is that I wish we’d seen the Two-Face of this scene throughout the entire film.

The Two-Face makeup is perhaps the greatest technical triumph of this film. (Anyone thinking that that’s not what a severe acid burn to half the face would actually look like is bringing the wrong thought process to this.) It’s ghoulish and larger than life, and it looks fantastic. How Rick Baker and Ve Neill weren’t nominated for the Oscar, I have no idea. The costume isn’t as successful to me. I would have rather seen Bob Ringwood & Ingrid Ferrin go for the half-black/half-white look from B:TAS, still cartoonish but simpler,than the odd half-business/half-funky leopard print look.

Next, we have the introduction of Dr. Chase Meridian. Rene Russo was the first choice for the role, but that was in the brief period in which Michael Keaton was still attached. When he decided not to do it, Russo was recast with Nicole Kidman, with the idea being that she would be more suitable (age-appropriate) to play opposite new Batman Val Kilmer. Chase Meridian is basically Lois Lane: She’s sharp and tough around Bruce, but a googly-eyed schoolgirl around Batman. The problem is, she never comes off as the whip-smart abnormal psychologist we’re meant to believe she is. I wonder if Russo would have done any better, but really, Kidman isn’t the problem, the script is. Granted, she looks a lot smarter than the police, who for some reason were surprised that Two-Face might go after the 2nd Bank of Gotham in the 2nd anniversary of the day Batman captured him (come on, Gordon!), but still, she brings no insight here. No, her purpose is to toss come-ons Batman’s way. I wish Dr. Meridian had been more credible.

Other notes
-“Hot entrance.” Well, Chase isn’t wrong.

-Batman finds Chase’s work “naïve, but insightful.” I’m not sure that makes sense.

 

[El Payaso]

I really think Kidman did a horrible job here. She's only one step from Katie Homes-horrible, feeling like an arrogant child playing adults, repeating those smart lines (which is too painfully obvious didn't come from her mind), finishing Batman's lines but coming off as completely unbelievable and unconvincing of this alledged "intelligence."

Sure, the script is to blame, but couldn't Kidman have given Chase a little seriousness so we could believe she's a smart woman and not this "Psychoanalitically Blonde" specimen here?

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I don't think she's bad (but then, I don't think Katie Holmes is bad in Batman Begins either; I stand very much in the minority there), but she doesn't bring much more to the part than what's on the page. And unfortunately, what's on the page isn't enough.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't think she's bad (but then, I don't think Katie Holmes is bad in Batman Begins either; I stand very much in the minority there), but she doesn't bring more to the part than what's on the page. And unfortunately, what's on the page isn't much.

Oh. So, in other words, she's bad.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I like Nicole Kidman In the film.Michelle Pfeiffer IS my favorate leading lady In Batman
film but Nicole Is second.

I agree with compassions between the previous Batman films and original James Bond series.I disagree with sutle compassion between Batman and Robin and Die Another Day.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

3. STEEL TRAP

(Running time: 0:05:28 - 0:10:07)

Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin: None of these are great action movies. Burton staged some fun scenes of chaos and some good car chases, but the first fight scene in Forever indicates that Schumacher will be a lot better with this aspect. Batman moves with something like agility, even in a rubber suit that’s not much lighter (if it’s not heavier – I forget) than either of Keaton’s, as he takes out each of Two-Face’s goons. Keaton’s Batman was intimidating alright, but Kilmer’s is more of a physical force, more of an action hero. Of course, a good deal of that credit needs to go the stuntman in the suit at the given moment, and the whole stunt team. The fight choreography in Forever is the best in the series (not that it’s much of a contest). Each of the movies took a cartoon approach to the fight sequences, but this time, they’re all done with better coordination and precision than in the others. I also like that Batman doesn’t rely too much on his gadgets; they’re there as tools, but he can get the job done anyway. It’s a cartoonish fight scene, but just enough.

This whole opening set piece with Two-Face to trap Batman into a bank vault and remove that vault while it fills with the very acid that scarred him, then steal a lot of money, is ridiculous. This is the movie, take it or leave it. It’s a silly thrill ride where logic isn’t thrown out the window, because it was never in the room. I find it a really fun scene, enjoyable in the same way the better Bond movie pre-title sequences are, with just one problem…

Did that guard have to so aggressively irritating? Did he have to scream for Batman’s attention in that annoying sing-song way? Did he have to proclaim, “It’s boiling aciiiiiiiid!” with such shrill force? Did he have to cry, “Hey, that’s my hearing aid!” Dude, Batman is saving your life, try being a little less of a pain in the ass! I don’t think we should be rooting for Batman to let the guy die, but guess what? I do like the way Batman handles him; Kilmer’s subtly funny, stoic and to the point rather than showing impatience with his rescue object.

Other notes
-Tommy Lee Jones has slipped into the raving loon mode that he’ll stay in for the rest of the film. The character’s duality is now limited to his use of words like “we,” “our,” and “us."

 

[lordofthenerds]

Why do an in-depth scene by scene analysis for a crap move?

 

[Homer J. Fong]

Why do an in-depth scene by scene analysis for a crap move?

I have two answers, (1) I did it for the first two, so I may as well continue, and (2) I wouldn't be if I thought this were a crap movie, but I don't; I think it's a really flawed movie where I have enough to say about it that I don't feel it's any more or less pointless than the first two scene-by-scene threads were.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I'll probably enjoy this one more than the first two because it Batman Forever sucks.

 

[HolyPurpleSocks]

This has become my new favorite thread on the Hype, as this is my favorite film of all time. Nothing but childhood nostalgia and pop-cinema entertainment. Anyone who calls either of the Schumacher films garbage is either far too cynical, wasn't a kid in the 90's, or doesn't have a sense of humor. 'Forever' is a good middle ground between the dark & extremely light. 'B&F' is just pure '66 style camp and hilarity.

Please keep the analysis coming, Homer, it's making my month.

 

[El Payaso]

'B&F' is just pure '66 style camp and hilarity.

 

[HolyPurpleSocks]

Meant to say 'B&R' as in 'Batman & Robin'. Typabomination.

 

[Drizzle]

Anyone who calls either of the Schumacher films garbage is either far too cynical, wasn't a kid in the 90's, or doesn't have a sense of humor.

Batman and Robin is garbage, and I even thought that when I first saw it as a 9 year old back in 1997, but it's fun to watch with friends while under the influence of alcohol.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

In response to some things HJF has said, as well as Holy Purple socks...

I always thought, and still think, that BF is the best film from the 89-97 series, yes, best film, taking every aspect into consideration, not just my personal fun favourite or whatever.
I don't think there is any real difference between it and the first two in terms of being a serious Batman tale, the first two are darker mainly because of the villans involved. The Riddler was never a very sinister villan, and he gets the bulk of the screentime, and even then, he does pose a real threat in the film, and does have his creepy stalker vibe going on with Bruce.

Two-Face, yes, he could have been done so much better, but again, I don't think he is that bad at all, especially considering he is dropped in as a villan 'in progess', just hitting the ground running with Two-Face on a revenge rampage, without an origin tale, it is like a lot of regular Two-Face comicbooks of the 40s-80s when it comes to his apperances.

I don't think there is that much of a difference between his first appearance and the rest of his sequences, he still has his serious moments later on, he is deadly and dangerous when confronting Nygma for the first time at his hideout, and when he appears on the scene at the Nygma ball, as well as at the circus, theatrical? sure, but he is still a viable, dangerous villan with serious intent, people tend to forget these moments, and focus on the parts when he is laughing it up, now this *always* happens when Batman arrives on the scene, because he is excited about killing Batman.
Yeah, he ends up laughing along with the Riddler too, but I like that, they are in cahoots and he is enjoying the company.


as for the comparison to B&R that Holy Purple socks made, I have to disagree, the trouble with B&R is that the script is a rushed carbon copy of the story of BF, except not as good at all, it bores me completely, I can't watch it these days at all, I can only look at a couple of action scenes now and again.
Back in the 90s when I was starved for sh movies, sure, I'd watch it now and again, but it wore off me quickly, and I would probably not have been sober when watching, haha.
B&R is the worst example of a movie rushed into production, made by studio commitee, trying to quickly cash in on the success of the previous movie and trying to replicate that moment in time.
Because BF was very popular in 95, and as someone else on the boards was saying a few weeks ago, I don't recall any major backlash on BF's release about losing Burton and Keaton, that all came after B&R was made by the same creative team(although only one of the three writers of BF was onboard for B&R).

Yes, it has corny crap in there like the security guard, but, that is exactly like the denizens of Gotham we already saw in the Burton films. Listen to the people when they are talking about the Penguin in BR, they just sound like a lot of cartoon caricatures, the security guards who confront Catwoman are just as unrealistic and inefficient in their own way as well.

It's the same type of universe! haha, this is why there was no backlash when BF came out, it's the same deal, it's a cartoon comic-book world, just like the Burtons, the main difference is that the villans are not as macabre. In the 40s-80s comics Two-Face was a professional thief who had a fixation on Batman, just as he is here, and cosmetically, the decor is more colourful, like the 50s comics, which is what Schumacher said he was going for.

You might argue that there is a deeper tale being told about duality in BR, but, if the tale that is being told around that theme is not that great in your opinion, then that lets the story down.
You can also argue there is a real tale being told here about dealing with loss, and family, when it comes to the relationship between Bruce, Dick and Alfred, as well as obsession, when it comes to the Riddler.
It's just as on the surface as the story told in BR, you don't have to dig too deep to get at that story either.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

In response to some things HJF has said, as well as Holy Purple socks...

I always thought, and still think, that BF is the best film from the 89-97 series, yes, best film, taking every aspect into consideration, not just my personal fun favourite or whatever.
I don't think there is any real difference between it and the first two in terms of being a serious Batman tale, the first two are darker mainly because of the villans involved. The Riddler was never a very sinister villan, and he gets the bulk of the screentime, and even then, he does pose a real threat in the film, and does have his creepy stalker vibe going on with Bruce.

Two-Face, yes, he could have been done so much better, but again, I don't think he is that bad at all, especially considering he is dropped in as a villan 'in progess', just hitting the ground running with Two-Face on a revenge rampage, without an origin tale, it is like a lot of regular Two-Face comicbooks of the 40s-80s when it comes to his apperances.

I don't think there is that much of a difference between his first appearance and the rest of his sequences, he still has his serious moments later on, he is deadly and dangerous when confronting Nygma for the first time at his hideout, and when he appears on the scene at the Nygma ball, as well as at the circus, theatrical? sure, but he is still a viable, dangerous villan with serious intent, people tend to forget these moments, and focus on the parts when he is laughing it up, now this *always* happens when Batman arrives on the scene, because he is excited about killing Batman.
Yeah, he ends up laughing along with the Riddler too, but I like that, they are in cahoots and he is enjoying the company.


as for the comparison to B&R that Holy Purple socks made, I have to disagree, the trouble with B&R is that the script is a rushed carbon copy of the story of BF, except not as good at all, it bores me completely, I can't watch it these days at all, I can only look at a couple of action scenes now and again.
Back in the 90s when I was starved for sh movies, sure, I'd watch it now and again, but it wore off me quickly, and I would probably not have been sober when watching, haha.
B&R is the worst example of a movie rushed into production, made by studio commitee, trying to quickly cash in on the success of the previous movie and trying to replicate that moment in time.
Because BF was very popular in 95, and as someone else on the boards was saying a few weeks ago, I don't recall any major backlash on BF's release about losing Burton and Keaton, that all came after B&R was made by the same creative team(although only one of the three writers of BF was onboard for B&R).

Yes, it has corny crap in there like the security guard, but, that is exactly like the denizens of Gotham we already saw in the Burton films. Listen to the people when they are talking about the Penguin in BR, they just sound like a lot of cartoon caricatures, the security guards who confront Catwoman are just as unrealistic and inefficient in their own way as well.

It's the same type of universe! haha, this is why there was no backlash when BF came out, it's the same deal, it's a cartoon comic-book world, just like the Burtons, the main difference is that the villans are not as macabre. In the 40s-80s comics Two-Face was a professional thief who had a fixation on Batman, just as he is here, and cosmetically, the decor is more colourful, like the 50s comics, which is what Schumacher said he was going for.

You might argue that there is a deeper tale being told about duality in BR, but, if the tale that is being told around that theme is not that great in your opinion, then that lets the story down.
You can also argue there is a real tale being told here about dealing with loss, and family, when it comes to the relationship between Bruce, Dick and Alfred, as well as obsession, when it comes to the Riddler.
It's just as on the surface as the story told in BR, you don't have to dig too deep to get at that story either.

Really interesting post there, but it does have to come down to "agree to disagree," because, although the Burton and Schumacher versions of Gotham City and their Batman stories overall were stylized and larger than life and, in Burton's case sometimes but in Schumacher's case most of the time, cartoonish, they went about it in wildly different ways. I think that's very obvious in a quick look. There are some similarities, but, for example, Burton and his production designers went for a Gothic and German Expressionism-influenced look where Schumacher didn't, and they took their inspiration from very different eras in the Batman comics. There are thematic comparisons, to be made, of course, and I will be making some, because there are themes and motifs that Batman stories have to hit, like "duality," "repressed trauma," and "order vs. chaos," so there are bound to be these continuing aspects over different interpretations over the years. I do believe the Burton movies are a great deal more serious and complex than the Schumacher ones, despite them having their own kind of grandeur; I can find more in Batman Returns than I can in Forever, even though you're right in saying that the thematic material is not difficult to find; that is basically to say that to me it has more visual depth than BF, and Burton is a stronger visual storyteller than Schumacher, in general. What you say about The Riddler and Two-Face as villains is not wrong, and The Riddler's first appearance is coming up very soon, so I'll be getting to that, but I don't feel Two-Face as a palpable menace in any scenes other than his first, his last, and the circus scene. The last several posts have actually seen a diversity of opinion that I forgot existed about this movie; it's crap, it's the best of the '89-'97 movies, it's somewhere in between...This could be interesting. Batman & Robin is Batman & Robin, and the two shouldn't be lumped together. If you (the royal "you," not the you you, thebumwhowalks) hate Batman Forever, you hate Batman Forever, but don't hate Batman Forever because of Batman & Robin, because they're not the same movie.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

4. 'COPTER CHAOS

(Running time: 0:10:08 - 0:12:57)

​

Gotham City has changed. As Batman trails Two-Face’s helicopter, we go with him on a little tour of the new Gotham, from production designer Barbara Ling. Gotham is much less decayed, less Hell on Earth, more a thriving metropolis that only truly lives at night; if you want to apply a continuity that isn't really here, you could say that Batman really has apparently done a world of good for the city since the end of Returns. Architecturally, it appears to be a mishmash of New York, L.A., and Tokyo, but it doesn't look like any one of them or any other real-world city. It’s a glorious fantasy of a city. The art direction of BF doesn't receive the credit it deserves, at least not anymore, and I think that's one of those places where too many people lump it together with Batman & Robin in their minds. That one does what BF did, design-wise, but blown up and exaggerated to such an extreme point; it's eye candy, but it might be so much that you'll be sick afterward. BF's Gotham City is not actually Gothic, it's more sculptural, it features more "organic" figures about, and it is no dystopia, but it's no gaudy mess either. I prefer a Gotham that's more seedy and palpably corrupt, but this take is an appropriate playground for these characters to occupy, and it has a life of its own. .

It’s a relief to have that guard out of the way now, but the remainder of this sequence is pretty routine, if still amusing: There’s an explosion, Batman is nowhere to be seen, Two-Face prematurely dances for joy at the Bat’s demise, Batman surprisingly shows himself, Two-Face grabs a parachute and jumps out, leaving Batman to try to make a quick escape as the ‘copter is about to crash, ‘copter does crash, Batman does make a quick escape. It’s not especially thrilling, we’re not especially worried about any of this, but it does the job well enough. Plus, Kilmer has a couple of badass moments (“You need help, Harvey. Give it up&#8221.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Really interesting post there, but it does have to come down to "agree to disagree," because, although the Burton and Schumacher versions of Gotham City and their Batman stories overall were stylized and larger than life and, in Burton's case sometimes but in Schumacher's case most of the time, cartoonish, they went about it in wildly different ways. I think that's very obvious in a quick look. There are some similarities, but, for example, Burton and his production designers went for a Gothic and German Expressionism-influenced look where Schumacher didn't, and they took their inspiration from very different eras in the Batman comics.

Oh yeah, of course, no argument there, the city/decor/production design look wildly different, what I meant by 'they are the same universe' was that there was no difference in the character tone they brought to the series. This is important to stress because detractors of Bf *always* go on about how BF made the series cartoonish, childish, light-hearted/weight...when the characteristics of the people in the movie remain the same as those in the Burton films, unrealistic and cartoonish, although the main characters play it straight and have weight to their characterisations.
Some may say Two-Face is cartoonish and lightweight, but he is at about the same level in that department as the Penguin, both play it cartoonish, it's just that the Penguin is more macabre and bizarre. both of their origins play into how they carry out their crimes, Two-Face blames Batman, The Penguin blames the human race in general, haha. But, hell, you could say the same for Two-Face, or any villan, who then takes out their pain on innocent victims.

There are thematic comparisons, to be made, of course, and I will be making some, because there are themes and motifs that Batman stories have to hit, like "duality," "repressed trauma," and "order vs. chaos," so there are bound to be these continuing aspects over different interpretations over the years. I do believe the Burton movies are a great deal more serious and complex than the Schumacher ones, despite them having their own kind of grandeur; I can find more in Batman Returns than I can in Forever, even though you're right in saying that the thematic material is not difficult to find; that is basically to say that to me it has more visual depth than BF, and Burton is a stronger visual storyteller than Schumacher, in general.

Hmmm...I dunno, there are some pretty damn good visuals in BF, that for me, brought Batman to life in a way that left me a lot more satisfied than it did in Burton's 2 films.
About the only sequence in a Burton movie that took me completely into the realm of Batman was the Batmobile drive home in 89.
With Schumacher, we got some images that I felt were Batman brought to the screen from the page in an iconic way I had not seen yet, scenes that made me feel like, 'yes! finally it looks and feels like the comics!'...

Batman cheating death and suddenly appearing with his cape flowing over the front of Two-Face's helicopter...

...Batman leaping from the rooftop of the GCPD, the bat-signal blazing in the background...

...the bird's eye view of the Flying Grayson's ariel act...

...Batman emerging like a phoenix from the flames of Two-Face's death trap....

...Robin rescuing Batman from the debris...

....Batman hanging back, standing on the building, watching the chaos of the gang, waiting for the moment when they spot him, and then swooping into the melee as they disperse...

I have to say that a lot of Burton's Batman imagery looked awkward... when he escapes through the gas at Axis with his wings poking through making him look visible..when he swoops down in Axis...
..of course they were doing Batman for the first time, and experimenting, but one thing I do not think they did themselves any favours with was putting that shoulder sculpture on Keaton's outfit in both films, it made his stature lesser, and he never looked ready for action.
In every Batman film since, they had the cape sitting over his shoulders like in the books, as it should do.

the best image of Batman Burton conjured up was his first proper appearance, when he unfurled his cape, and that is because of precisely that, he unfunfurls his cape and we don't see that awkward shoulder sculpture design.
I'm not nitpicking here, this is a major design fault with the imagery of Batman in Burton's films that still annoys me to this day when I watch them, he does not look ready for action, and looks like he would struggle to move his arms freely.
This is probably why my fav Batman moments are when he is in the Batmobile(and that first appearance, because he unfurls his cape twice).

That is not great visual storytelling, when the iconography of the main character is stilted due to bad design.

edit: But of course, he does hit out with some great imagery in the films, it's just that he failed to capture Batman onscreen well in that regard, for the most part imo.
So, y'know, i do think Schumacher is at least at a level pegging with him in regards to these films.

another thing about Burton's gothic deco, the downside of that is that I always felt we were on a movie set, when Batman was involved in a car chase, I never felt like it was real, because it felt like he was driving in a circle of finite roads, whereas with the Schumachers, it did feel like a wide open city.
It's funny to compare them as looking like different cities, like you did, because see if someone else had directed TDK after BB, I think people would be saying that their chosen style affected the cityscape so much that it felt like a different Gotham, and I'm not just talking about the Narrows not being there, I'm talking about the landscape shots of Gotham with the lightning breaking the clouds etc...they did have the advantage of CG advancements, so could open up the city without having to rely on minitures, which can look fake, and add to the confined movie set feeling.
I did like the design of Burton's films though, of course I did, it was just a shame they felt so claustrophobic.

What you say about The Riddler and Two-Face as villains is not wrong, and The Riddler's first appearance is coming up very soon, so I'll be getting to that, but I don't feel Two-Face as a palpable menace in any scenes other than his first, his last, and the circus scene.

I always felt a real sense of danger when he first confronted Nygma in the hideout, and I think he is alright in the Batmobile chase scene. y'know, it's just a brief, 'try and blow him up appearance'. At the Nygma tech ball? sure, he seems a danger to me, I love the 'Why won't you just die?!' line, before just shooting directly at Batman, after the deathtrap fails, I mean, that is quite a release for a long term Batman fan, surely we have all waited to see that moment? haha, after all these years of seeing Batman survive elaborate death traps in the comics and tv show, we see Two-Face just fire a bazooka straight at Batman after his latest deathtrap failed, and it *would* have killed him, if Robin had followed his orders.

The last several posts have actually seen a diversity of opinion that I forgot existed about this movie; it's crap, it's the best of the '89-'97 movies, it's somewhere in between...This could be interesting. Batman & Robin is Batman & Robin, and the two shouldn't be lumped together. If you (the royal "you," not the you you, thebumwhowalks) hate Batman Forever, you hate Batman Forever, but don't hate Batman Forever because of Batman & Robin, because they're not the same movie.

Aye, everyone has their opinions and all that, but to lump BF in with B&R so easily as to say they are the exact same tapestry, well, I think you are suffering a little from neon blindness, haha, Bf has more in common with the Burtons.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

Oh yeah, of course, no argument there, the city/decor/production design look wildly different, what I meant by 'they are the same universe' was that there was no difference in the character tone they brought to the series. This is important to stress because detractors of Bf *always* go on about how BF made the series cartoonish, childish, light-hearted/weight...when the characteristics of the people in the movie remain the same as those in the Burton films, unrealistic and cartoonish, although the main characters play it straight and have weight to their characterisations.
Some may say Two-Face is cartoonish and lightweight, but he is at about the same level in that department as the Penguin, both play it cartoonish, it's just that the Penguin is more macabre and bizarre. both of their origins play into how they carry out their crimes, Two-Face blames Batman, The Penguin blames the human race in general, haha. But, hell, you could say the same for Two-Face, or any villan, who then takes out their pain on innocent victims.




Hmmm...I dunno, there are some pretty damn good visuals in BF, that for me, brought Batman to life in a way that left me a lot more satisfied than it did in Burton's 2 films.
About the only sequence in a Burton movie that took me completely into the realm of Batman was the Batmobile drive home in 89.
With Schumacher, we got some images that I felt were Batman brought to the screen from the page in an iconic way I had not seen yet, scenes that made me feel like, 'yes! finally it looks and feels like the comics!'...

Batman cheating death and suddenly appearing with his cape flowing over the front of Two-Face's helicopter...

...Batman leaping from the rooftop of the GCPD, the bat-signal blazing in the background...

...the bird's eye view of the Flying Grayson's ariel act...

...Batman emerging like a phoenix from the flames of Two-Face's death trap....

...Robin rescuing Batman from the debris...

....Batman hanging back, standing on the building, watching the chaos of the gang, waiting for the moment when they spot him, and then swooping into the melee as they disperse...

I have to say that a lot of Burton's Batman imagery looked awkward... when he escapes through the gas at Axis with his wings poking through making him look visible..when he swoops down in Axis...
..of course they were doing Batman for the first time, and experimenting, but one thing I do not think they did themselves any favours with was putting that shoulder sculpture on Keaton's outfit in both films, it made his stature lesser, and he never looked ready for action.
In every Batman film since, they had the cape sitting over his shoulders like in the books, as it should do.

the best image of Batman Burton conjured up was his first proper appearance, when he unfurled his cape, and that is because of precisely that, he unfunfurls his cape and we don't see that awkward shoulder sculpture design.
I'm not nitpicking here, this is a major design fault with the imagery of Batman in Burton's films that still annoys me to this day when I watch them, he does not look ready for action, and looks like he would struggle to move his arms freely.
This is probably why my fav Batman moments are when he is in the Batmobile(and that first appearance, because he unfurls his cape twice).

That is not great visual storytelling, when the iconography of the main character is stilted due to bad design.

edit: But of course, he does hit out with some great imagery in the films, it's just that he failed to capture Batman onscreen well in that regard, for the most part imo.
So, y'know, i do think Schumacher is at least at a level pegging with him in regards to these films.

another thing about Burton's gothic deco, the downside of that is that I always felt we were on a movie set, when Batman was involved in a car chase, I never felt like it was real, because it felt like he was driving in a circle of finite roads, whereas with the Schumachers, it did feel like a wide open city.
It's funny to compare them as looking like different cities, like you did, because see if someone else had directed TDK after BB, I think people would be saying that their chosen style affected the cityscape so much that it felt like a different Gotham, and I'm not just talking about the Narrows not being there, I'm talking about the landscape shots of Gotham with the lightning breaking the clouds etc...they did have the advantage of CG advancements, so could open up the city without having to rely on minitures, which can look fake, and add to the confined movie set feeling.
I did like the design of Burton's films though, of course I did, it was just a shame they felt so claustrophobic.






I always felt a real sense of danger when he first confronted Nygma in the hideout, and I think he is alright in the Batmobile chase scene. y'know, it's just a brief, 'try and blow him up appearance'. At the Nygma tech ball? sure, he seems a danger to me, I love the 'Why won't you just die?!' line, before just shooting directly at Batman, after the deathtrap fails, I mean, that is quite a release for a long term Batman fan, surely we have all waited to see that moment? haha, after all these years of seeing Batman survive elaborate death traps in the comics and tv show, we see Two-Face just fire a bazooka straight at Batman after his latest deathtrap failed, and it *would* have killed him, if Robin had followed his orders.



Aye, everyone has their opinions and all that, but to lump BF in with B&R so easily as to say they are the exact same tapestry, well, I think you are suffering a little from neon blindness, haha, Bf has more in common with the Burtons.

On one hand, I want to respond to all of that, but I don't want this to become a Burton v. Schumacher argument. Instead I'll give the short version: It's not just in the art direction that the Batman Forever went lighter, brighter, and more cartoony, and, speaking of the villains, I wouldn't compare Two-Face to The Penguin, for instance, because there's a lot more pathos to The Penguin, so that alone is a big difference. I'm not one of those people who argues for Batman Forever as a bad movie because it takes a lighter approach - if it works, it works, and a lot of it works. I have my problems with the movie, and they are with tone, but they're not with Schumacher trying for a lighter tone.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

5. "TOO MANY QUESTIONS"

(Running time: 0:12:58 - 0:16:33)

We meet Edward Nygma as a pathetic, lowly cog in the WayneTech machine. He hides in his cubicle, treating it as a mini-lair as he develops his mind-manipulating contraption. He’s covered the walls of that cubicle in pictures of Bruce Wayne, not only his employer but the object of an intense admiration and, although not said in so many words, crush. He’s an odd creature in the way he regards himself, absolutely confident in the potential power of his invention, but so plagued by nervousness that he needs to play with his question mark-suited knick-knack and assure himself, “I am a winner. I am a winner,” before meeting his idol Wayne. There’s a hint in that that Edward’s the kind of person who buys all those shameless self-help books and attends seminars from motivational speakers. Edward has no idea how to relate to other people; he sees the vast majority of them as lab rats for his experiments, at the very best. Like many of us do with our idols, he’s built Bruce up to a degree that the man himself can’t meet. Unlike most of us (I hope), he’s so fixed in his vision of Bruce Wayne that when the real man (well, not the real man&#8230 doesn’t match that vision, he promptly turns on him. All of Nygma’s work was building up to this point where he would bring the idea to Bruce, Bruce would praise him for his genius and innovation, and they would work together and share untold fame and prosperity. When Bruce instead questions the idea of tapping into and toying with people’s brainwaves, the change in Nygma is swift and decisive: “You were supposed to understand…I’ll make you understand….” And so a villain is born. It’s a smart, fresh idea to introduce The Riddler as the ultimate Bruce Wayne fanboy/potential stalker. He’s even sort of sympathetic in his more pathetic moments like this.

There’s also a bit of new wave vs. old guard: Edward is proposing an invention to change the way we experience entertainment, to make the audience “feel like they’re inside the show.” He even refers to it as a “3-D TV” in the next scene. This is also a smart take, because it’s contemporary, and always will be in the way Nygma can stand in for any genius whose technological breakthrough is greeted with apprehension and ridicule by a stodgy or short-sighted old school – ‘though Bruce himself rightly recognizes the places to which this could go (and will go) in Edward’s hands. It is not the creation, but the creator, that truly counts. Jim Carrey plays this scene, as he plays the entire movie, without an ounce of subtlety, but subtlety is not required. He is creepy and convincing and alive, and that’s the important thing.

Schumacher’s most significant change was in introducing “Bruce Wayne.” See, there are three personalities in our hero, at least in most incarnations: There’s Batman, the creature of the night that strikes fear in the hearts of Gotham’s superstitious and cowardly; there’s Bruce Wayne, the public face, the playboy philanthropist; and there’s the real man, who’s pretty much Batman without the suit. Tim Burton’s movies showed a Bruce that was so focused on his life as Batman that it excluded that public face that would protect him from being discovered. He was a recluse; Vicki Vale and the others at his party didn’t even know what he looked like when they arrived. Things do change in Returns; Bruce is more present as a businessman, meeting with Shreck, and he’s not nearly as reclusive. Still, he’s not celebrity. That superstar Wayne will feature more later; this scene illustrates businessman Wayne more. Keaton’s seemed pretty sharp in his confrontation scene with Shreck, but Kilmer’s is clearly more together in this respect.

Other notes
-The first shot of this scene is an awful, primitive-looking CGI flyover.

-“Nygma. Edward Nygma. You hired me personally. Just like I tell everyone. We’ve never actually met, but your name was on the hiring slip. I have it.”

-“Why be brutalized by an uncaring world?” That’s kind of a fascinating line, but it doesn't make sense coming after the one before it.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Any chance you could use more paragraphs? I just switched off reading your latest post on the Riddler as the wall of text was giving me a headache, I guess this could be true of other posters as well.

 

[Schlosser85]

Any chance you could use more paragraphs? I just switched off reading your latest post on the Riddler as the wall of text was giving me a headache, I guess this could be true of other posters as well.

......this describes every. single. one. of your posts.