Batman Forever

[Bat Attack]

I was watching Batman Forever today, and honestly it doesn't really bother me as much as it used to. It's a fun entertaining film that has flaws, but nonetheless does the job when it comes to special effects and action. Not my favorite bat-film by a long shot, but I still enjoy it.

 

[[A]]

He displays a tremendous satisfaction in watching him die too and his only regret was not being able to kill Chill. He expresses this to Rachel after all

Funny--I saw it more like a huge sign of relief. Well, I think he might've been 50% disappointed he didn't get to kill Chill, 50% happy he didn't actually do it..

His plan was to murder chill in cold blood (no pun intended!)

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

Funny--I saw it more like a huge sign of relief. Well, I think he might've been 50% disappointed he didn't get to kill Chill, 50% happy he didn't actually do it..

True, but who knows. You can tell he was going to do it though. Maybe after the fact he was relieved that he didn't do it considering it would ruin his life but at the moment he was disappointed (that he didn't kill him) AND satisfied (that he was dead). Either way it's evident that Joe Chill wasn't going to survive that day, hahahahahaha.

"You don't need to see this." - Rachel

"Yes I do." - Bruce

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

I was watching Batman Forever today, and honestly it doesn't really bother me as much as it used to. It's a fun entertaining film that has flaws, but nonetheless does the job when it comes to special effects and action. Not my favorite bat-film by a long shot, but I still enjoy it.

I agree.

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah, I understand that, but the focus of the movie does change when the killer of his parents is revealed. Batman's methods change and the focus of the movie is no longer on stopping crooks but going after his parent's killer. Batman no longer scares and leaves crooks for the cops, he blows them up and shoots machine guns at them.
Essentially it changes Batman's mission to a personal murderous vendetta.
I was mainly meaning that an audience who were not familar with Batman could go away with the wrong impression of him, like he puts his thirst for vengeance over anything else, and that the hunt for his parent's killer is paramount to the reason he began his mission.
I know we get the other stuff, but it's still a large focus that in turn changes the character into something more common.

People who were or weren't familiar with Batman can understand that if Batman promises to keep fighting crime in the future, after the Joker's dead, then it means that he hasn't changed the focus of his mission one tiny bit after he knew he killed his parents.

Because, let's agree, Joker is the most dangerous criminal Gotham has faced and thus, Waynes' killer or not, it's Batman's mission to stop him.

After all, Batman was trying to stop Joker long before he knew he had killed his parents. The same as after he knew it.

In no case Batman did anything different before or after he knew this. So he didn't change the focus of his mission; Joker had to be stopped anyways.

Thing is that Batman's mission coincidentally brought him his parents' killer. Yes, he might have had a personal reward by getting his long-waited revenge, but in no case he put his crime-fighting mission aside just to focus on his revenge. When the Joker was gassing people at the parade, Batman first got rid of the balloons to save innocent people.

That said, would you say that the superhero who appreciates human life - even his enemies' ones - above everything else is not common?

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

People who were or weren't familiar with Batman can understand that if Batman promises to keep fighting crime in the future, after the Joker's dead, then it means that he hasn't changed the focus of his mission one tiny bit after he knew he killed his parents.

Because, let's agree, Joker is the most dangerous criminal Gotham has faced and thus, Waynes' killer or not, it's Batman's mission to stop him.

After all, Batman was trying to stop Joker long before he knew he had killed his parents. The same as after he knew it.

In no case Batman did anything different before or after he knew this. So he didn't change the focus of his mission; Joker had to be stopped anyways.

Thing is that Batman's mission coincidentally brought him his parents' killer. Yes, he might have had a personal reward by getting his long-waited revenge, but in no case he put his crime-fighting mission aside just to focus on his revenge. When the Joker was gassing people at the parade, Batman first got rid of the balloons to save innocent people.

Exactly, exactly. It doesn't make a difference if The Joker was the one who murdered his parents or not. Batman was going to stop him either way because he threatened HIS city.

After the "Joker's reign of terror ended" did he just say, "screw it, I'm done, I avenged my parents"? No. He sent them a message and let them know that whenever he's needed to "call him".

Though, Batman may have been more brutal and aggressive in his personality and tatics upon learning that Joker killed his parents as Jack Napier, none of us here can say we wouldn't do the same.

Joker threatened lives and later, upon recognition, killed Wayne's parents. He had to be stopped.

 

[david icke]

As far as the Keaton 1989 Batman goes I don't remember him specifically taking anyone out BUT the Joker and his killer thug in the cathedral, and rightfully so. Did he have live ammo in his Batwing guns or were they rubber bullets? Who knows.

When he remotely drives the batmobile in and drops the bomb in on the thugs in Axis Chemicals is a big one. He could've went in guerilla warfare style or alerted the cops, instead he chose to try and blow up the Joker and co after he found out he killed his parents.

El Payaso: Yes, you are right, I suppose I just still have a rankle in my wrinkle about the fact that when we got the first serious live action Batman, he was still not presented in a way I felt the character was in the books, that of a a blood thirsty revenge driven killer. There was no struggle in him as to whether he should kill his parent's killer(like there was in the, now out of continuity, Year Two with Chill), he just went right out and did it.

Yes, we all may feel like going out and killing someone who killed our family, but Batman is supposed to be an ideal we can look up to, so we can follow his example and be better people. A guy who can put aside personal vengence in favour of justice, as was the lesson in Batman Begins.

edit: On your last sentence El Payaso. Yes, this is a common trait in superheroes, but what I meant was it was the kind of common thing you would see in a movie of the 1970/80s with Bronson's Death Wish, Arnie's Commando, Stallone's Cobra, and many other vigilante/action hero flicks.
There were not many superhero movies out there at that time, so it pained me to see that trope repeated with Batman in his first serious flick. Seeing a superhero not go for the death switch in this scenario would have been a breath of fesh air in that movie climate.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

When he remotely drives the batmobile in and drops the bomb in on the thugs in Axis Chemicals is a big one. He could've went in guerilla warfare style or alerted the cops, instead he chose to try and blow up the Joker and co after he found out he killed his parents.

Remotely. You could argue that the "Batmobile" did it. Nah, just kidding. But I really don't think his sole purpose was to kill the Joker and his thugs. Let's keep in mind that Batman is a detective and that the source of the smylex production was at Axis Chemicals.

Batman didn't drive in, machine guns ready and mow everyone down. He remotely rigged the Batmobile, went into the center of Axis Chemicals and destroyed it.

A guy who can put aside personal vengence in favour of justice, as was the lesson in Batman Begins.

Maybe with Rachel's help and after her death, but not before with his own parents. He intended in every way, shape and form to murder Joe Chill, even abdoning college to do so.

If he became Batman before getting a chance at Chill who's to say he wouldn't have killed him as Batman? We don't know this.

I'd like to give the Keaton Batman the benefit of the doubt and believe, had the Joker not been Jack Napier, he would have been the same morally incoruptable hero that Bale's was and send The Joker away, not killing him. He didn't kill the rooftop thugs and if you want to argue that he didn't kill them just so they could spread the word about him you also have to look at the first fight at Axis Chemicals and later, the Museum. The mob thugs and Joker thugs were the most dangerous yet he doesn't kill them. He ties them up, apprehends, and beats the living crap out of them.

It isn't until he discovers his connection with the Joker's past where he gets much more aggressive.

Bale's Batman had that similar oppurtunity taken away from him. The murderer is killed thus the temptation of killing him is diminished.

As previously stated, I like both versions. The flawed Batman who wants blood and justice to be dealt on the person who killed his parents as well as the "incorruptible" and "self-righteous" Batman who will NEVER, under any circumstances take a life.

Both versions are compelling. The Batman from 1989 fits the 80s period just as the Begins/TDK Batman fits the present.

 

[Bat Attack]

Is this the Batman Begins forum?

 

[MrQuinn]

or Batman 89.....

 

[david icke]

Remotely. You could argue that the "Batmobile" did it. Nah, just kidding. But I really don't think his sole purpose was to kill the Joker and his thugs. Let's keep in mind that Batman is a detective and that the source of the smylex production was at Axis Chemicals.

Batman didn't drive in, machine guns ready and mow everyone down. He remotely rigged the Batmobile, went into the center of Axis Chemicals and destroyed it.

Yeah, he didn't have to use the guns when he was going to drop a bomb. It was a deliberate attempt to kill the joker and his cohorts in one fell swoop. The Joker flys by in his helicopter to show BM he did get him as he knows that was his aim.

Maybe with Rachel's help and after her death, but not before with his own parents. He intended in every way, shape and form to murder Joe Chill, even abdoning college to do so.

If he became Batman before getting a chance at Chill who's to say he wouldn't have killed him as Batman? We don't know this.

I'd like to give the Keaton Batman the benefit of the doubt and believe, had the Joker not been Jack Napier, he would have been the same morally incoruptable hero that Bale's was and send The Joker away, not killing him. He didn't kill the rooftop thugs and if you want to argue that he didn't kill them just so they could spread the word about him you also have to look at the first fight at Axis Chemicals and later, the Museum. The mob thugs and Joker thugs were the most dangerous yet he doesn't kill them. He ties them up, apprehends, and beats the living crap out of them.

It isn't until he discovers his connection with the Joker's past where he gets much more aggressive.

Bale's Batman had that similar oppurtunity taken away from him. The murderer is killed thus the temptation of killing him is diminished.

As previously stated, I like both versions. The flawed Batman who wants blood and justice to be dealt on the person who killed his parents as well as the "incorruptible" and "self-righteous" Batman who will NEVER, under any circumstances take a life.

Both versions are compelling. The Batman from 1989 fits the 80s period just as the Begins/TDK Batman fits the present.

Ok, that is a good point about Keaton just having that info dropped in his lap and reacting to it, not having the benefit of a Dawson's Creek speech.

But , tbh, I grew up reading all the Batman titles from about 76-86 before picking them back up in 88/89, and only felt that some of that Batman was represented in the movie, and that was mainly down to revenge killer aspect. At that point it was the old comics , which were re-presented in Untold Legend of the Batman, which we had to go on about how BM reacted to Lew Moxon and Joe Chill, and he did not go after them to kill them.

edit: Ok, there was also BM Year Two, but as I said earlier about that, he struggled with it there, and it did not look like he was going to pull the trigger on Chill before the Reaper did it for him. Chill and the Reaper certainly didn't think he was going to anyway, so we the audience were led to believe he wouldn't have.

edit:

RE: offtopicness, yeah i know, sorry, you know how these things go, I was talking about why I prefered BF to the Burtons, so this discussion resulted, it did stem from a point about BF.

 

[Travesty]

I was watching Batman Forever today, and honestly it doesn't really bother me as much as it used to. It's a fun entertaining film that has flaws, but nonetheless does the job when it comes to special effects and action. Not my favorite bat-film by a long shot, but I still enjoy it.

Same here.

 

[The Joker]

Is this the Batman Begins forum?

or Batman 89.....

It's Misc Batman movies

 

[MrQuinn]

It's Misc Batman movies

perhaps he meant "thread" instead of "forum". An honest mistake.

 

[Bat Attack]

I meant why are people arguing about two different bat-films in a thread called "Batman Forever"? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but just thought it was odd.

 

[david icke]

I meant why are people arguing about two different bat-films in a thread called "Batman Forever"? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but just thought it was odd.

It's just the nature of the thread/forum business that discussion stems out from the original topic, like it did here.
If you think this is odd, you should try the Spider-man4 boards, folk, myself included, are still talking/moaning about/defending/coming to terms with Spider-man 3 over there in most threads.
The Vulture/Vulturess thread has been spider-man 3 exclusive for about the last 48hrs.

 

[Brother Jack]

I was watching Batman Forever today, and honestly it doesn't really bother me as much as it used to. It's a fun entertaining film that has flaws, but nonetheless does the job when it comes to special effects and action. Not my favorite bat-film by a long shot, but I still enjoy it.

I still really don't like it, not as much as Batman & Robin but not far off. It's just hard for me to tolerate the Schumacher movies post Nolan.

 

[[A]]

It's just the nature of the thread/forum business that discussion stems out from the original topic, like it did here

Yes. I was gonna say something like that -- using a lot more words, of course.

 

[Bat Attack]

It's just the nature of the thread/forum business that discussion stems out from the original topic, like it did here.
If you think this is odd, you should try the Spider-man4 boards, folk, myself included, are still talking/moaning about/defending/coming to terms with Spider-man 3 over there in most threads.
The Vulture/Vulturess thread has been spider-man 3 exclusive for about the last 48hrs.

I know all about threads going off topic. That's one of the reasons I left the forums two years ago, every thread in the Misc. Batman films forums was a "Batman 89 vs. Dark Knight/Begins" debate regardless of the threads intent. It was ridiculous. It seems to have calmed down now, all the little Nolan/Burton fanboys have moved on and gotten lifes. Well, some have.

 

[MrQuinn]

where can I get a larger pic of your avatar?!

 

[Rodrigo90]

Can you just imagine what everybody was thinking when Shumacer decided to shoot this scene? (Which he probably added himself)

"Right...I want to personaly shoot this...A nice closeup of Vals ass in the Batsuit. I want you IN the suit, Val...Action!...Oh my, your ass is absolute perfection".

 

[El Payaso]

JOEL: "No no no, Val. Half of your left 'cheek' didn't make it into the frame. We have to do it again. Oh, Val, and could you do a little movement, like shaking them up a little?"

VAL: "Joel, Batman wears a cape, shouldn't my ass be covered by it?"

JOEL: "This is a movie! You should go out more. Okay, let's make the shot again peopleeee, and again and again and again if necessary. I'm going to go all Kubrick on this one, lol"

 

[Rodrigo90]

ha ha.

I shiver at the very thought,lol.

 

[Two-Face]

Ugh! this is very bad image.

 

[david icke]

I have heard that it was not Kilmer, Clooney or O Donnell who did the bat-ass shots at all, but it was in fact Shumacher himself who wore the pants and stood in for those shots.