The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[Two-Face]

I don't care what anyone says Nicoler Kidman was a hottie in the movie. I could just watch her scenes.

 

[CConn]

Either way doesn't change my opinion regarding the parade scene.

Well, that's good for you.

But if you're not going to offer anything by way of useful or compelling information, you might as well stop talking.

 

[nogap87]

Well, that's good for you.

But if you're not going to offer anything by way of useful or compelling information, you might as well stop talking.

Strange. I'm starting to remember why I had stopped coming to the batboards.

 

[CConn]

Strange. I'm starting to remember why I had stopped coming to the batboards.

Oh, don't worry. I post everywhere.

 

[nogap87]

Oh, don't worry. I post everywhere.

Oh joy.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Now now fellas cant we all just get along.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Neat picture of Dr. Chase and Bruce Wayne.

Spoiler

t:

 

[GothamAlleys]

Neat picture of Dr. Chase and Bruce Wayne.

Spoiler

t:

Ha! And heres Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox

 

[バット人]

 

[Mister Meddle]

Something tells me Alfred had a bad day. Bruce looked defenseless.

Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Bruce: But... but... you swore to my parents that you would protect me!!

Alfred: NEVAH!!

 

[DaveMoral]

I think BF would have worked better as a Two-Face origin movie with Riddler as the already established villain. The problem, of course, is that they were more interested in showcasing Jim Carrey because he is Jim Carret than telling the best story they could. It's like the whole movie was written juat to have Carrey in it. Has we seen Tommy Lee Jones' Harvey Dent get doused with acid and become Two-Face rather than Nigma's stalking of Bruce Wayne it would be a much better film and have a much darker tone.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Ha! And heres Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox

t:

Bruce: But... but... you swore to my parents that you would protect me!!

Alfred: NEVAH!!

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think BF would have worked better as a Two-Face origin movie with Riddler as the already established villain. The problem, of course, is that they were more interested in showcasing Jim Carrey because he is Jim Carret than telling the best story they could. It's like the whole movie was written juat to have Carrey in it. Has we seen Tommy Lee Jones' Harvey Dent get doused with acid and become Two-Face rather than Nigma's stalking of Bruce Wayne it would be a much better film and have a much darker tone.

I agree.

 

[GothamLegend]

I never got the impression that posters were "bashing" '89 Batman. People, including myself, were just pointing out what they felt were flaws in the story. Whether the movie takes place in the real world or fantasy land, Joker holding a parade after doing the crap he did is complete nonsense. It's cool if folks disagree but I hope the thread dials down the snark.

Agreed. Pointing out its flaws, which become MUCH more visible with time, is not "bashing" the movie.

And don't let anyone tell you different that the movie is some rich satire, or even comparing it to Animal Farm of all things ...

Joker being allowed to just STRUT down Central Gotham having a parade, where he is murdering people with gas, after having just sent the city into panic over his smilex chemical combo that was killing people ISN'T satire.

Blowing up a chemical factory to stop it from producing the toxic chemicals isn't satire, it's stupid. Blowing up harmful chemicals in a MASSIVE explosion and releasing those combined toxic fumes and materials now burning into the air, is essentially worse than what the Joker did by poisioning people with certain combonations of materials.

That is just down right bad writing. What is it making a satire of in that scene? Nothing.

Now it does make satire of the 80's greed with Joker throwing around money, it does make satire on the do it big and glitzy 80's fashion by Joker poisioning aesthetic house hold products like make up, hairspray, etc.

But if anything, I don't want my Batman material, now matter the dark images on the surface, to be treated like satire. I would prefer the material be treated with seriousness, intelligence and care. You can comment on societal issues without it being a satire, cheesy, or riddled with HUGE plot holes. That is after all what the best comic books, and graphic novels have always done.

 

[El Payaso]

Hey, who's up to talk about how bad Two-Face was in BF in the B89 thread?

 

[Papa G]

I think BF is the next worst next to B&R, which should have been aborted. BF at least has a theme, and it has a decent interpretation of Robin, although I hated that Two Face killed his parents. It's true that one huge problem with BF was that Jim Carrey was pulling out all the stops and Tommy Lee Jones was trying to one-up him although the character is supposed to be morose and conflicted rather than totally corny. Schumacher had issues with Kilmer(who at one point didn't talk to him for 2 weeks while shooting) and Jones, because he has issues with Jim Carrey's performance. I think that under the right direction and script, Chris O'Donnell would have been better as Robin despite being a little old, and Jones would have been great as Two Face. Every Batman film has killed a villain, and all the original four re-interpreted the source material to fans' disliking, so in a way I think BF can't be hated for those reasons more than B89, which changed the Joker to the killer of Bruce's parents, and killed him permanently. And although in TDK Harvey died for a reason, he still dies in both film interpretations. So if anything I think the real strikes against BF should be for it's campiness and despicable production design.

 

[Mister Meddle]

To me BF is one of those films that got a number of stuff right but they screwed up a few bigger things. It could've been more enjoyable if the villains weren't so cartoony, if Gotham looked more like a city instead of a children's museum and if they made the car & suit look a bit more appropriate for a live action film.

 

[GothamLegend]

It could've been more enjoyable if the villains weren't so cartoony

Well to be fair, that was an extension of the characterization of villains and potrayls from previous actors in the series before Forever.

if Gotham looked more like a city instead of a children's museum

Once again an extension of what was done in the previous films, just with a different extreme artistic interpretation. None of the Gotham's looked and felt like an actual city in any of the Burton / Shumacher movies.

and if they made the car & suit look a bit more appropriate for a live action film.

And once again to be fair, these aesthetics fit in the overall world Shumacher created, so they aren't "less appropriate" than anything else.

The problem, as I SEE it with any of the original films in the four film franchise, was the rather extreme nature of everything. From being overly fantastical, to rather hammy and over the top performances, and films without much internal logic, intelligence, story and pathos.

I don't care about Bruce Wayne in ANY single film in the entire franchise, and he's the title character. That's a problem. I'm not given one single REASON to care. Even with his parents dying. I have no rapport with young Bruce showing affection and a close bond with his family, so their death is just well "meh." A necessity for the character on the screen to be accurate.

I think a lot of the things in the original franchise with the Burton / Shumacher verse just over simplify things to the point they become redundant, remedial or boring in comparison to the more complex nature of the characters and their universe.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

As a kid I loved it. As an adult in restrospect I can see some of it's problems. Like the villains essentailly all being Joker clones. However, brillaint as a kid seeing it in theatres. So, from a kids point of view, it's an awsome movie. Which I guess was kinda the whole point of Forever, more kid freindly. Returns (which is awsome) was very dark with distrubing imageey.

 

[The Morningstar]

Agreed. Pointing out its flaws, which become MUCH more visible with time, is not "bashing" the movie.

And don't let anyone tell you different that the movie is some rich satire, or even comparing it to Animal Farm of all things ...

Joker being allowed to just STRUT down Central Gotham having a parade, where he is murdering people with gas, after having just sent the city into panic over his smilex chemical combo that was killing people ISN'T satire.

Blowing up a chemical factory to stop it from producing the toxic chemicals isn't satire, it's stupid. Blowing up harmful chemicals in a MASSIVE explosion and releasing those combined toxic fumes and materials now burning into the air, is essentially worse than what the Joker did by poisioning people with certain combonations of materials.

That is just down right bad writing. What is it making a satire of in that scene? Nothing.

Now it does make satire of the 80's greed with Joker throwing around money, it does make satire on the do it big and glitzy 80's fashion by Joker poisioning aesthetic house hold products like make up, hairspray, etc.

But if anything, I don't want my Batman material, now matter the dark images on the surface, to be treated like satire. I would prefer the material be treated with seriousness, intelligence and care. You can comment on societal issues without it being a satire, cheesy, or riddled with HUGE plot holes. That is after all what the best comic books, and graphic novels have always done.

TDK is full of bad writing and plot holes.

Do I have to mention the bus crashing out of the bus in broad daylight?

Or how about this...

What sort of mob or Cosa Nostra has ALL OF THEIR MONEY, IN CASH, STASHED IN BANK VAULTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Instead of laundered in legal fronts or in off shore accounts? They must be the worst mob ever in the history of mankind.

See if you want to think about things and pick them apart, you can find flaws all over the place in TDK. That one there i just mentioned topples the whole plot of the movie. But I guess the double standard is; it's ok for TDK to have really stupid and unbelievable stuff like that, even though it is trying to be a story of Batman in a world similar to ours with rules similar to ours. But Burton's Batman can't have ridiculous things like Joker's parade... even though it makes absolutely no attempt at being realistic or set in a world similar to ours.

 

[GothamLegend]

TDK is full of bad writing and plot holes.

I disagree. I think one really has to comb over the film to find flaws, and really look for it.

Certain things in B89 as they are happening smack you right in the face with stupidity.

I'm not going to even bring up the things that have been picked upart to death and have become fanboy cliche to even mention. But they too SCREAM at you with stupidity.

- Alfred just letting Vicki Vale into the Bat-cave
- Walking up a HUGE Cathedral to get picked up by a helicopter

These aren't even small, movie mistakes, inconsequential little parts of the movie that I could find wrong in B89, Returns, Begins, TDK, etc.

They are RIDICULOUSLY un-intelligent, major plot holes that disengage me during the viewing of the film and make me say "that is really stupid."

Do I have to mention the bus crashing out of the bus in broad daylight?

You act as if a bus being driven into the side of building isn't possible.

What sort of mob or Cosa Nostra has ALL OF THEIR MONEY, IN CASH, STASHED IN BANK VAULTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

No where in the film did it say that is ALL of their money.

A good chunk of it, sure. The CASH that was being embezzeled was from the mob owned BANKS in Gotham. Now do you understand why it was just cash? And why it was such LARGE sums?

Come on man, I've seen you post, I know you're smarter than this ... you're totally reaching right now.

Which you really have to do to make any TDK error near the size of a plot hole from B89 or Returns, or Forever, etc.

The liquid money they use on a daily basis is more important than money being held within accounts off shore, etc. Thus why they had to move it urgently. The plot clearly indicates Batman / Gordon / Dent are moving in on the Gotham Underworld controlled BANKS.

In banks they house LARGE sums of liquid CASH.

 

[The Morningstar]

I disagree. I think one really has to comb over the film to find flaws, and really look for it.

Certain things in B89 as they are happening smack you right in the face with stupidity.


You act as if a bus being driven into the side of building isn't possible.

Oh it's definitely possible. What isn't possible and is down right stupid is for said bus to come out of the bank in packed street in broad daylight and no one bats an eye lid. The police even drive straight past it. Or if you consider how long the bus must have been just sitting there whilst they put the cash in the bags and loaded the bus up. So for a good let's just say 10 minutes a big yellow bus was sticking out the side of a bank... and... nothing?

Much like the police letting Joker have a parade in Burton's movie, it's a moment of stupidity to move the plot forward.

Difference is, Burton's movie has no intention of being anywhere near realistic. And the police not doing anything about it also highlights that Gotham's "establishment" really doesn't give a ****.

Let me be clear, I don't really have a problem with the bus in the bank thing. What I have a problem with is double standards and people saying TDK doesn't have any stupid things going on in it to move the plot forward. It does.

No where in the film did it say that is ALL of their money.

A good chunk of it, sure. The CASH that was being embezzeled was from the mob owned BANKS in Gotham. Now do you understand why it was just cash? And why it was such LARGE sums?

Come on man, I've seen you post, I know you're smarter than this ... you're totally reaching right now.

Which you really have to do to make any TDK error near the size of a plot hole from B89 or Returns, or Forever, etc.

The liquid money they use on a daily basis is more important than money being held within accounts off shore, etc. Thus why they had to move it urgently. The plot clearly indicates Batman / Gordon / Dent are moving in on the Gotham Underworld controlled BANKS.

In banks they house LARGE sums of liquid CASH.

I'm not reaching at all. It's stupid. No mob or "Cosa Nostra" in their right minds would have massive sums of dirty cash stashed together like that. It's just asking for their empire to be completely destroyed.

Whether it's their banks or not is irrelevant. It's dirty, tax free cash.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Once again an extension of what was done in the previous films, just with a different extreme artistic interpretation. None of the Gotham's looked and felt like an actual city in any of the Burton / Shumacher movies.

I completely disagree. Gotham (in the Burton films) did look like an actual city. Visually it looked like a typical 1940's American city but with giant skyscrapers like what we have today. And it felt like an actual city. There were casual people walking down the sidewalks, small shops, police patrolling the city, etc. Much different than this:

Much different than this.

And once again to be fair, these aesthetics fit in the overall world Shumacher created, so they aren't "less appropriate" than anything else.

In your opinion, maybe. But that doesn't stop anyone from bashing the suits, especially because of the nipples.

The problem, as I SEE it with any of the original films in the four film franchise, was the rather extreme nature of everything. From being overly fantastical, to rather hammy and over the top performances, and films without much internal logic, intelligence, story and pathos.

I didn't realize that there were "over the top performances" in either of the Burton films. They had some flaws but nowhere as extreme and the Schumacher films. It's kind of insulting to compare the Burton films with the Schumacher movies. Either that or you're doing a bad job of exaggerating.

I don't care about Bruce Wayne in ANY single film in the entire franchise, and he's the title character. That's a problem. I'm not given one single REASON to care. Even with his parents dying. I have no rapport with young Bruce showing affection and a close bond with his family, so their death is just well "meh." A necessity for the character on the screen to be accurate.

Well that's your opinion. I thought both Batman and Bruce Wayne were quite fascinating in the first two. I have no idea where this came from because I never mentioned anything about this in the post that you quoted.

I think a lot of the things in the original franchise with the Burton / Shumacher verse just over simplify things to the point they become redundant, remedial or boring in comparison to the more complex nature of the characters and their universe.

I don't understand how both 'verses are being compared. Both were done by different directors, both had their own flaws, visually they were both different, different tone, etc. My reaction ->

 

[GothamLegend]

Oh it's definitely possible. What isn't possible and is down right stupid is for said bus to come out of the bank in packed street in broad daylight and no one bats an eye lid.

Who isn't batting an eye lid? Joker was just brillaint and had it timed perfectly. Cops arrive right near when he's leaving too ... suspension of disbelief in this movie, because the intelligence everywhere else allows me to believe it's possible.

So for a good let's just say 10 minutes a big yellow bus was sticking out the side of a bank... and... nothing?

There is no ellapsed time in the bank robbery scene as the bus crashes through. It was in there for a very short time frame.

Much like the police letting Joker have a parade in Burton's movie, it's a moment of stupidity to move the plot forward.

And the police not doing anything about it also highlights that Gotham's "establishment" really doesn't give a ****.

Not really. Because scenes prior lead us to believe the establishment very much care "you need to find out what this mad man is posioning us with and FAST ... do you read me?!!!!" ... "Were WORKING on it, I need all the help I can get." ... then Joker somehow takes over a broadcast of the mayor and ANNOUNCES he is going to have a parade, and the city knows he is a dangerous threat, and was ACTIVELY trying to stop him ... yet they don't come out to stop the parade? But arrive after the whole event while he's in a cathedral and don't have choppers, or swat team of their own to get men in the building?

It's not about realism, it's about having NO internal logic at all. It's stupidity.

Whether it's their banks or not is irrelevant. It's dirty, tax free cash.

No, it is QUITE relevant. It's mob front companies that own banks. They house some of their liquidity in the banks THEY control. Who is crazy enough to try and dismember Gotham's Underworld, who at this point is banded together because of the Batman's impact ... only the Joker. Even then, he isn't making much dents in it by robbing millions of dollars.

Once again banks hold large sums of money. So it makes sense in that context. And NO where is it said or stated that this is all of their finances.