Man, almost 4got how awesome BATMAN FOREVER is!

[BWDK]

Wow I just watched Batman Forever again, haven't seen it for 3 years and I must say that movie rocks! Of course I hate that Two-Face version, but if you don't compare to BTAS version that version fits very well into the movie.

Now I like Forever as much as the Burton movies, but I'll never like BATMAN & ROBIN.

[Nightwing]

I agree. And I've always agreed that although Batman Forever didn't exactly hit the mark the way a live action Batman movie should, it was still very much watchable.

My friend really enjoyed Two Face. Now this Two Face wasn't as filled with tragic heart as the Two Face WE know, he was still cool. My friend really liked him because he's a huge Joker fan, and Two Face acted somewhat like The Joker. Don't get me wrong, I still join all the others who say the incorrect representation of Batman characters on screen is wrong. I'm just seeing the good in what we've been given over the years.

Batman and Robin on the other hand, has NO good to be seen in it! :eek: Well, Robin's weapons were pretty cool. And they used a lot of Batman Forever's score.

[joker]

batman forever wasnt that bad ill give you that

what i didnt like:
the whole glow in the dark feel of the intire movie
who zany two face was
the doctor, man she was annoying
the lack of michael keton, and val in his place

if you fixed these things i thought it would have been a great movie.

[optimal321]

Yup, Batman Forever is a watchable movie. I hate the flashy, neon Gotham and the flaky, wacky villians, but i liked the inner struggle Bruce was facing. And actually, the city and bad guys weren't that bad. They fit in w/ the movie. But the character growth in Batman is what makes Batman Forever good.

[Joe Tully]

Sorry, I haven't seen it in years, but I just couldn't stand it. I hated Jim Carrey's Riddler, I felt that it should have been more like the BTAS version instead of the goofball that he played, and Two-Face was too goofy also. I also felt that many things were very predictable. I would've preferred it if they had just used one of the villians and played up the psychological aspect, this could have been done very well for Two-Face. It is too bad that this movie led to even worse sequels while Phantasm was, IIRC, largely ignored by the public.

Also, I was hoping for a follow-up on whatever happened to Catwoman from the second movie. I don't think that they ever recovered a body from the second one, and it was kind of implied that she could have 9 lives, but then I haven't seen that in a long time either.

[Joker85]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
Sorry, I haven't seen it in years, but I just couldn't stand it. I hated Jim Carrey's Riddler, I felt that it should have been more like the BTAS version instead of the goofball that he played, and Two-Face was too goofy also. I also felt that many things were very predictable. I would've preferred it if they had just used one of the villians and played up the psychological aspect, this could have been done very well for Two-Face. It is too bad that this movie led to even worse sequels while Phantasm was, IIRC, largely ignored by the public.

Also, I was hoping for a follow-up on whatever happened to Catwoman from the second movie. I don't think that they ever recovered a body from the second one, and it was kind of implied that she could have 9 lives, but then I haven't seen that in a long time either.

ME too!! I always had hopes that they would bring Catwoman back in the movies. Overall, I think Batman Forever is a very entertaining movie. Overall. I hated Jim Carrey, but then again I hate him in anything he is in. Two_Face was OK for the part that was written. I thought Val made a pretty OK Batman, but Mickael Keaton is a tough act to follow.

[Clayface]

I agree on your feelings about Batman Forever, Joe. It was terrible. I wouldn't call it "watchable" at all.

[Tim Drake]

Yeah IMO it pretty much sucks. When I think quality Batman movies I think Tim Burton or Animated movies. However, there are actually some old black and white Batman TV serials that exist. I saw the poster for one of them but I can't find a copy of the movie.

[BWDK]

Come on, if you're honest Batman and Batman Returns also have moments that really suck. I never liked the scene at Vicky's apartement and Batman Returns had a bunch of timewasting and boring scenes.

[The Mad Hatter]

It was watchable for me. My biggest gripe, like the others, was how "zany" Two-Face was... it's as if Tommy Lee Jones was trying to keep up with Jim Carrey. Big mistake. What he should have done was to be more reserved and more menacing, like the TAS Two-Face. That way, he could more effectively play off Carrey. You know, have the zany guy in conflict with the dark, serious guy. Ah well, that's how I would have done it, anyway.

[joker]

Originally posted by BWDK
Come on, if you're honest Batman and Batman Returns also have moments that really suck. I never liked the scene at Vicky's apartement and Batman Returns had a bunch of timewasting and boring scenes.

what?! there wasnt a bad scene in either batman, or batman returns. sure forver is watchable but it cant hold a candle to the first 2. there werent really any boring scenes in either movie.

[BWDK]

In Batman Returns there were hardly any scenes with Batman, there where a bunch of long and boring scenes with the Penguin.

And you could also see that the whole movie was filmed in the studio, and nearly every scene took place at Gotham Plaza.

[Nightwing]

I agree with joker in that the first Batman was better than the third, but Batman Returns was just too dark. And this is coming from a fan who normally says "the darker the better." I guess that was before I saw the animated series which had a superbly equal ballance of good AND evil. But I digress....

I think the point BWDK is making is that he saw Batman Forever recently, and therefore remembered it's release didn't indicate the end of the word. And that much I agree with. :)

[NewMaxFranklin]

Originally posted by joker


what?! there wasnt a bad scene in either batman, or batman returns. sure forver is watchable but it cant hold a candle to the first 2. there werent really any boring scenes in either movie.

~Ahem~

How about the endless, momentum destroying Prince songs. Those could have been cut, or at least shortened. It wasn't a musical. Prince was at a bad spot in his career and agreed to do the soundtrack, so they decided to put six minuites of Prince music in Movie.

The Batplane gets taken down by the Joker's novelty gun. That was WAY to cartoony. Just stupid.

Batman gets his clock cleaned by the Joker's toughest thug, in the belltower. I'm sorry, WRONG, all wrong. I don't care how tough this guy is, Batman cannot be slapped around by some thug.

Joker was too old. The Joker as a senior citizen is not scary.

The Vicky Vale chatacter was simply a plot tool with no depth.

The film spent too much thime on the Joker. They completely demystified a character who is supposed to be devoid of a past, while assuming everyone knew what Batman's deal was and letting the Bruce Wayne character drift through the movie. Be honest and call the movie "Joker."

As for Batman Returns, I just hated it.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

How about the endless, momentum destroying Prince songs.



Actually, back then, I absolutely loved the soundtrack - I owned it on LP, and played the thing so much I wore it out! Then I went and got the tape, and wore that out too. Granted, today, I'm not a big Prince fan, but back then I loved it. ANd even today I love the part where the Joker is on the float trowing money out to the crowd - I think the music fits perfect.



Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

The Batplane gets taken down by the Joker's novelty gun. That was WAY to cartoony. Just stupid.


This I agree with - I hated that, even when I was a kid watching it. But, there are FAR more stupid events such as this in Batman Forever, IMO.



Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

Batman gets his clock cleaned by the Joker's toughest thug, in the belltower. I'm sorry, WRONG, all wrong. I don't care how tough this guy is, Batman cannot be slapped around by some thug.


This I disagree with. The whole point is Batman is man, not a superman. If he comes up against someone with some training, he's quite possibly going to slapped around a bit. We see it in the comics, we see it in the animated show, and we see it inthe movie. This scene didn't bother me at all.



Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

Joker was too old. The Joker as a senior citizen is not scary.



I totally disagree with this one. Jack's portrayal of the Joker was, and still is to me, the most frightening version I've ever seen.



Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

The Vicky Vale chatacter was simply a plot tool with no depth.


Umm, when is a love interest for Bruce ever NOT a plot device? The only place I think it was ever convincingly done, was MOTP. But, I liked the Vick Vale scenes, because it was a nice nod ot the comic audience out there.



Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

The film spent too much thime on the Joker. They completely demystified a character who is supposed to be devoid of a past, while assuming everyone knew what Batman's deal was and letting the Bruce Wayne character drift through the movie.


That's because every one DID know what the deal was with Batman - he's one of the most recognized superhero icons in the world. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't know his background. They focused more than enough on that, in my opinion.



Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

As for Batman Returns, I just hated it.


Amen, brutha, amen!

[joker]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin


~Ahem~

How about the endless, momentum destroying Prince songs. Those could have been cut, or at least shortened. It wasn't a musical. Prince was at a bad spot in his career and agreed to do the soundtrack, so they decided to put six minuites of Prince music in Movie.

The Batplane gets taken down by the Joker's novelty gun. That was WAY to cartoony. Just stupid.

Batman gets his clock cleaned by the Joker's toughest thug, in the belltower. I'm sorry, WRONG, all wrong. I don't care how tough this guy is, Batman cannot be slapped around by some thug.

Joker was too old. The Joker as a senior citizen is not scary.

The Vicky Vale chatacter was simply a plot tool with no depth.

The film spent too much thime on the Joker. They completely demystified a character who is supposed to be devoid of a past, while assuming everyone knew what Batman's deal was and letting the Bruce Wayne character drift through the movie. Be honest and call the movie "Joker."

As for Batman Returns, I just hated it.


i disagree on all that except for the prince music and the gunned down bat wing, the prince music wanst really that bad cause during that scene jokers distorying stuff and thats fun to watch and it takes your mind off the music, as for the gun.....cheasy

how come no one liked returns? i loved it, not as good as the first but still much better than forever and much much beter than batman and robin. i loved the mystical feel it had to it.

[Joker85]

It saddens me that you all think that the long gun/batwing thing is cheesy AFTER seeing that travesty called Batman And Robin. Now THAT was a cheesy, corny, stupid, lame, rejected, pile of crap movie!!

[joker]

clarification:

long gun: cheesey

batman and robin:abomintaion

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin
The Batplane gets taken down by the Joker's novelty gun. That was WAY to cartoony. Just stupid.

This, I disagree with. If the Batplane, absurdly, is going to be shot down, it had better be an absurd weapon that takes it down.

[James Harvey]

First off - everyone calm down. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and shouldn't have to defend every little word they say. Sure we can all dissagree - but not almost shun a person for having differant tastes. So what if someone liked Batman Forveer and not Batman Returns?

Personally, I think the 1989 Batman is a very enjoyable film,although I can see how some peple would find it long and boring. I have a friend who calls it just that - long and boring. I also enjoy Batman Returns and have been growing to like it more and more. Batman Forveer is watchable to me, but Batman & Robin belongs in a dumpster besides Battlefeild: Earth.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Clayface
I agree on your feelings about Batman Forever, Joe. It was terrible. I wouldn't call it "watchable" at all.

Where's this coming from? As I stated in another post, you just can't focus only on the bad aspects and ignore the good, which is what you seem to be doing. How can you say it isn't watchable, that it's terrible, given the number of Batman moments. Below is what I posted in an earlier thread about Batman Forever. Can you really ignore all these points?

FROM PREVIOUS POST:

Schumacher and whoever the writer was were obviously not interested in telling a serious, depth-filled story. You can't blame Jones for that. He was having fun with the role which was really all he could do given the lack of seriousness that surrounded the project. And Dent being black in the first one and white in the third has nothing to do with the story itself, but with casting.

As for Batman Forever being "REAL bad", c'mon. Again, I think you're completely overlooking all that was good with the movie. It goes both ways. There's good and bad. You can't focus only on the bad and use that as reasoning to call the movie bad. As I've admitted, there are negative aspects to BF. But nobody points out the good parts, which I'm going to try to do now.

** Batman's disappearing act when talking to Chase early in the film. That's classic Batman. Maybe a minor point, but enjoyable to see

** Batman using the hearing aid to escape the vault. Batman's always been a detective and it was good to see reference to his thinking ability. No brute force or explosives from the utility belt, but rather a thinking Batman.

** Continued reference to the number 2 in scenes with Two-Face. The performance might have been Joker-like, but we saw the two references throughout the film.

** Seeing the brief tv-footage of Dent getting splashed with the acid in the court room. I thought that was pretty cool.

** That underground transport Bruce used to get from WayneTech to the Batcave. It was very reminscent of a similar transport that the Voltron force used to get to their Lions. Perhaps not very "Batmany" but I liked it. Visually it was very nice.

** Humor. A lot of people have criticised the humor, but it was understated. What I liked was the straightfaced, deadpan manner in which Batman delivered several lines: "The Batsignal is not a beeper" or "I'll get drive through." I liked them. I also thought the Alfred-Bruce exchange about the Batmobile being taken by Dick was done well. "He boosted the jag?" "No, sir, the other car."

** Fear. This wasn't at all a dark movie, but there was one scene that did an excellent job of showing the fear Batman creates without resorting to needless violence. Dick finds himself facing, seemingly, hundreds of gang members after rescuing the girl. Then they all notice Batman high above, spreading his cape. The odds are overwhelmingly against Batman, but what do the gang members do? They run. Great moment.

** Shortly after the above scene, a furious Dick attacks Batman, in a rage because Bruce didn't give himself up to Two-Face at the circus. Batman's response: "If Bruce Wayne could have given his life for your parents, he would have." He didn't say "If I could have.." he said "If Bruce Wayne could have.." I loved seeing that distinction between Batman and Bruce. When the mask comes on, he's Batman, not Bruce. Another great moment.

** In the Batcave later, Dick insists on joining Batman. He wants to kill Two-Face. Bruce says something to this effect: "Then it will go like this. You'll kill Two-Face, but the pain won't go away. You need another face, and then another. Soon you realize your whole life is about revenge." When Bruce said this, you could feel the passion. The great thing is that this actually ties back to the first film. Bruce has been where Dick wants be. Bruce discovered Joker killed his parents and wanted him dead. And he did just that, kill Joker. But it didn't change a thing. There not just words, because Bruce has experienced them. This was one of the highlights for me.

** Batman's fluid movements. The batsuit seemed very stiff in the first two movies. Not here, which greatly benefitted the fight scenes and other movements. Particularly nice was the moment when Batman leapt off the building after Two-Face. The way the camera followed his descent, and the opening of Batman's cape was perfect.

** The reference to Bruce's constant nightmares was great also. The scene when Bruce was in Chase's office, holding some strange artifact and asking what it was. She said something about them being for those with nightmares or some kind of haunting fear. When she asked if he needed one, his quick response: "No, of course not. Why would I?" But the expression on Bruce's face was perfect.

** Bruce solving the riddles and Alfred noting that Bruce "really is quite keen." Another nice reference to Wayne's deductive abilities.

** At the beginning when Batman smashes the helicopter window, trying to get to Face. He reaches out his hand, saying "Harvey, you need help." I liked that a lot. It's a very, very brief reference to the friendship between Bruce and Dent, but it's there and I liked it. Face isn't just another villain. He's Harvey Dent, Bruce's friend and someone that does need help.

** Dick Grayson using his acrobatic skills and athleticism to reach the Batcave entrance. Proof of Grayson physically being up to the challenge of working with Batman (unlike the ridiculous notion of Barbara joining them in B&R. No basis whatsoever for her to be up to it.)

And there are others. I'm not trying to speak for everybody. I know many will disagree with several of the points I've mentioned. But I would hope that to others, some of this would make some sense or, hopefully, I've at least demonstrated that there are good points to pick out. Overall, I just found Batman Forever enjoyable to watch with many points that were true to Batman. It's not the epic, depth-filled work we had all hoped for, but it did have some good. Am I completely wrong about that?

[Clayface]

Originally posted by DarkAngel

Where's this coming from? As I stated in another post, you just can't focus only on the bad aspects and ignore the good, which is what you seem to be doing.



No, my point is, IMO, there was a heck of a lot more bad then there was good in the movie, and it completely turned me off, and ruined what tiny little bit of good there might have been.




Schumacher and whoever the writer was were obviously not interested in telling a serious, depth-filled story.



BINGO! And that is why I can say that it was unbearable to watch. That sort of attitude toward the subject completely ruined the entire thing for me. I prefer a serious story, and that's what I was looking for. Instead, I got neon and goofiness. That made it unbearable for me.




You can't blame Jones for that. He was having fun with the role which was really all he could do given the lack of seriousness that surrounded the project.



Exactly. I don't blame the actors - they couldn't do much with what they were given. The movie was written poorly, with very little regard to the original background of the characters. To me, that made it unbearable. You may be able and willing to overlook this, but I am not.




And Dent being black in the first one and white in the third has nothing to do with the story itself, but with casting.



I don't have any problem with the casting really - it was poor casting, but no biggie to me.




As for Batman Forever being "REAL bad", c'mon. Again, I think you're completely overlooking all that was good with the movie.



A twinkie buried in a mound of poop is still stinky and covered in poop.




** Batman's disappearing act when talking to Chase early in the film. That's classic Batman. Maybe a minor point, but enjoyable to see



Very minor. And done to death in the other films already. And done better in the other films.




** Batman using the hearing aid to escape the vault. Batman's always been a detective and it was good to see reference to his thinking ability. No brute force or explosives from the utility belt, but rather a thinking Batman.



Now let me say, I haven't seen this movie in quite a while, so I'm going off of what little memory of it I haven't blocked out.

I had numerous problems with this scene. First, the acting, especially by the guard, was terrible. That alone ruins its for me. Secondly, it looked like a set, and took away from any sense of reality for me. Then, the whole hearing aide thing was just too set-up - you could see it coming from a mile away, and seemed so contrived. You want a real "Batman" scene? How about this: Batman's way to aware to fall for that goofey of a trap. That was my immediate reaction when I first saw the movie, and is stil lmy opinion today. Ugh, that scene still ticks me off just thinking back on it.




** Continued reference to the number 2 in scenes with Two-Face. The performance might have been Joker-like, but we saw the two references throughout the film.



Cliche, boring, and done to death in just about every story of Two-Face ever done. I would have liked something more subtle.




** Seeing the brief tv-footage of Dent getting splashed with the acid in the court room. I thought that was pretty cool.



Yeah, followed by probably one of the worst and, to me, most offensive scenes of Batman ever commited to film - Batman sitting in full costume in the courtroom, and then jumping over the barrier to help. Ugh. Batman sitting in costume in the courtroom? Come on!




** That underground transport Bruce used to get from WayneTech to the Batcave. It was very reminscent of a similar transport that the Voltron force used to get to their Lions. Perhaps not very "Batmany" but I liked it. Visually it was very nice.



Eh. Didn't do anything for me.




** Humor. A lot of people have criticised the humor, but it was understated. What I liked was the straightfaced, deadpan manner in which Batman delivered several lines: "The Batsignal is not a beeper" or "I'll get drive through." I liked them. I also thought the Alfred-Bruce exchange about the Batmobile being taken by Dick was done well. "He boosted the jag?" "No, sir, the other car."



Ugh - the true sign of a franchise in decline - when they have the hero deadpanning comedic lines. Again, not at all a "good thing" in my opinion.




** Fear. This wasn't at all a dark movie, but there was one scene that did an excellent job of showing the fear Batman creates without resorting to needless violence. Dick finds himself facing, seemingly, hundreds of gang members after rescuing the girl. Then they all notice Batman high above, spreading his cape. The odds are overwhelmingly against Batman, but what do the gang members do? They run. Great moment.



Again, a moment that was done in pretty much all the films. There's nothing unique enough there to make up for all the rest of the bad parts of the movie.




** Shortly after the above scene, a furious Dick attacks Batman, in a rage because Bruce didn't give himself up to Two-Face at the circus. Batman's response: "If Bruce Wayne could have given his life for your parents, he would have." He didn't say "If I could have.." he said "If Bruce Wayne could have.." I loved seeing that distinction between Batman and Bruce. When the mask comes on, he's Batman, not Bruce. Another great moment.



Eh. Didn't leave much of an impression on me.




** In the Batcave later, Dick insists on joining Batman. He wants to kill Two-Face. Bruce says something to this effect: "Then it will go like this. You'll kill Two-Face, but the pain won't go away. You need another face, and then another. Soon you realize your whole life is about revenge." When Bruce said this, you could feel the passion. The great thing is that this actually ties back to the first film. Bruce has been where Dick wants be. Bruce discovered Joker killed his parents and wanted him dead. And he did just that, kill Joker. But it didn't change a thing. There not just words, because Bruce has experienced them. This was one of the highlights for me.



Again, this scene didn't make any impression on me. Its been done time and time again. I was incredibly unimpressed with this movie, not only because of the bad acting, but especially because of the bad writing - they used just about every single Batman related cliche in the book, and delivered them, in my opinion, flatly.




** Batman's fluid movements. The batsuit seemed very stiff in the first two movies. Not here, which greatly benefitted the fight scenes and other movements. Particularly nice was the moment when Batman leapt off the building after Two-Face. The way the camera followed his descent, and the opening of Batman's cape was perfect.



While I agree that the suit seemed stiff in the first two movies, I don't agree that it was better in this one - it came across just as stiff to me.




** The reference to Bruce's constant nightmares was great also. The scene when Bruce was in Chase's office, holding some strange artifact and asking what it was. She said something about them being for those with nightmares or some kind of haunting fear. When she asked if he needed one, his quick response: "No, of course not. Why would I?" But the expression on Bruce's face was perfect.



WARNING! WARNING! BATMAN CLICHE! Are we seeing a pattern here yet?




** Bruce solving the riddles and Alfred noting that Bruce "really is quite keen." Another nice reference to Wayne's deductive abilities.



Again, poor writing. Good writing can show that he's a good detective, without having to point it out explicitly again and again.
And realizing the cool detective work should be a pleasant surprise and personal discovery by the audience - an afterthought when looking back on it - rather than a blatant comment presented by another character in the movie. It was like Joel was saying "See? See? I made him a detective! Give me credit!" And, honestly, I didn't think it really took any great detective work to solve the riddles, so I wasn't impressed.




** At the beginning when Batman smashes the helicopter window, trying to get to Face. He reaches out his hand, saying "Harvey, you need help." I liked that a lot. It's a very, very brief reference to the friendship between Bruce and Dent, but it's there and I liked it. Face isn't just another villain. He's Harvey Dent, Bruce's friend and someone that does need help.



Yes, and that was, IMO, what the movie should have focused on, rather than making it an ever so brief passing reference. The character of Two-Face is one of the coolest in the Batman universe, because it presents so much conflict in Batman. They could have easily done a really good 2 hour movie based on just that topic. Instead, they made it a little side note, and gave us the hyper Jim Carry in spandex. While this moment might have been pleasing for you, it was a twist of the knife for me - a little "screw you" that points out the potential the Batman franchise has, and how abused it was with this movie.




** Dick Grayson using his acrobatic skills and athleticism to reach the Batcave entrance. Proof of Grayson physically being up to the challenge of working with Batman (unlike the ridiculous notion of Barbara joining them in B&R. No basis whatsoever for her to be up to it.)



Don't even get me stared on the whole Robin thing - people around here know I have a rather rabid dislike of the character, and that's one more thing that made this movie unbearable for me.




And there are others. I'm not trying to speak for everybody. I know many will disagree with several of the points I've mentioned. But I would hope that to others, some of this would make some sense or, hopefully, I've at least demonstrated that there are good points to pick out. Overall, I just found Batman Forever enjoyable to watch with many points that were true to Batman. It's not the epic, depth-filled work we had all hoped for, but it did have some good. Am I completely wrong about that?


For me, the movie was a cliche-filled, neon-lit pile of excrement. The poor writing, and poor use of the wonderful backgrounds of these characters made the movie completely unbearable for me. For me, there's far more bad than good in the movie, and thus, pointing out the "little things" that might or might not be good won't save the film or make it any more watchable for me. Twinkies in a pile of poop, my friend. Twinkies in a pile of poop.

But, that's just my opinion. We're all entitled to our own.

[joker]

Originally posted by Clayface



Twinkies in a pile of poop, my friend. Twinkies in a pile of poop.



thats funny, i dont think the twinkie would taste good though

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Clayface



For me, the movie was a cliche-filled, neon-lit pile of excrement. The poor writing, and poor use of the wonderful backgrounds of these characters made the movie completely unbearable for me. For me, there's far more bad than good in the movie, and thus, pointing out the "little things" that might or might not be good won't save the film or make it any more watchable for me. Twinkies in a pile of poop, my friend. Twinkies in a pile of poop.

But, that's just my opinion. We're all entitled to our own.
[/B]

Fine. But to dismiss elements that are important in defining Batman as cliched is nonsense. I wasn't pointing out "little things," but rather elements that have existed in Batman stories for so long.

If you're going to label everything in BF as cliched, well, I can go through the 1989 Batman film and do the same.

Batman holding the one thug over the edge of the building at the beginning of the movie: cliched!

The use of the Batsignal (at the end of the movie). That's been done so many times: cliched!

Batman arrives just in time to save the girl (Vickie at the art museum): cliched!

Batman uses the no-look, over the shoulder shot on one of Napier's guys in the chemical factory. How many times has we've seen that? So cliched.

I could name more. And beyond all that, how about the casualness with which Batman kills? The utter disregard for life. That's so far from the Batman we know and love.

What a cliched movie! And a killing Batman. Disgusting. All the great scenes in the movie? Just twinkies in a pile of poop, my friend. Twinkies in a pile of poop.

C'mon. Is that really the way you're going to analyze a movie. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
Fine. But to dismiss elements that are important in defining Batman as cliched is nonsense. I wasn't pointing out "little things," but rather elements that have existed in Batman stories for so long.

If you're going to label everything in BF as cliched, well, I can go through the 1989 Batman film and do the same.



Ahhhhh, but there's a BIG difference here. You're forgetting: the original Batman movie was the first time those aspects had been shown on film. Thus, at the time, they weren't cliche to the movie audience.

By the third movie, those things you mentioned had been done over and over, and there was no originality to them. They should have been in the background, as support to the main story. Yes, the minor details are still important to have, but by the third movie of the franchise, the movie should have focused on character development and plot. It didn't. It gave stereotypical versions of the characters, ignored all sorts of great background info on the characters, and then threw in cliche after cliche to boot.

If they wanted to have those aspects in the movie, great! But they should have been just supporting details. You're trying to point them out as something that could save a movie, and they don't. By the third movie, the franchise should have been perfected, instead, they went farther away from a good interpretation of the character.

[BWDK]

Originally posted by Clayface



Yeah, followed by probably one of the worst and, to me, most offensive scenes of Batman ever commited to film - Batman sitting in full costume in the courtroom, and then jumping over the barrier to help. Ugh. Batman sitting in costume in the courtroom? Come on!

[/B]

Correction, Batman was not sitting in the courtroom and watched the trial, he suddenly came out from nowhere and tried to save Dent. My guess is that he knew something was going to happen and he either waited outside the courtroom near a window or found a hideout inside the courtroom.

And I also agree with DarkAngel, a killing Batman is horrible, actually it's the worst thing they could do to Batman because he vowed to protect lives and not to take them.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by BWDK

Correction, Batman was not sitting in the courtroom and watched the trial, he suddenly came out from nowhere and tried to save Dent. My guess is that he knew something was going to happen and he either waited outside the courtroom near a window or found a hideout inside the courtroom.




Maybe your'e right on that - its been a long time since I've bothered to watch this movie - but where did you get that idea? That's not the impression I got at all from it.




And I also agree with DarkAngel, a killing Batman is horrible, actually it's the worst thing they could do to Batman because he vowed to protect lives and not to take them.


I agree, but I also think you're forgetting a lot of history here and why exactly Burton did that. You've got to remember that at the time, the general public's view of Batman was Adam West's version. Sure, comic fans at the time knew that Batman could be a very serious character, with a lot of depth and darkness behind the mask. But most everyone else thought of Batman as a goofey guy that ran around in the day calling his side-kick "old chum". The first Batman movie changed that - it brought a more serious, darker version of the character to mainstream and adult audiences. And, for the most part, the core of the characters was captured in the film - Joker is still an insane maniac, and Batman is still a tortured man, trying to do good with his own inner demons.

In the process, Burton tried to cover too many bases. He tried to leave in some goofiness for the people that were only familiar with the Adam West Batman - thus we have the Joker dancing and prancing around on floats and taking out the Batplane with an absurdly long gun. And, Burton erred on the darker side too - trying to make Batman so dark that maybe he would appeal to the adult/action fans out there - thus we get scenes of Batman killing. But these things aside, the first film greatly changed the perception of the character in mainstream audiences, and brought in a huge flux of new adult fans, both to the franchise, and to the comic stores. It revitalized comic sales for the Batman titles, and was a defining moment in the history of Batman. Future films should have continued in that regard - bringing in both young and old to the world of Batman. The second flick at least attempted to do this. But Batman Forever really pretty much alienated most of the comic fans, and drove off a lot of the adult fans. Sure, it appealed to some kids, some fans, and some families, but it did more harm than good. And on top of it, it didn't even capture the core of the characters.

The first film isn't perfect by any means, but I can overlook some of its faults because of the good it did, and because, for the most part, it was a strong story, and stuck fairly well to the characterizations. Batman Forever not only did harm to the franchise and to the characters, it was poorly written to boot. This, I cannot overlook.

[BWDK]

In BF you don't see Batman sitting in the court room, just leave it up to your no imagination how he entered the room, keep in my that the Script for "Batman" included a scene in which Batman was riding on a police horse through Gotham, that would have been nasty. They even filmed a chat between Batman and a little girl however they cut it out.

Batman & Robin was a horrible movie, no doubt on that. But IMO Batman Forever was as good as Batman Returns and Batman.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by BWDK
In BF you don't see Batman sitting in the court room, just leave it up to your no imagination how he entered the room,



Hmmm, I could have sworn they showed him about half way up from a sitting position. But, whatever the case - it still comes across as wrong to me that Batman would even waste his time waiting in the ready position outside of this court case - why was he even there (maybe this was indicated in the movie - again, I'm going off of what I remember)? Was it day or night? What really cheesed me off about it was that it was caught on tape. Come one, I mean, look at all the trouble he went through in the first movie to NOT appear on any records - films, tape, whatever. Batman would have been smarter than to just jump up in front of the camera - it looses the whole "mythic creature of the night" image that he uses to scare the criminals. Not to mention the fact that he wouldn't have been able to do anything to help anyway. ANd if he just wanted to keep an eye on the case, he would have shown up as Bruce Wayne in the audience. There's just nothing that justifies, to me, Batman showing up in full costume, in a room full of witnesses that have recording devices. Not a very Batman-like moment, to me.




keep in my that the Script for "Batman" included a scene in which Batman was riding on a police horse through Gotham, that would have been nasty. They even filmed a chat between Batman and a little girl however they cut it out.



There may have been a scene in the script with him on a horse, but the point is: it didn't make it into the movie. It was edited out. Most of Batman Forever should have been edited out, IMO.

And I don't have a problem with Batman having a conversation with a little girl - its done all the time in the comics and the animated show. Why wouldn't he? He's got a big soft spot for kids, and if they tell anyone, who's gonna believe 'em? Its just gets chalked up to the kid's imagination.




Batman & Robin was a horrible movie, no doubt on that. But IMO Batman Forever was as good as Batman Returns and Batman.


Whoops, my bad. My comments were meant to be about Batman Forever, not Batman and Robin (though they do hold for Batman and Robin). I went back and edited the last post to correct this.

[BWDK]

My guess is Batman knew something was going to happen and in that case he would wear the Batsuit and not Wayne's business suit. The movie didn't show Batman sitting in the court room he suddenly appeared as he always did. And when you're trying to save a friend, you don't care if someone with a camera is filming it.

By the way do you really think there weren't any cameras still on when Batman battled Clayface in the Gotham Insider studio. Batman may be camera shy but when he'got to do job he doesn't give a dang 'bout cameras. In BTAS Batman was pictured in papers and magazines many times so why not in a live action movie.

Something that really p!$$€d me off in B&R was when Batman & Robin appeared at the botanical garden for some charity event but something like that didn't happen in Batman Forever.

[James Harvey]

The camera during FEET OF CLAY Part 2 was destroyed by Clayface during the battle. I'm sure there were plenty more, but it was neevr explained if he had them destroyed or whatever. I think He got off clean there, becuase he put in tapes while in the Control Booth during the feed, so there couldn't have been any cameras rolling besides the one destroyed tape.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by BWDK
My guess is Batman knew something was going to happen and in that case he would wear the Batsuit and not Wayne's business suit. The movie didn't show Batman sitting in the court room he suddenly appeared as he always did. And when you're trying to save a friend, you don't care if someone with a camera is filming it.



I don't know - sounds like a lot of speculation, and not much facts on this one. Honestly, you're the first person I've ever run into that thought that he came from somewhere other than the crowd in the courtroom - everyone I know saw it the same way I did. You may be right, but it still sits with me wrong. If Bats had expected something like that, he would have made sure that no one could have gotten anything comprimising (like a bottle of acid) into the courtroom. And he could have done any number of things to keep himself in the shadows and still make sure his friend was safe. I just don't see Bats ever letting himself get into a well-lit situation with cameras around - I think we just have to chalk this one up to differing opinions on how Batman would act.




By the way do you really think there weren't any cameras still on when Batman battled Clayface in the Gotham Insider studio. Batman may be camera shy but when he'got to do job he doesn't give a dang 'bout cameras. In BTAS Batman was pictured in papers and magazines many times so why not in a live action movie.



See DG's comments above. And also, you notice that whenever Batman is "caught on tape" in the animated show, its never a good view of him - never in light, never a close-up. He always stays in the shadows, to protect his image and his identity. He appears as a bat-like figure on the tabloid and newspaper covers - just adding mystery to the myth of the bat-man of the night.




Something that really p!$$€d me off in B&R was when Batman & Robin appeared at the botanical garden for some charity event but something like that didn't happen in Batman Forever. [b]


To be honest, I can't say I remember the scene - but for all I know, I may not have even seen it - I only sat through part of Batman and Robin before I got so disgusted and turned it off. I'll give Batman Forever that much - it is indeed better than Batman and Robin - at least I was able to sit through it once. ;)

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Clayface



I'll give Batman Forever that much - it is indeed better than Batman and Robin - at least I was able to sit through it once. ;)
[/B]

If you've only seen it once, maybe you should give it another try. It couldn't hurt and you might see things a little differently.

I look at BF and largely see a presentation problem. Storywise, it doesn't seem any less than what the first was trying to accomplish. As good as "Batman" was, I wouldn't call it an epic, just a solid story. BF, behind the ridiculous neon-look and atmosphere, was trying to do something. The scenes I pointed out do demonstrate that, as far as I can see. I realize some of those were small details. But others do say something about Batman and what his world is about.

Looking just at details and story elements, its clear there's some understanding of the character and world. If there had been a different director, or perhaps different orders from WB, the movie would have come across completely different with the same story. That's what I'm looking at. We can't ignore the presentation, but we can't ignore all the good there is in the movie, either. And there is good.

Try watching the film one more time. There is stuff there to see and appreciate, even if greatly clouded by the presentation.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


If you've only seen it once, maybe you should give it another try. It couldn't hurt and you might see things a little differently.



Unfortunately, I've already tried that. I've seen the movie one and a half times, actually.

I saw it the first time in the theaters. I had no interest in seeing it, but my best friend and my girlfriend both really wanted to see it. Since it was in the budget theater, and they offered to pay for my ticket, I went with them. I hated it. So did they, actually.

So, I forgot about the movie and never really thought about it again. A while later it was out on video, and, on a whim, I rented it - figuring maybe it wasn't as bad as I remembered it. But when I watched it the second time, I saw things in it that I hated that I hadn't even noticed before. I got only about half way through it before I got so disgusted with it and shut it off.

I hate the portrayals of the Riddler and Two-Face. I hate the sets. I hate the neon and the atmosphere. I hated the stupid things that Batman did throughout the movie. I just hate the movie.