I have never understood how people find Forever better than Robin, to me they are equally terrible though I've learned I'm in the minority of that opinion.
Last edited:
In retrospect, Batman(1989) is really baadd
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I have never understood how people find Forever better than Robin, to me they are equally terrible though I've learned I'm in the minority of that opinion.
Well that does make sense, but in live action it was silly. What especially didn't help was the way it was done. We got the origin of Two-Face in the background of a scene...ON TELEVISION. I'm sure in a comic, it's a little easier to swallow, but I can't see how it can be done in live action and not seem laughable.
Just imagine Batman standing (or sitting) in a court room in his costume trying not to draw attention to himself. I imagine people would just be staring and/or snickering the whole time, and that's probably a reason Two-Face's origin was changed in "The Dark Knight". No way Nolan would have Batman in the room with Dent during Maroni's trial.
I'm guessing there's no love for Batman Forever.
It's junk, way too gothic, they butchered The Penguin character, Salina Kyle/Catwoman isn't interesting or sexy and her pairing with Penguin makes no damn sense and the movie is generally dumb. Really, in the wake of watching '89 last night and what I recall about Forever (which I admit I've not seen in a while) I sort-of wonder how Burton was ever an acclaimed director. I still like Batman '89 alright but it's got a lot of flaws and too much "Burton-ness" that's still pretty much the norm today for his movies.
Okay, that wasn't "Forever" that was "Returns."
Forever, frankly, is just as bad as Batman and Robin but lest noted for it, it was a deep-dive into campy stupidness, Jim Carey had himself cranked up to 19 and lord knows what the fuck they were thinking with their take on Two-Face.
Batmobile looked like shit, can't stand the potrayal of Robin and, frankly, I don't think an expressionless plank of whitewashed wood makes for a very good Batman/Bruce Wayne.
It's sort of like being punched in the face (Forever) and then kicked in the balls (B&R) when you look back you're going to overlook being punched in the face since being kicked in the balls hurt so bad.
I think you have "Batman Forever" and "Batman Returns" mixed up. Also, regarding Catwoman...really? Nobody liked Catwoman? I thought she was a hoot. Yeah, not really impressive if you're looking for a character who is seriously menacing and intimidating, but I really enjoyed her goofy theatrics, much more any of the other live action villains besides The Joker.
I think plenty of people liked Catwoman in that movie I just, personally, did not. She was just way too much and wasn't sexy at all to me. I mean comparing her to Julie Newmar is like night and day.
(I didn't say "nobody" liked her, in fact. I just personally didn't like her.)
I know, it's just I haven't heard much said about her here that wasn't negative, and you're the latest person to say you didn't like that interpretation of the character. I too liked Julie Newmar more and didn't think Burton's Catwoman was sexy, but I still thought it damn fun to watch her ham it up.
See that's my biggest porblem, Nicholson, Pfiffer, Devito, etc. it was all just there for them to ham it up. Not for, you know, the movies to be taken "seriously."
Why so serious?
I hated Batman Forever before Batman & Robin was produced.
I have never understood how people find Forever better than Robin, to me they are equally terrible though I've learned I'm in the minority of that opinion.
While the tone was lighter in Batman Forever, the film still maintain a dark undertone consistent with the Batman character. In addition, it had a, generally speaking, straightforward story with emotional underpinnings. Not to say that it is a great or fantastic movie. Rather it is good for some light, enjoyable entertainment.
In Batman & Robin, they just pushed it too far and added in too many nonsensical bits that made no practical or narrative sense. Combine that with a story that doesn't display any sense of urgency or consequence in addition to tossing things in the film to make it more toy happy, it just becomes a mess.
...and that is the reason I love Batman & Robin.
When Batman '89 came out I was tremendously excited. I was 25 and I hoped here at last was a good, serious take on Batman.
I went back and saw it 6 times and I liked it but never loved it.
Inspired by this thread I went back and netflixed it yesterday and I have to say it holds up much better than I anticipated. (And who was it that mentioned the Batmobile zipping through the fall leaves? – oh yes!).
There are just so many great shots, and most of the scenes with Batman work very well. It's a very good comic book movie, but I didn't love it.
Why? Two things....
1) The editing (or lack thereof of Jack Nicholson). You can't blame Jack for his performance, it's quite good and he makes for a great unhinged, at times chilling, Joker.
The problem is that I think Burton was too in love with the performance and didn't want to leave anything on the cutting room floor. If JN's scenes had been tightened just a bit (and could we lose the John Phillips Sousa/circus music when he shoots Jack Palance?) it would have improved the movie greatly.
2) Batman kills people. This was not cool, and something I'm glad Nolan restored and that's the Batman is not a murderer. This was totally disregarded in Burton's film and I had a hard time dealing with that. Still do.
I went back and saw it 6 times and I liked it but never loved it.
Inspired by this thread I went back and netflixed it yesterday and I have to say it holds up much better than I anticipated. (And who was it that mentioned the Batmobile zipping through the fall leaves? – oh yes!).
There are just so many great shots, and most of the scenes with Batman work very well. It's a very good comic book movie, but I didn't love it.
Why? Two things....
1) The editing (or lack thereof of Jack Nicholson). You can't blame Jack for his performance, it's quite good and he makes for a great unhinged, at times chilling, Joker.
The problem is that I think Burton was too in love with the performance and didn't want to leave anything on the cutting room floor. If JN's scenes had been tightened just a bit (and could we lose the John Phillips Sousa/circus music when he shoots Jack Palance?) it would have improved the movie greatly.
2) Batman kills people. This was not cool, and something I'm glad Nolan restored and that's the Batman is not a murderer. This was totally disregarded in Burton's film and I had a hard time dealing with that. Still do.
^
Nolan was almost as bad with the no-kill rule. Batman allowed Ra'sh Al Ghul to die when he could have easily saved him. In the comics, when Ra'sh Al Ghul killed the Joker, Batman actually used the Lazarus Pit to bring him back to life!
Also, didn't he kill Two Face in "Dark Knight"? I haven't seen it in awhile but doesn't Bats knock him off a cliff and he falls to his death?
Nolan was almost as bad with the no-kill rule. Batman allowed Ra'sh Al Ghul to die when he could have easily saved him. In the comics, when Ra'sh Al Ghul killed the Joker, Batman actually used the Lazarus Pit to bring him back to life!
Also, didn't he kill Two Face in "Dark Knight"? I haven't seen it in awhile but doesn't Bats knock him off a cliff and he falls to his death?
I didn't mind Batman or Batman Returns. They were great tributes/pastiches and I remember feeling relief that they weren't straight remakes of the TV series - which had been mentioned as possibility - nor riffs on The Dark Knight Returns (which I frankly never really cared for). The casting of Michael Keaton was a brave choice, but he did well in the part.
Where the franchise fell apart was with Batman Forever, which started to make it feel more like the TV series, though I thought Jim Carrey was a brilliant choice as the Riddler. I didn't get the politically correct shakes over Tommy Lee Jones being cast as a white Two-Face over the original black actor from the first film; I was more annoyed that someone instructed Tommy Lee Jones to spend most of the film impersonating Cesar Romero's Joker from the TV series. And the casting of Val Kilmer as Batman was a joke - rule #1, Batman shouldn't look YOUNGER than the guy cast as Robin!
In terms of "hate" the only Batman film from the original four that I actually hate is "Batman and Robin". Which is ironic because - and I know I'm in the minority here - I felt George Clooney was perfectly cast as Batman, arguably the best of the three and the closest to the comic book version of Bruce Wayne. It also had Uma Thurman chewing up the scenery as Poison Ivy, but Uma is one of those actresses who can chew all she likes. Alicia Silverstone was an odd choice for Batgirl, but wasn't that bad, and the idea of having her be related to Alfred was an interesting twist.
Yet with all that in its favor, I just felt B&R was garbage. Arnold being cast as Dr. Freeze might have looked good on paper, but didn't work at all on the screen (to be fair, the guy wasn't at the top of his game anyway since he had a heart attack while making the film). And Clooney and Chris O'Donnell had zero chemistry, which is deadly.
Back to some comments about the original film: Malformed, above, takes issue with Burton disregarding the no-kill rule. To be fair, when the film came out it was mentioned that Burton went to the original Batman concept when designing it. And the Batman of the late 1930s often blew guys away with a six-shooter or threw them to their deaths. There was no "no-kill" rule in the early days; that was something introduced to keep the Comics Code Authority suits happy in the 1950s. The Dark Knight Returns had no "no-kill" rule in place either.
Alex
Where the franchise fell apart was with Batman Forever, which started to make it feel more like the TV series, though I thought Jim Carrey was a brilliant choice as the Riddler. I didn't get the politically correct shakes over Tommy Lee Jones being cast as a white Two-Face over the original black actor from the first film; I was more annoyed that someone instructed Tommy Lee Jones to spend most of the film impersonating Cesar Romero's Joker from the TV series. And the casting of Val Kilmer as Batman was a joke - rule #1, Batman shouldn't look YOUNGER than the guy cast as Robin!
In terms of "hate" the only Batman film from the original four that I actually hate is "Batman and Robin". Which is ironic because - and I know I'm in the minority here - I felt George Clooney was perfectly cast as Batman, arguably the best of the three and the closest to the comic book version of Bruce Wayne. It also had Uma Thurman chewing up the scenery as Poison Ivy, but Uma is one of those actresses who can chew all she likes. Alicia Silverstone was an odd choice for Batgirl, but wasn't that bad, and the idea of having her be related to Alfred was an interesting twist.
Yet with all that in its favor, I just felt B&R was garbage. Arnold being cast as Dr. Freeze might have looked good on paper, but didn't work at all on the screen (to be fair, the guy wasn't at the top of his game anyway since he had a heart attack while making the film). And Clooney and Chris O'Donnell had zero chemistry, which is deadly.
Back to some comments about the original film: Malformed, above, takes issue with Burton disregarding the no-kill rule. To be fair, when the film came out it was mentioned that Burton went to the original Batman concept when designing it. And the Batman of the late 1930s often blew guys away with a six-shooter or threw them to their deaths. There was no "no-kill" rule in the early days; that was something introduced to keep the Comics Code Authority suits happy in the 1950s. The Dark Knight Returns had no "no-kill" rule in place either.
Alex
No. Batman's code against killing was established in the early '40s. The Comics Code came well after the fact. The code against killing was established at approximately the same time as Robin came on board.
That being said, I do think some of the writers go overboard on the "code against killing" thing (putting Joker in the Lazarus Pit being a good example). I thought Nolan handled it best with the whole "I won't kill you but I won't save you" line.
I'm with you. Michael Gough's portrayal of Alfred is the only thing worth seeing in either movie (IMO).
I consider the 1989 "Batman" and 1992 "Batman Returns" to still be amongst the best mainstream superhero movies ever made.
(Shrugs)
Certain elements in both films haven't aged especially well, but I still find them to be immensely entertaining. I'll take either one of them over the wildly overrated (but still good) "Batman Begins" any day.
"Batman Forever" on the other hand has aged horribly. The only thing I still enjoy about it anymore is Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face.
(Shrugs)
Certain elements in both films haven't aged especially well, but I still find them to be immensely entertaining. I'll take either one of them over the wildly overrated (but still good) "Batman Begins" any day.
"Batman Forever" on the other hand has aged horribly. The only thing I still enjoy about it anymore is Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face.
I love the '89 Batman, but I think Dark Knight and Begins are vastly better, albeit completely different types of films. It's hard to even judge them on the same scale, really.
Batman Returns on the other hand, I always thought was terrible right from the first viewing, and such a let-down from its predecessor, which was one of my favorite films at the time.
Then of course there's the two Schumacher train wrecks. The less said about those, the better.
Batman Returns on the other hand, I always thought was terrible right from the first viewing, and such a let-down from its predecessor, which was one of my favorite films at the time.
Then of course there's the two Schumacher train wrecks. The less said about those, the better.
"No killing" is a goof rule for a hero to have given that if Batman kills -out of malice, that is, rather than out of self-defense or defense of others. No he didn't save Ra's but he didn't exactly play in an "active role" in the death of him. In TDK it was an accidental death caused by an action to save a child from being shot, I think Batman is legally in the clear there (even though a different story was sold to the press in order to save Harvey's reputation.)
Which sort of makes me think of something and, hell, why not discuss it here with the general discussion of all the Batman movies.
No, I agree. I liked Clooney as Batman I thought it was a good choice as at the time he was fairly well built and he certainly had the handsome, bachelor, playboy look going for him. The problem in B&R is that Clooney Bruce/Batman isn't given anything to work with. The greatest actor in history couldn't pull off a line like, "This is why Superman works alone!" or "Hi Freeze, I'm Batman."
How is their plan supposed to work? Harvey in conjunction with Rachel were both lauded by the Mayor for having a degree of ethics and for managing to shut down the majority of Gotham's organized crime in one, large, RICO act. But the mayor is insistent that it can only work with Harvey dent to helm it. With Rachel and Harvey both dead (or otherwise out of commission assuming Harvey isn't "dead") there's no trustworth DA to prosecute all of the mob leaders (all of whom you know are going to plea not-guilty this requiring a trial, appeals, etc.)
So who's to say that the mob guys won't buy off the new DA/other ADAs and get off? It seems the moment Harvey died any chance they had of making their plan work went with it (Harvey's reputation being good or not) so Batman needing to sacrifice any good reputation he might have seems pointless.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Batman actually actively went out of his way to bring a mass murderer, who Batman didn't kill, back to life? ...yeah, too many stupid things happen in comic book, which is why simply "that's how it is in the comics" alone should be the only reason to do something on film. There's a very distinct lack of quality control in comics (probably due to the quantity of material they choose to churn out).
Speaking of the Lazarus Pit....
I've hated the way they've used the pit for at least the past ten years.
When it was first introduced, the implication was that someone had to be very recently dead for it to work. Which sort of makes sense. It was kind of like the real world examples of people who are "brought back to life" after drowning or freezing, or even having heart attacks. The pit worked because the body wasn't too far gone.
Over the years, however, the amount of time between when someone died and when the pit could be used on their body got stretched and stretched to the point where Ras once (in JLA) claimed that it could actually be used to bring back Bruce's parents twenty-some years after they'd been killed and buried. Similarly, in Black Adam is seen using a Lazarus Pit located in the Himalayas in order to resurrect his dead wife, Isis, despite her being severely decomposed.
I've hated the way they've used the pit for at least the past ten years.
When it was first introduced, the implication was that someone had to be very recently dead for it to work. Which sort of makes sense. It was kind of like the real world examples of people who are "brought back to life" after drowning or freezing, or even having heart attacks. The pit worked because the body wasn't too far gone.
Over the years, however, the amount of time between when someone died and when the pit could be used on their body got stretched and stretched to the point where Ras once (in JLA) claimed that it could actually be used to bring back Bruce's parents twenty-some years after they'd been killed and buried. Similarly, in Black Adam is seen using a Lazarus Pit located in the Himalayas in order to resurrect his dead wife, Isis, despite her being severely decomposed.