Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

YOU decide. Which is the ultimate Batman movie up to this point.

I'll chose MOTP over bald-head stupid Keaton ANYDAY!
MOTP is a classical epic!A wondorous adition to the Bat universe!

OK I voted for BATMAN, just because your not giving the movie the praise it has earn.

I am not praising it because IT DOES NOT DESRVE IT.

Batman was a great movie. If Batman 89 was not a big hit, There will be no MOTP or BATMAN TAS.

Just because something's a big hit doesn't mean it deserves to be. Look at boy bands, for example. And if Adam West hadn't been a big hit, there would have been no 1989 movie, so maybe historical impact isn't the way to go.

But that is neither here nor there; I picked MotP, even though I can't understand why punky and Mr. Parker are so down on Keaten all the time.

BATMAN RETURNS i loved that movie, and the first was too a great movie. MOPH was really good too, but all u can do in cartton not alwasy u can do in real life. and the movies were action, and the first was a introduction they couldn go in the blah blah blha of telling all the history and it was meant for worldwide presentation, but the cartton is more for batman fans who already know him, or who will .

You are WRONG there buddy.
You see, the sole reason I am typing this stuff here, and that I've fallen completely in love with the Batman universe IS MOTP!
Yes, it was that movie that was my inroduction to the Batman world.It's because of that movie, I read Batman comics whenever I get the chance to,it is because of that movie BATMAN RULES!!

I have already stated why this is not exactly a fair comparison on another post, here's the link

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2316720#post2316720

its somewhere near the buttom....

It sure doesnt.Great thread Punky.

it has EARN to be praise, It was a great movie, I dont know why you people cant get over the fact that Keaton may not have the body build, He pull it off great, and was a better Batman in returns. You guys keep telling me Val Kilmer, but he was not any were as good as the way Keaton pull it off.

And Jack was the greatness Joker ever. He was better than Defo's Green Goblin and Dr OCk(Who played him??)

It wa neither Keaton or kILMER!
Clooney wasn't even close to being called Batman!

BATMAN:MASK OF THE PHANTASM
BATMAN (The idiotic Keaton one)

I might be wrong but I think i'm detecting a slight and subtle bias in the way this poll has been put together...?

I guess the bias was intended...

Because people could not take keaton seriously for the role of Batman because of how physically wrong he was for the part.How hard can that be to understand? geez. It was like watching Al Bundy walking around Bruce wayne manor,a total joke.and if Keaton was so much better than Kilmer then how come the creator Bob Kane said he thought Kilmer was the best Batman? Keaton gave a decent performance but there was nothing special about it.All he did was copy Christopher Rheeves performance as Superman being goofy in public as Bruce wayne and cool as Batman. Bruce wayne doesnt act like a bumbling idiot who doesnt remember where things were in the house like keaton did. and sorry Romero rules as the best Joker.Nicholson was impressive as the joker but Romero was the better joker because he came a lot closer to physically fitting the role than Nicholson did.Again bad casting by burton casting someone who was not physically right for the role.The Joker is not a short bald and pudgy guy.

Oh for the love of God, get over it.... So Keaton didn't fit the physical profile of the comic properly. That is just one of the things you have to learn to live with when you deal with live action adaptations. There are very few comic book movies where the life actors looked like thier comic counterpart, you just have to suspend your belive. No matter what you say about Keaton he took the character of Batman and made it his own, and when he said "I am Batman" you belived it. As for the way the character of Bruce Wayne behaved, you should be smart enough to know that it is the writers and director that decide how he behaves not the actor.

As for Nicholson playing as the Joker, I don't know how people can say he did a bad job of it, his acting was almost flawless and he made you belive that he was a deranged lunatic with a flare for dramatics.

P.S. Kilmer the better Batman... don't make me laugh, as for Bob Kane saing he made a better Batman, I want to know when he said these and where....

Was Bob Kane already dead when Batman Forever came out???

Well any way, I dont know how blind you guys are, When I saw BATMAN when I was about 9, I was blow away with it. And Today I 23 still watching it.

It was the "Spiderman" of 89. And may people had good things to say about it.

Now about 15 or so years later, These new fans are giving Batman 89 the boot because he did not have the build?? Keaton did not look anything like AL Bundy and that is a insult.

Sure he killed in the movies. But Like I said. IT does not need to be 100 percent RIGHT to the movies. Just close. IT was close. And he was Batman, and many people today are asking Keaton to put that Batsuit back on because he did the role so well.

At the time, I liked the first Keaton movie, but in retrospect its not that great...
Batman doesn't have machine guns in his car or a bomb, he doesn't kill.
Jack was alright, though that fall wouldn't have left him in one piece.....
Keaton was OK, too, for his distracted mannerisms. He was better in the second one, to me.

The closer a comic book movie sticks to its source material the better.....

and for the love of god you should be ashamed of yourself for loving this piece of crap garbage movie so much because Tim Burton did NOT care about making the best possible choice for the role of Bruce wayne,He only cast Keaton because he felt comfortable working with him and because he was friends with him. how hard is that to comprehend? Thats why they are making Batman Begins because so many true batman fans were pissed about the horrible casting choice of Keaton.I just liked Val better because he behaved more like Bruce than Keaton did and because he physically fit the part better.I dont see why that is so damn hard to understand. I'll try not to make you laugh,but dont make me laugh by saying Keaton was a great Batman.I also have never put all the blame on this movie on Keaton,I put it mostly on Burton for being an idiot to cast keaton in the first place and not properly doing the research that Nolan seems to doing with Begins,to make a propor batman movie.Batman killing people in cowardly fashion and the joker of all people,of course I put that blame on Burton and the script writers. Yes Jack was a good Joker,But Romero was better because for the time,thats how the joker acted back then,and physically Romero looks the part more so than Nicholson which is why I prefer Romero. as for Bob Kane saying he thought Kilmer was the best Batman because he came the closest to fitting the role,I am not sure if that magazine is still in print or not,but all you got to do is try and find an issue of comic scene from the summer 95 when that movie came out and read where Bob Kane said he thought that Kilmer was the best Batman.Ive seen many people point that out on message boards as well before where they also remember seeing where Kane said that about Kilmer,that he thought he was the best batman.

No he wasnt.Its an insult to true batman fans for Burton to have cast Keaton for the role and to have batman kill people.He was like al bundy because just like al bundy,keaton is half bald and has a pudgy gut just like him,that is why batman fans could not take him serious in that role.The people that love that movie so much are the ones who have never read the comicbook and only know batman from what they saw in the movie.Yeah I have heard people asking keaton to come back and play the role of batman again today myself and I cant help but bust out laughing everytime I hear that because if they ever read the comicbooks they would see how he was so physically wrong he was for the role.

ITs not about looks, I am trying to drill that in your head, and besides the BAT armor hid most of Keatons, the suit made Keaton look buff. Out of the suit it other thing.

But you act like Batman was worse than Batman and Robin.

Batman is one of the best movies of all time.

It is ATLEAST partly about the looks!

I wish you would stop saying "Batman fans" when you want to get your point accross. Last time I checked you do not speak for "Batman fans", you are just stating your opinoin and I wish you would stop making it seem like all (or even a great number) of Batman fans agree with your statments. You might have hated the movie but I know a lot of fans of Batman who liked it. They know that the movie takes some liberties with the comic book but that is to be expected and understood. If you take a poll you will find that most people prefer the first and second movie to the latter ones, and that just proves the fact that Tim and Keaton have done a better job of it than anyone else that has tried.

By the way if you are going to be complaining about the whole "not being true to the comic" thing then why not complain about all the things that were messed up in the other movies (on second thoughts I don't think there is enough space so why not just list what was good about them instead).

That doesnt prove anything.The majority of movie goers across the country love watching crap.Yes there ARE a great number out there who hated the movie because of the casting of Keaton-just look at how many people who have come on THIS thread and that should be proof enough.geez.I have said this countless of times before,even though I did not like Batman Forever either,I as well as others I know,thought it was the best because it stayed more true to the comic than the first two films did.It had some things in it that I did not like about it either,but I can sit through that one unlike the other two because it was more like a batman movie where the first two were more like a James Bond flick.Batman is not like the punisher and goes around killing people at random,so call the movie something else for crying out loud but dont call it batman if they are going to butcher the character to death like they did.Geez. While Batman Forver had its flaws as well,it had more positives about it than negatives where th first two had more negatives than positives.Example-Kilmer at least comes close to looking like Bruce wayne,Keaton does not. Kilmers Batman demonstrated he had martial arts and good fighting skills,Keatons batman had poor fighting skills and looked like a wuss. the first two films were all about the villains and batman was just a supporting character,Batman Forever was mostly about Batman. sorry but forever has more postives about it than than the first two films do.

Forever also had Neno Lights and Batnipples. Keaton had neither.

And dont forget the Butt shots.

Lets get a couple of things straight... I don't remeber Batman killing anyone in the second movie, and get over the whole Kilmer looks more like Batman/Bruce than Keaton argument. He might look more like him but he did not get the essence of Batman like Keaton managed to. As for the whole Robin thing... don't even get me started. The writers couldnt decide which robin to use so they tried to combine them to create the movie Robin...

You know what.... after reading your latest post I went on the web and looked for lots of different reviews on these movie (from lots of different sites, both movie and comic). You know what I found out? Most people liked the movie but "Almost" all the reviews said that the first two movies (or the first movie) where better, and that Keaton+Burton made the best Batman team.... There were a few that prefered the third movie to the first and second but they were hugly outnumbered by those that prefered the first or/and second. If you don't belive me go onto the web and do a search for a review of the Batman Forever movie and read the reivews (both from the public and the critics).

P.S these tread is about the Batman movie Vs the cartoon movie so I don't think that the number of people that have visited this tread says a lot about thier likes or dislikes of Keaton as Batman....

Lastly here is a review of the Batman Forever movie which I think says it all.....

Reviewer: Henry Jones

This third movie had a completely different feel than the first two movies. Tim Burton used mostly shades of grey to give Gotham and dark, creepy feel to it (as is typical of his style). On top of that, his constant partner Danny Elfman's soundtrack completed the atmosphere. This movie was a prelude to Batman & Robin, with all of its bright colors and a scope that is way too broad to be taken very seriously. The first two movies are obviously better, but Burton stayed on-board as a producer, so it wasn't as bad as the later movies in the series. As far as acting goes, Val Kilmer is believable, but Michael Keaton is better. With Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones, Nicole Kidman, Chris O'Donnell, and Michael Gough returning as Alfred, it has a very good cast going for it. Add to that small roles from Drew Barrymore and Debi Mazar. Anyway, here we have the lost link between the great early movies, and the horrible later movie.

Huh? what does robin have to do with this,who said anything about Robin? Keaton did nothing that was so much more amazing than Kilmer did in his portrayel as Bruce wayne.you keep forgetting that Kilmer never got the chance to show what he could do with batman because I have to keep telling you he had a bad script to work with that had corny lines when he spoke as Batman.When he was Bruce wayne,he showed that he did a fine acting job because thats where he got to do his most serious work as.Sheesh.it just goes through one ear and out the other with you on that though. No I know that most people seem to think that Burton and keaton was god so you dont have to convince me that most people think the first two films are better.As I just said earlier,that does not surprise me because most movie goers enjoy watching crap.I actually meant to say that other thread WHO WAS THE BAT-About the people that visited that thread saying they thought Keaton sucked as Batman because of how physically wrong he was for the role.Trust me,these reviewers who say that Tim Burtons Batman movies were better obviously never read the comicbook because if they had,they would know how the movies were nothing at all like the comicbook and see know that these movies butchered his character.They just like Burton better as a film maker than Schumacher so naturally they are going to praise his films because Burton has made some good films before such as Edward scissorhands,ed wood and night before christmas.

Look... Get over it.... When someone complains about Kilmer's Batman, you blame it on the bad script, however I have read a couple of your posts where you said that you did not like Keaton's Batman because he was different from the comic (like killing people and Bruce acting like a fool). You can't have it both ways were you blame Keaton for everything you don't like about the Batman movies he acted in and then blaming everyone else when it comes to Kilmer.

I hate it when people use the "most movie goers enjoy watching crap" argument when a majourity of the public disagrees with them, yet are eager to use polls to thier advantange when it is in thier favour. Just because the majour public liked Batman 1 & 2 better than the rest does not mean that their judgement is wrong.

As for the movie butchering the characters, that is why I brought up Robin. I don't know how you can say that the third movie is true to the comic when they messed up so badly with the character of Robin.

You might not know this but Burton was also involved in the third movie as a producer (which was probably why it was not as bad as the later films). You can say all you want about Burton but he got the essence of what a Batman movie is ment to be, which is dark and atmospheric.

One last thing STOP insulting or putting down people who don't agree with you.... I hate it when people have to resort to this type of tactics when they can't argue with the facts. No one is saying that Burton's Batman is flawless or even totally true to the comic, but for almost everyone who has seen the Batman movies it is the Best life action Batman movie released. Lets just leave it at that....

Man you remind me of this guy named DA CROWE at the shh boards,a poster who is worse than all the posters there combined and for some reason they never banned him even though many others also saw how he insulted people all the time when they did not agree with him and made up lies that I insulted people for no reason. saying I insult people when I dont.I fail to see how saying it just goes through one ear and out the other with you is an insult? I have pointed out many times why Keaton was a horrible choice for the part and you just ignore it like that DA CROWE guy did.Yes I did not like Keatons Batman because of him killing people and Bruce wayne acting like a fool.

as I have said before,if they ever read the comic,they would see those two movies were nothing at all like the comic and why they suck,thats why it is usually people who have never read the comic that like those movies so much better because they must just be huge fans of Michael keaton obviously since he was nothing at all like Bruce wayne or even came close to fitting the role.

I never said Batman Forever was true to the comic,I just said it was more true to the comic than the first two films were.No I did not like what they did with Robin and thats the main reason why I was dissapointed with Batman forever as well but Batman Forever unlike the first two films had more positives than negatives which why I dislike that one the least.They didnt make that film where it was more like a james bond film than than a batman film like the first two were with the killing and everything.

Yes I knew that Burton was producer of Batman Forever but all that means is that he helped finace the movie.

By the way,its been proven many times that the majority of moviegoers enjoy watching crap,Just look at how well The Phantom Menace performed at the box office.the proof is in the pudding.

Batman was more true to the comic than Forver.

I mean there were Bat Butt shots, Bat Nipples, Neno lights, Is that Batman??

Batman Forever was worse than the first 2 batman films. Kilmer was a repulsive Bruce Wayne/Batman.The only good thing about the flick was Kidman!

Batman and Robin, I laughed all the way through it.Batman Forever sucked SO much that I kept my eyes closed till the middle of the film, after which i swtiched off the telly!

Nicole Kidman should burn in hell... really... she is a terrible actress that can only get scantily-clad roles to show off her figure. Not that I dont like SEEING her, but to say she is an actress? That's like saying britney spears is a good musician... i mean honsetly!

As for which is better, cartoon or movie... orginally movie is THE best batman EVER... PERIOD. This new one MIGHT manage to come close to it, but nothing can beat the burton/keaton/nickelson team up! It was amazing! One of my favorite directors with two of my favoritie actors (keaton being argueably my favorite of all time)


and really, to claim that MOTP is greater than the the 2nd and 4th films is understandable, because I agree. I might even go as far as to say it is SLIGHTLY better than the 3rd (though that is still a stretch, cuz forever had carry/ tommy lee jones duo which was brilliant... acting was superb on their parts, though the story could have used some work), but to even DEGRADE the first film by comparing it to MOTP.... i'm sure their is a special punishment reserved in hell for those who have sinned so terribly!

(no offense was intended by the last line...)

OMG!
MASK OF THE PHANTASM WAS BATMAN AT HIS VERY BEST!!!I don't see what part of that ppl don't understad!Conroy IS Batman!Keaton should eat shit!

People are morons*. "I haven't seen the upcoming movie; in fact it hasn't even been made yet. But it doesn't matter because blah blah blah Keaten and Burton blah blah blah ... starting a cult in their honor yadda yadda yadda."

*I mean all this in the friendliest way possible. I don't care what movies peope do or do not like, but I admit I'm getting a little sick of hearing Keaton, Burton, and Nickelson refered to in tones most people reserve for religious icons.

So that's what brought that on.

sorry, but hey, burton is far better than many over-rated directors (Lucas) and especially one that is now famous for ruining multiple franchises (Anderson), and Keaton is probably my favorite actor... sorry if you're sick of hearing it, but its not like i worship the guy. I just think he is much better than most of the little shits that are making millions these day doing crappy movies.

what I said was that you should stop insulting or putting people down when they dont agree with you and the reason I said these is because you keep saying that the people who liked the first Batman like watching crap and they know nothing about the comic, and I find that insulting.

I have read the reason why you and others don't like Keaton as Batman (build, resceding hairline, strength....). It is you who reads other peoples post and ignores the parts you don't like or can't argue against. For example in my last post (the one which you wrote this in responce to) I pointed out how you blame the bad things about the third movie on everyone else but Kilmer, but you lay the blame of everything you don't like about the first two movies on Keaton. You seem to have ignored this fact and you continue blaming Keaton for the fact that Batman killed and Wayne acted like a fool. How many times must it be pointed out that he is not responsible for these. Are you under the impression that he is also the writer and director of the movie?




You keep missing the point... The first and second Batman might not have been as true to the comic but they are better than the third movie. And why do you assume that it is only those that never read the comic that like the first movie more than the third. There are a lot of people that are Batman fans, that read the comic and still think that the first movie is better than the third. Why do you assume that a movie has to be an exact copy of the comic in order to be good. Changes aren't always a bad thing, in fact it is a neccessity when you bring a comic book to the big screen (especially when the material is over 30 years old). Learn to deal with this or stop watching comic book movies....




Look you keep basing your whole decesion on how close to the original material the movies are. You can't base it all on just that. True there are some major departures from the comic but at the end of the day as a movie it is still a better product than the third film.

P.S didn't Batman kill two face in the third movie.



Come on that is a bit unfair... It was not unexpected that Star Wars fans would go to watch the movie, after all it had all that huge hype and of course people went to watch it. I am sure you did also. However if you ask those people when they came out of the theater then most of them will tell you how dissapointed they were with the movie. You can't say people enjoy watching crap because they saw some bad movies, it is enevitable that you will watch some crap movies. I can list a number of crap movies I have seen, that does not mean that I like watching crap movies. Most people agree that The Phantom Menace was a dissapointing movie, but by your argument that means that most of those people like watching crap which would mean that the movie was in fact excellent...

This post sums it up pretty much on why people cant see Tim Burtons Batman movies for what they really are.Crap. Thats why people love Burtons Batman movies so much is because they are such big fans of Keaton and Burton so they fail to see that Burtons Batman movies are nothing at all like the comicbook,that the cartoons are far superiour and better since they are by far more loyal to the comicbook.

Nicole Kidman also ruined Batman Forever for me.I wish they had brought back the gorgeous Kim Basinger,she was about the only good thing about the first batman movie.Nicole Kidman is not at all attractive.

neither is kim basinger....if your gonna singel out a chick from the batman movies based on looks at least singe out michelle pfiefer

again you are making false accusations like that da crowe guy does say I am insuting people when I am not.Saying a movie is crap and pointing out the reasons WHY it is crap is not insulting. If you say thats insulting,well thats just the immaturity on your part.I point out the bad things about Batman Forever and dont mention Kilmer because like I told you before,Kilmer never got to show what he could do as a serious Batman because he had such a corny script to work with.You give Michael Keaton a script to use with such corny lines like ITS THE CAR RIGHT,CHICKS DID THE CAR,and I guarantee people arent going to be so impressed with Keaton as batman either. and Please give me a break,I dont lay everything on the first two batman movies as the blame of Keaton.I have said many times before,that Tim Burton is an idiot who did not care about making the best casting choice possible for the role of Bruce wayne because of how physically wrong he was for the role.If he cared,he would have cast someone who at least physically came close to fitting the part.But he only cast Keaton because he felt comfortable working with him.Look at Tim Burtons movies,he only cast male leads that he feels comfortable working with.Look how many times Johnny depp has been in movies of his.You seem to ignore that fact.I simply dont put blame on Kilmer because it wasnt him that screwed up the batman movies,it was the screenwriters and the horrible casting choice of O'donnel for the role,who unlike Kilmer,his acting was horrible in that movie and was easily the weakest part of that film.I have tried pointing out to you that the few times that Kilmer got to be serious was only as Bruce wayne like when he was telling chase about him becoming Batman.I honestly thought I would hate Kilmer as batman because prior to that film,with the exception of the doors,I always thought of him as a bad actor,but he impressed me with his acting in THIS film as Bruce wayne mostly.

I never said that Keaton acting like a bumbling idiot was his fault.I just said that thats why I liked Kilmers Batman better because he didnt act like a bumbling idiot which is one of the reasons I prefer batman Forever over the others.

Ive always said that Tim Burton did a horrible job of directing the batman movies because he knew nothing about the character or he would never have cast keaton for the role in the first place since he doesnt even come close to looking the part.

No they are NOT better than the third because the third is more loyal to the comic than the first two are.The people who HAVE read the comics and like the first two better,are obviously just big fans of Tim Burton and Keaton like that last poster is because the movie totally butchered his character with the killings.Killing the joker his arch enemy was totally inexcusable and stupid.the screenwriters who decided that should be shot for that atrocity.see you are putting words in my mouth because i never said it has to be an exact carbon copy of the comic.I am all for changes just as long as they are reasonable.but killing the joker and others is a blaspheny on the batman mythos and the joker killing his parents was totally stupid because thats what drives Bruce wayne to be batman is he doesnt know who killed his parents.Now since he knows who killed them,he might just as well have hung up the cape and cowl and quit after that.I am all for changes just as long as they are reasonable.those changes were NOT reasonable.


Like In the spider-man movie for instance,in the comics,Green Goblin was not the first villain spider-man faced,it was the chameleon.But I got no problem with the Green Goblin being his first villain he faces in the movie because I agree that thats who he should have faced in the first film because thats who his arch enemy is. Green goblin being Petes first villain to fight instead of chameleon=reasonable change.The Joker killing Bruce waynes parents=Stupid change,get the picture?


When people try to defend Burtons Batman movies,they always try to point out with laughable statements that it was a great film because it made so much money.according to that logic,they got to concede that Phantom menace is the best star wars movie made.


Like that one poster said,the more loyal to the comic,the better the film is.even if you judge it as a seperate entity and not as a comic,its still a horrible film because no matter how bad those goons of the jokers were or what the joker did in the past,batman is not authorized to take the law into his own hands and he should have been wanted for murder at the end instead of being treated like a damn hero.Horrible screenwriting on the writers part. sorry but I maintain that Batman Forever is the better product than the first two films.a batman movie should have lots of action in it which the first two films poorly lacked and they just stood around talking practically the whole damn time.the third film had lots of action in it like a batman movie should have and the special effects made it feel like a comicbook movie.

No we dont know for sure he killed Two face in Batman Forever.People assume he did but there was no overwhelming proof that he did like there was in the first film that The Joker did in fact die.It was never announced that he died so we dont know for sure that he did.Just like in the first film,I assume that the guy he threw down the belltower died,but there is no evidence that he did die for sure so I dont count that guy as someone he killed,so we dont know for sure that he died or that Two Face died either.

Kim Basinger is beyond Gorgeous.Nicole is just plain and ordianary looking.Hardly drop dead gorgeous.Pfiefer looked good when she was dancing with bruce wayne in that dress but as catwoman,I did not find her at all attractive with all that makeup that Burton had her put on.

and Oh,I forgot to mention Leonard.Yes I saw the Phantom Menace but thats only because my friend payed my way and wanted me to see it.

mask of fantasm was showed in the theaters? i just watched it in open tv.

It flopped the box office.Idiotc fans reaslied it's true potential until much later

Well Batman 89 did much better at the box office. And yes, I have not change my mind on which was the better movie.

Yeah unforunately thats what happened,they did not discover its potential until after it was out of the theaters.Kinda like back in the 60's,star trek didnt really catch on with the fans and become popular until after it was cancelled which sucks because I like the episodes from the third season the best and would have liked to have seen it become a 5 year show and have seen it fulfill its 5 year mission like Shatner always talked about in his opening statement during the credits of the show.

Hey Star Trek had many seasons, Kirk, Picard, Janeway. Thats over 10 or so seasons.

Yeah But I only like the original star trek crew with Kirk and company.I dont give a crap about the spinoffs.I wish the original 60's show could have had 5 seasons to it.

I ever condsider them spinoffs, I consider them history in a way.

I do like Picard and crew, and when Kirk and Picard team up in Gen, than they form togetor as one show. And so it was like a time line.

Kind of like Ceaser and any later king down the line.

YEAH Mask of the Phantasm was great, Mark Hamil and Kevin Conroy were meant to be Animated Batman voices. But Batman 1989 was the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be!
I also liked and don't laugh because it's not funny, Forever and Subzero.

great, its time to celebrated, now its 4 vs 15 lol. A long awaited Batfan has joing the board. lol.

4 vs. 15 in what?

there are 4 Bat fans, and over 15-20 Spider fans. That is what. We are outnumber here. Yes in evey Batman vs Spider treads, Spiderman always gets the votes.

Yeah...Everyone loves spidey in this place!

Spidery's kool, don't get me wrong, but Batman is the only hero

He's more popular due to his wise cracks

his LAME wisecracks!!!LOL!
It's funny, even street thugs make fun of him!!!!!!!!LOL!

topic

Mask of the Phantasm is great, of course it had the origin,(that I made a new Bat-Man from it, I'll post his name and bio, etc. in a new topic) but you'd have to be crazy not to love Batman 89 because Jack Nichalson was Joker because of the way he brought it to life, and Batman is Keaton because he did the same. p.s. Batman did kill, read the first few comics with Batman in them, he threw some guy in a vat of acid and killed him!

And dont for get what he died to me,,


I always loved this line,

If it was not for the Batman I would not be the happy soul I am today.

Ok lets get a couple of things straight here.

Firstly Batman did not intend to kill the Joker in the movie, in fact he ended up dangling from the ledge because he was tring to help the Joker. He was never tring to kill the Joker he was just tring to stop him from escaping. All he did was tie the Joker to a Gargoil statue, it was just meant to prevent him from getting away. It was just bad luck that the statue broke instead, so stop making it sound like Batman set out to kill the Joker.

Second, I notice that you neglet to mention that Batman actually did kill Two Face in Batman Forever. Unlike in the case of the Joker I think Batman knew what he was doing when he tossed those coins in Forever.

Third, the quality of a movie is not totaly dependant on how close to the original material the product is. You say that the third movie is more true to the comics than the first two, fine, that still does not make it a better movie. When bringing another persons creation onto the screen you have to try and make it your own, and Burton succeds in doing this. Look any comic book reader will tell you that even within any comic book that a character changes as the writers of the title changes so it is inevitable that there will be changes in the movie. Take for example the Spider-Man movie. I hated the fact that they made Spideys webs organic instead of a web shooter, and I hated the fact that there was no Gwen, or the fact that Peter's scientific knowlege was played down for the most part. But even so I did get over these changes and enjoyed the movie, and I think it was good. If I was to be like you then I would just say the movie is crap because of the organic webs and other changes that I did not like.

Fourth, the reason that they made the Joker the killer of Bruces parents is to make the joker more than just another villan to Batman. In the comic they did these by making the Joker kill robin and paralize Bat-Girl. Obviously they did not have the time to do these in the movie so they made him kill his parents instead. Likewise what made the Green Goblin Spideys worst enemy was the fact that he killed Gwen. It just makes it so much more personnal and interesting when the villan has killed someone close to the hero.

Fifth, the fact that he knows who killed his parents does not mean that he gives up being Batman. He did not become Batman to search for his parents killers. If he wanted to do that he could have just hired some of the best investigators in the world to solve the case, it would have been quicker and a lot more easier. The reason he became Batman is not to catch the people responsible but to try and prevent it from happening to others, so I don't see how that would mean he stops being Batman once he finds out who killed his parents. You know when you make comments like that, it makes me wonder if you even know the character of Batman.




I have never heard the "it was a great film because it made so much money" argument and I have never used it so I don't know where you got that from.

I don't know why you think that a Batman movie should have lots of action in it. By that reasoning the forth film is better than the first two and I would like to see you get people to agree to that. Batman comics were never fundamentaly about action, it was always about Batmans ability as a detective and problem solver. The only time we saw this in the third movie was when he solved those ediotic riddles by the riddler.

Look everyone knows that Two Face is dead at the end of the movie. The writers/director/actors/viewers all know he is dead and the only one that seems to think he is still alive is you. Look in a comic book movie once a villan knows the heros identity there is mostly only one of two ways to go, they either die or they go crazy/loose their memory. Just because there was no huge neon sign saying "Two Face is dead" does not mean he is alive, it is obvious to everyone that he is dead. And even if by some miracle he was to survive that still does not change what Batman did, there is no way that he could know that he would survive it.

At the end of the day Batman kills in both movies so they are both guilty of that. As for the police wanting Batman for murder, they saw what happened at the end with him and the Joker and they know that he did not kill Joker, and it was just an accident. Besides I don't think that they would arrest him after he just saved all those people, especially for the death of the Joker or his goons.

At the end of the day the first movie is better than the third in almost every way. To me the proof of this is that when Batman comes on the TV, I almost always watch it, while if the third movie comes on I try and avoid it.

And what about Subzero? It was good, better than most animated movies, Mr. Freeze, man!

I agree with Mr Parker, Mask of the Phantasm is much better than Batman (1989). Subzero is an okay entry as well. Mr Freeze and Robin being in it makes it acceptable in my book.

Subzero was good.I especially liked the characterization of Barb Gordon in that one.

Yes she got some of the spotlight and was pretty cool.