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

I finally saw the first Batman the other day, and I didn't like it. It didn't focus enough on Batman, lots of little things didn't make any sense, Keaton wads too puny (for those that think physical appearances aren't important, would you have a 10 year old girl who was the greatest actor in the world play Batman? I don't think so), and there wasn't enough action. This film I felt has been overrated.

Another thing, why do Batman movies so often feature more than one villain? This doesn't give adequate time to develop the characters and leads to them becoming oversimplified like in Batman Forever, where both the Riddler and Two-Face were portrayed as cackling nutcases when this isn't the case for either of them. An entire film could have been build around the friendship between Wayne and Harvey Dent and Dent's transformation, but this wasn't even acknowledged.

If only these produces would decide to start basing the movies closely on the comics, one continuity's series of Batman movies would last a long time, but because they tried to cram multiple storylines into a few movies by taking liberties with them, we basically have to start all over again now.

Join the club dude!

Hollywood does not care about how batman is in the comics, or cartoons. Actually most people don't read them, so they do with those people. They just want the movie to be dramic, they don't care if they screw things up. Why? because Hollywood sucks.

Well said Dark Age.That movie should have been called The Joker thats who that movie was all about with bats having just a supporting role.Same with Batman Returns.You are so correct on Keaton as well but these keaton and Burton lovers here just will never accpet it that he was so horribly miscast for the part and he was the worst casting choice in comicbook history because of how physically wrong he was for the role.that's a great point you just made there about that girl as well.The burton movies really DO suck because they made Batman into a cowardly killer and committing the ultimate sin killing his arch enemy the joker that betrayed eveything about the comics and butchered his character but some people here just dont care though.Like Vaya said,hollywood sucks when making comicbook films and all the batman films suck as well.I just hope BATMAN BEGINS can atone for all the mistakes the other batman movies made.At least they made a good casting choice in Bale since he at least fits the part.

They are not at all magical films like Superman 1 and 2.I miss the good old days when hollywood knew how to make good comicbook films.

Well, if Batman Begins can please Mr Parker, then I'll consider that a damn good movie.

Batman did not killed the Joker, the Joker fell off his Copper.

Well said Joker. He never killed anyone, they killed themselves.

the apologists. next your going to say he did not murder those goons of the jokers.

Well they were in the way with Batman was firing the missles of the Bat plane.

Its not Batman's fault that they did not move lol.

I was not referring to that moment I was referring to the moment when he waltzed into the jokers hideout-actually it was the batmobile that waltzed in all by itself and dropped that bomb in front of the jokers goon killing them all.His life was never in any kind of danger and that was plain murder,that was cowardly of him to kill them in such cowardly fashion.He should have been wanted for murder by the police at the end for that.same with the joker,horrible screenwriting. Batman would never kill someone in such cowardly fashion like that.He would never take another life when he can help it like he could.Batman caused the jokers death by firing that batarang at him,the batarang hooked on to the statue up there and since the batarang was wrapped around jokers legs,it caused him to fall and die.Batman killed him plain and simple and should have been hunted down by the cops for murder for those deaths regardless of their past deeds.Batmans not authorized to go out and kill people by the police.Horrible screenwriting and not at all believeable storytelling.

How was Batman to know the statue, would break fall off. IT was to stop the Joker from getting away.

And that other scene with the car, Batman just blown it up sky high, the Goons could have walk out if they wanted to. Besides Batman was taking out the place, because the smilex killed so many people.

again, not the jokers hideout.

axis chemicals, a factory, he blew up the factory, its not his fault there were goons there...

Oh please give me a break joker.How was he suppose to know that? give me a break.He didnt even attempt to try and save him at the end.At least when he fell into the vat,he at least ATTEMPTED to save him then.and the bomb dropped from the car just shortly after the car came in.Get real,even if they tried to run away when the car came in,they would have died,give me a break,sheesh the apologists.and once AGAIN you ignore that batman is NOT authorized by the police to kill people!!!!!!! how hard is that to comprehend. once again,you guys never listen so I got to repeat myself AGAIN,regardless of their past actions,batman murdered those goons and should have been wanted for murder himself,horrible screenwriting. is any of this registering with you? because it usually doesnt with the keaton and burton lovers. by the way,if you want to apologize for the shortcomings and failures of these horrible films,if you dont believe me that batman should have been wanted for murder regardless of of those jokers goons past actions,go out and kill some people that have killed others and try to explain to the cops that you were just killing them because they killed others and wanted to stop them from doing more.I guarantee you the next call you make will be from jail.just accept it that it was horrible screenwriting and a horrible movie. until your going to kill bad people to stop them from killing others,you got no argument there.

Hey the Bat killed a few times in the comics, by mistake.

And besides, No ONE saw Batman do it. And thsos guys had plenty of time to run, but they spend there time shooting at the Batmodebill,

are any superheroes?

he didn't murder anyone, get over it.

forever had way more shortcomings than burtons movies...

Yeah like nobody in the area would have seen the batmobile there leaving after the place goes sky high up in flames and nobody would no know that batman wasnt behind it all.Give me a break.that was STILL cowardly of him to do that and because of that,I was hoping batman would die at the end even though I knew he would not because of his cowardness.This movie was more like a james bond flick than a batman movie.your grasping at straws here saying they could have gotten out in time as well.Well Im through wasting my time with the apologists.you keaton and burton lovers are clearly incapable of being reasoned with and will never see how horrible these films really are.Dark Age,this is your thread.I leave it up to you to reason with them but you will find they are impossible to be reasoned with though.

I think its the other way around.

who the f*ck do you think you are to call batman a coward?

how many people would have seen the batmobile? lots, how many people see the x-men after tearing up a street in a battle, how many people see spiderman swinging away fighting green goblin 20 storeys up? plenty.

if you had a half decent f*cking argument i wouldn't mind, but you just whine on and on and on. you say burton is bad, you don't explain why you think so. grow up and stop making such ridiculous posts.

Let me just give my intepretation of what Mr. Parker is saying. I saw the movie just the other day. The Batmobile dropped the bomb at the goons' feet right before driving away. I don't think the goons even had time to register that the sphere-shaped object was a bomb before it blew up. I think it would be hard to argue that Batman had to kill those guys, but he did and he knew what he was doing; it wasn't a mistake.

And pr1983, please don't oversimplify our argument by saying we "think Burton is bad". Edward Scissorhands is one of my favourite fils of all time, but I think Batman totally sucked.

^ 'we'? pr1983 didn't mention you, his comment was aimed to Mr Parker...

It's still an oversimplification. Parker never said "Burton sucks" or anything like that.

And pr1983, please don't oversimplify our argument by saying we "think Burton is bad". Edward Scissorhands is one of my favourite fils of all time, but I think Batman totally sucked.

yeah pr1983 has a tendency to put words in my mouth because just because I hate burtons batman movies just like I hated all of them,I guess he must think I hate Burton as a film director which is not the case at all.I just hate the way he screwed up the batman movies.Burton is a good film maker,he HAS made some good films before such as like you said,Edward scissorhands,and ED WOOD being another one of them, but BATMAN isnt one of them.

I think it would be hard to argue that Batman had to kill those guys, but he did and he knew what he was doing; it wasn't a mistake.

The thing that many batman fans hated about it all though was the batman that we all know and loved would have just have shot out some sleeping gas in that factory from the batmobile and have a rope shoot out and tie them up so they could not escape and leave them for the police to handle.

wow, its come to bashing me, really mature...

I despise the batman movies there utter crap I growing sick of the way gothom looked and how all the character were wacky. It was just utter crap.

Lets see, all the batman movies sucked by one or another reason. keaton terrible miscast, too much focus in the villains, another bad castings, bad scripts, etc. There are so many bad things in the batman movies that i cant post all of them in one post.But i really hope that Chris Nolan will fix it with his batman begins.

About batman being a killer, is really ovious that batman killed the joker and his goons in a cowardly way, batman is so intelligent that he knows that the cathedral was too old and in a bad condition, if he trapped the joker with his batarang to that statue, he knows that the statue could be broken by the helicopter, is so ovious.

By the way, very good post, dark age.

This is what I think...
Yeah all the Batman movies sucked in one way or another.
BATMAN: No Joe Chill
Returns: Max Shrek? WTF? Penguin a sewer monster? WTF?
Forever: Batman killed Two-Face
B&R: Everything

Joe Chill was taking out in the later comics though, So Batman does not know who killed his family.

But Joker being the killer was a mistake, but there were some flaws, to the movie, But over all was a good movie.

Returns had the dark tone, But Penguin being a sewer monster was a mistake, I agree with that, And Max Shrek?/ I agree, with him too.

Forever had more than just Batman killed Twoface, Twoface was laughing though out the whole movie, TwoFace took thinks serious.
To much lights, and Bat nipples, and Carry made a poor Riddler, he was too wacky, The villians were 2 wacky

B&R mmmm, I though it was a good movie lol, Well it was a bad movie, evey thing was wrong with it.

I love it how people think they know everything about Batman. I love it when they say "Batman's parent were killed by The Joker" and "The Joker fell into acid and thats how he looks like that, he needed surgery and it gave him a smile". They think that's actually how it goes.

When I put them right and say "actually, Joker didnt kill Batmans parents and Joker didnt fall into acid, his skin is naturally white and his hair is naturally green" - they say "that not what the film tells us you idiot!". Then I sigh and say they know nothing and it all kicks off then with the punches and the teeth flying around..............

And with the whole Joker thing - what was up with the whole accident in the acid setup? Surely the comic book explanation (he just looks that way) means that less time would have been needed setting up the damn thing?

I actually enjoy the adaptation to be honest. I like how it's kinda like an Ultimate version of the Batman lore. A different take on the story and stuff.

The thing I think that really sucks about Them having the joker kill his parents red superfly is that is what drives batman to be batman is that he does not know who killed his parents and that motivates him to keep on fighting crime.After he found out who killed his parents and now that the joker was dead,he might just as well have hung up the cape and cowl and called it quits after that.

*cough* backwards *cough, cough*

Bit of cough, too many of these darn colds running around this time of season.

The Joker/Red Hood story came out in 1951, I have read the comic in the greatness Joker story's ever told.

Well any way Joker wanted to steal 1000$ and retire, but Batman foil the plan, and the Red Hood jump into tank of acid or chemals.

The red hood escape by swiming thoungh a pipe, and got to shore,

He went home and took off the mask, only to find out the water blench his skin white, and he look like a evil clown.

The story was there way before the 89 movie.

Yeah, I remember that story, now they got some Red Hood 2 partnering up with Black Mask. Was Joker a scientist or a comiedian, or a mobster, or a butler? lol, just kidding about the butler thing. But in WHOS WHOS in the DC Universe, it says he's a scientist. In Killing Joke, I think it says he's a comiedian. in BTAS, it says he's a mobster, then comiedian, then mobster again. in BATMAN, he's a mobster. What's the deal?!?

Well it seems in later storys, they are going for the failed comic.

In the 1951 story, He was just the Red Hood, next to nothing besides the Red Hood was known about the Joker.

In BTAS, they went with the Jack NApier story(Can you blame them, the first Batman movie was a hit, And I do like the ideal, that he was a hit man before turinging into the Joker. Of couse BTAS, took out the Joker being the killer of the Bat's family though, but they keep the name, and Hit man job.

Never heard he was a scientist, but being a former worker at the plant, I guess he needs to know something about being a scientist.

wow...i never wondered how joker became joker till now....so...he was born as a white skinned, greenhaired lunatic?...daaymm..dats some messed up genes ryt there

As Joker said, the story everyone seems to be running with today is the one put forth in The Killing Joke where he was a failed comedian trying to take care of his family, who just "had a bad day."

The Joker though seems to posess a somewhat advanced understanding of chemicals. Once he got into a broom closet and was able to mix cleaning supplies that reduced all of Arkham's staff to grinning corpses.

Duh.

You are right. Keaton sucked as Batman, and Christopher Reeve IS the one and only Superman.

Even if he is deceased.

Personally I thought Keaton was not so bad. George Clooney is the one that sucked the most.

Keaton did as well as Keaton could. Whether he should have been there in the first place is the real question (even if a moot one).

Personally, I am looking forward to many movies with Christian Bale.

Ok, whoever said he would have just shot sleeping gas out, that wouldn't stop the thugs. Joker would have just sent new guys out there. I think it was the right thing to do. He needed to end it, and he did. Keaton was the best.(don't give me no crap about Kilmer, he wore a silver suit. That is sad. At least Keaton had a decent costume.) Keaton was best. Kilmer was ok, Clooney sucked, and that's how we stand.

He is very cute to. The car was done right then to.

Then the more movies they made the more it seemed to suck. Hopefully they will turn things around with the new batman movie.

If they would have kept Burton we would have had it made.

yes, We would had it made indeed.

So who wants to watch Batman and Robin again?? How many walk out the theater when you saw it?? I did. And they should have never put it out on Tape and DVD.

I bought it, because well, I hope my eyes were not fooling me, I was wrong, it was not my eyes, it was the movie.

no we would only be exposed to more mindless crap like the first two were and not given at least a halfway decent batman movie like we were given with BATMAN FOREVER.

Oh please. You have no idea what a good bat-film is even if it hit you on the head. Forever was mindless crap.

Let's just say all four of them were mindless crap in their own unique ways and be happy.

but joker was awesome

Yeah he was great, he was the best thing in all of the movies.
Keaton was best though, not Bruce Wayne but better than anyone else.
Oh and Forever was ****ing stupid, anyone who ever read a batman comic with either Batman, Riddler or Two-Face in it, should see that.

Well, at least something is being done about it.

With the new Batman Trilogy (apparently its a trilogy with Scarecrow, Two-Face and finishing with Joker - rock on!) coming up, EVERYONE can erase the previous Batman movies from their minds if they like and pray that these new ones are the definitive Batman movies. So far the new Batman looks absolutely stunning.

I on the other hand quite like Tim Burtons two films. Sure I know they aren't truly in line with the comics, but I love how Burton adapted the story and made them brilliant stories and movies in their own right.

I think there's enough room for the new Batman movies and the Burton movies.

Batman Forever I actually ENJOY. I consider it to be a crappy Batman movie, and nowhere near as dark or serious as it should be, and it falls victim to some terrible Hollywood cliches, but for some reason, I can watch it and enjoy it.

Batman & Robin is just, urgh. Man how could anyone make such a bad movie? The fact that it involves Batman, arguably the finest comic book character of all time, makes it worse.

Lets just wait until the new Batman movie arrives. I'm totally stoked and looking forward to this "reboot" of the Batman franchise easily as much as Star Wars Episode III (and thats good considerring I'm a HUUUUUGE Star Wars nut)

yeah I can agree to that.

Dude, I'll never forget Burton's great two movies.

Where did you hear this? If they were making new movies featuring the Two-Face and the Joker that would be f**king sweet! Since Batman Forever I've been wanting to see a movie that had only Two-Face as a villain like they've done with the Spidey movies, kind of like the 2 part Animated Series episode.

Bale signs up for two sequels

If you look at the evidence so far, it points in the direction of Two Face and Joker.

It isn't set in stone, but from the reports of Harvey Dent being in the movie, as well as Two-Face being pretty much made for a Director like Chris Nolan, I'd put my money on Two-Face being the next bad guy.

But, it's cool that there's definitley going to be three of them.

I seriously doubt Nolan would choose to do Clay Face or Man-bat or any other "supernatural" character. Even someone like Mr. Freeze is pushing it. Remember, these new Batman films are going for the super-realistic style, someone like Clay-Face or Freeze would completely defeat the idea.

The only other villains apart from Two-Face and Joker, would be Catwoman, Penguin and The Riddler.

The Penguin could make it into one of them I think, after all he is a self-appointed Kingpin type character, he's just a fat business man and probably the most realistic of all of Batmans villains. I hope they don't, because Penguin bores the living crap outta me.

Cool, thanks for posting that.

I dont relly like the order of villians though,

Joker was first in the comics, Follow by Towface and than Scarecrow.

Burtons movies rule.

Penguin rules.

End of disscussion

I prefer the idea of ending the series with The Joker. Just because Joker appeared first in the comics doesn't mean anything to me. From a movie standpoint, it means nothing and actually is refreshing to see the arch nemesis being used last, to end the series with a bang.

If that's the case what about Spider-Man? Would you have preffered if The Green Goblin was replaced by The Chameleon? Would it have been better if the sequel had The Vulture instead of Doc Ock? Well Chameleon and Vulture were the first super villains Spidey fought, so they should have been first right? Also, Doc Ock came before Green Goblin, but the movies didn't do it like that and still worked.

The order in which the villains come into it has no meaning. It's always better in my opinion to have the arch enemy at the end of a saga.

These are movies after all. I mean, would you kill off Sauron at the start of Lord Of The Rings? Would you kill off Darth Vader in the first Star Wars? Would you kill off The Joker in the first movie?

Seriously, saving the best till last is a good thing. As a guy who seemingly loves the Joker I'd have thought you would understand that.

Wow, what an argument...........

I agree about Burton's movies, they rock! These new movies I'm not sure about, they're making me worried. The screenshots I've seen so far don't really seem dark. (they look like a Joel S. movie screen shot) So, I'll keep them in the class ok.

see your point there, BUT the Green Goblin was the arch enemy of Spiderman, He always was, Sure he may not be the same person under the mask, But the Green Goblin is the arch enemy. But after one movie, They killed him(Maybe)

He killed Spiderman's girl. And he knows who Spiderman is. He is the arch Villian, not Venom, Not Dr Ock, Not Carnage, Not the lizard, When I think of Spiderman, Green Goblin comes up.

Like Batman, Joker.

I would had saved the Goblin until movie 3 (If that is the last movie in the series).

If I was incharge, I would have made a whole orgin movie of Batman(No Super villians)

Have the Joker in the 2nd movie, He loses gets put in Arkham.

Have maybe Twoface or the Riddler in the 3rd movie. (No super Villian team ups)

And than end the series with a knightfall like way, With Bane being the final guy to beat. (Joker comes back in the 3rd movie, along with some other villians)

Yeah I hope Batman doesn't kill the villians in every movie. Put them in Arkham. Especially the Joker. Joker's death should be saved until the movies are going to end, or if they ever make a Dark Knight Returns movie (and how I wish they would).

yeah like he said,wow! thats some kind of argument.

the only penguin that rules is the one from the 60's show with Burgess Meredith..Danny Devito was horrible as the penguin.

I agree that Batman should not kill the villians in every movie,that they should all wind up in Arkham.Especially the joker.Joker should NEVER have died in batman 89.That betrayed everything about the comic and made the movie stupid the way batman killed him "even though many people live in denial that he killed the joker and others in cowardly fashion." that will suck suck if he kills people again in cowardly fashion like he did in the first two films ruining the movies for the true batman fans.

Burton movies sucked. Shumacher movies sucked. Penguin sucked.

And yeah, the scripts were so bad that they killed the villains in the first three films without sense. That was stupid because batman never kills.

They never killed Riddler. He was put in Arkham. Joker killed himself. Penguin killed himself. Catwoman never died either. She is still at large. And this is gonna be off topic but I love this pic so... http://www.jokerfanpage.mynetcologne.de/images/joker.gif

great, I work that in my next sig or so.

Ok, penguin killed himself, but with a great help of batman. And joker killed himself? i didnt remember the joker shooting the cable to himself and trapped himself with the statue.

Batman only did that to prevent Joker from escaping. It's Joker's fault Joker died. And Penguin didn't get any help from Batman. Batman never forced him to press the button on the remote.

I don't need to argue it.No point in arguing.It's my belief

And yes Burgess Meredith ruled as The Penguin.

well , you cannot blame Danny Devito for that , Daniel Waters (Batman returns writer) and Tim Burton wrote the character that way and Devito did like they wanted , grotesque and disgusting ... if that was the best decision ? i dont think so

I've thought about this a few times now. So Joker's death was a result of Batman hooking his leg to the statue. Did Batman know it would give way and make him fall? Or did he expect the Joker to let go and dangle by his leg - meaning he never intended to kill him? Shouldn't Batman have been more careful? If that's the case, why didn't he try and save him when he fell? He was in a difficult position himself, but why didn't he TRY?

You see, given the presentation, we will never know if Batman intended to simply catch Joker, or kill him. However, we understand that Batman didn't really try to save Joker when he fell. I think a better thing to do would have been for Batman to fire another grappling hook to stop Joker falling, miss, and then Joker dies.

Penguin's death was also similar. Batman kinda knew that Penguin would press the button, and when Penguin got attacked with the Bats and fell, Batman just stood there. Yes Batman didn't make Penguin press the button, (well he kinda did with that reverse psychology thing) but I've always felt the real Batman would try to save him.

However, both of these deaths happened pretty quickly, so you could argue that in both cases Batman didn't recat quickly enough. That's open to opinion like most of the deaths here.

Next up is Two-Face in Forever. This is the dumbest death because it's so stupid. Batman & co are confronted on some girders by Two-Face (how the hell he got there is a question in itself), and Batman throws the coins and Two-Face falls. This I think is the most unforgivable Bat-crime because Batman should have known that Two-Face was gonna fall, and he just didn't care, he just makes a quip and throws the coins (how the hell did he knew a bunch of coins would be useful? "Better bring the Bat-coins for this one, might need to make Two-Face fall from something" WTF?).

hahaha...well, not that I"m speaking for Tim Burton but I think he was trying to make Bats as sorta-Punisher-type. He just wants to put the villains away for good. Bats was so much darker than his comic counterpart. For some reason, it didn't bother me that much that he killed (another example would be when he strapped on the bomb to the strong circus guy in BAtman Returns and just let him explode in the sewer). I think it was his overall attitude as the avenging dark knight that made him so convincing. If I had to choose between a lighthearted-won't kill-Batman vs. a vengeful, killing one (and if these are the only 2 options), I'd go the 2nd version...despite how much it strays from the comics.

i'm not so sure if two-face or joker are the next villians...that would be sweet if they were because those are the two best bat-villians imo but all i read was that there will be a person familar with bruce wayne waiting to make there move...i dont see that being two-face unless they have harvey dent in the first movie, and i dont see that happening unless its a cameo and they're going to need more than a cameo to explain the two-face saga (unless they want to screw it up like they did last time)....it could be the joker but it could also be killer croc, penguin, riddelor, or any other villian with ties to batman

Lets see, batman is enough clever too see that the cathedral was on ruin, was too old. He could have supposed that the statue could break. And yeah, when the bats atacked the penguin, batman could do more than he did. And yeah , he killed the joker goons in the factory and the strong man of the circus, clearly, he was a killer in the movies. A punisher type. By the way, Great points, red superfly.

And yeah, the two face dead was cowardly too, beasides of stupid. So, Bruce is all the movie saying to Dick that he shouldnt kill two face and he goes and kill two face. It was non sense and as bad as the rest of the script.

hahah i remember that!! "if you kill Two-face now, what next? You hunt for antoher face, and then another, etc" (or something like that).

Then at the end he throws the coins and Harvey plunges to his doom. So much for all that talk.

The Bat Coins, Now that is funny, lol

I hope in Begins we see Batman as a sadistic SOB, but never goes the whole nine yards and actually kills anyone.

I don't want to see anyone die directly from Batman's actions, it's just not Batman. Even if they fall, Batman will save them.

I mean, I actually think Batman keeping the felons alive is more sadistic than killing them. Killing a felon is not a punishment, it's giving them the greatest freedom of all, death. This is Batman's philosphy, he wants felons to suffer. He beats the living tar out of them and then keeps them alive, and lets them rot in a jail cell. I know if I'd been screwed over by some punk with a gun who killed my parents, if I turned into a vigilante I'd cause pain to the criminal world, and let them suffer as their victims have suffered. Batman is more about causing pain and serving a twisted sense of justice - killing felons does not come into that.

Who would suffer if he killed a felon? The only person that cares about the criminal would be themselves, so why would Batman kill? This has so much potential in the movie. Would could see Batman literally cripple someone, and keep them alive - making them wish they were dead.

Also, Batman needs those criminals to spread the fear of Batman. He chooses the Bat to strike fear into those who do evil.

The no-kill motto is great in my opinion. He's more sadistic than ever if he roughs someone up and lets them live. Letting them die would be a reward - he wants them to suffer and know pain like he has most of his life.

He didn't care who he killed in the movies. The answer to the debate on whether or not he meant to kill the Joker and his goons may lie in a scene nobody has brought up, and that's when Bats is fighting the goon in the belltower and he hides in the bell and then grabs the guy with his legs and throws him down the entire steeple. He obviously didn't give a crap he was killing that guy, no real reason to think he gave a crap about any of the other people he was killing.

For one, Batman fell right when Joker did. And he was trying to keep Vale from falling also. Penguin was stupid to have pressed the button. So, the villians killed themselves. (Except in Forever)

Instances when Batman OBVIOUSLY KILLED In My Opinion:

Batman (1989):
1. Dropping Jack Napier in acid (later on tells Alfred, "I just found out Jack Napier is still alive.". To me, he looked like he was pulling him up for a second and then he deliberately let go so Jack would plunge to his doom.
2. Bombing Axis Chemicals (Joker was in the helicopter saying "missed me...hahahah!!!). To me, that meant Bats was out to get him no matter if that meant blowing him up along with the factory. He KNEW he was going in a factory full of goons and setting bombs off.
3. Shooting missiles at the parade floats..you saw all the goons getting electrocuted
4. Dropping the big guy off the bell tower
5. Attaching JOker's leg to the statue--he totally did not care if JOker fell or not--just as long as he doesn't get away.

Batman Returns:
1. Shooting flames at the fire-blower from Batmobile (may not have died).
2. Strapping the bomb on to the fat guy's chest

Batman Forever:
1. Throwing coins so Harvey would fall

Batman & Robin:
1. Didn't bother to "rescue" Ivy from being "eaten" by the plant
Not really much from this campy movie.


Do all these killings bother me that much? Not really...like I said, it was an adaptation to Batman's dark character. He was almost like a PUnisher-type of vigilante. However, if he went up to a guy, stuck a gun to his head and blasted him, to me then that would be wrong. Or if he broke someone's neck or stuck a knife in their chest.

1. are u f*cking kidding me, he was trying to pull him up... ffs, he didnt drop him on purpose. if anything he'd have loved to bring napier to jail.
2. it was a factory containing all of jokers chemicals being used to poison the city. he saved thousands of peoples lives by blowing it up. how the hell can he be responsible for a couple of goons who were stupid enough to be there in the first place?
3. seriously, it wasnt that he was just trying to destroy the floats?
4. ok ill concede that, he killed him...
5. oh come on. he had no way of knowing how weak the statue would be, old churches like that stay strong for hundreds of years, he couldnt have known that would happen.

there is one instance you left out imo... the part where he uses the batwings machine guns but misses joker, unless that was intentional...



1. exactly, may not have died.
2. sure, why not, he killed him... thats two...



1. while its possible, i doubt he was actually trying to kill him.



1. ok, sure... poetic justice n all...


i usually agree with you spycspider, but i think its a massive jump to even compare him with the punisher, imo thats a bit much... apologies if i overreacted...

No apologies needed, dude.

Those were just my perspectives on what he did....not all of them were INTENTIONS...like some are just actions he did which may have caused the deaths...but yea, KILLED nonetheless.

I always thought comics Bats hates firearms of any sort. Which is kinda ironic since his high-tech gadgetry like missiles and bombs are obviously deadly. I don't think in the comic, BAts would shoot missiles at parade floats knowing there were pedestrians (or thugs) around. And what about that scene when he kept shooting while Joker was just standing there waving?

Doesn't change the fact I still prefer Batman 1 & 2 over 3 & 4 or that I think Keaton is better as Bats.

Bastards batman movies rule assssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We all have something to bring to this discussion, but from now on I think the only thing you should bring is silence.

I actually find his post quite amusing and funny. That was actually a well needed refreshing change.At least his post isnt annoying like some of the other posters here I have gotten into it with on this thread whos names I will not mention.

my mistake... and your right, he did... i think we all know that, we're just arguing over whether he meant to...

i know, the rockets and machine guns were a bit much...

i prefer them also... i actually watched 89 while i was replying to your post...

I disagree that Batman not killing is more "light-hearted". As a good guy I think it's better for him to be challenged by the temptation to kill these really bad guys but in the end sticking to his principles. If the movie encouraged the viewer to not worry about the fate of the villains, that would be light-hearted IMO.

I was reading the BOOK of the Batman movie,

In it, it said destory the balloons, and gas, dont give them time to spray to the whole city, or something in that order.

the book or the script?

begins looks like it could be the best comic book movie yet (but there will always be people who think it didnt live up to the comic book or there expectations)...i have high expectations for this movie and will be EXTREMELY pissed it they dick eveyone over on this movie

*****SPOILERS*****










The only real problem with Begins -and its a small one- that I have (or at least the script I read) is that Bruce Wayne wonders the globe for a while seemingly aimlessly "looking for something." In the comic, Bruce travelled the globe learning skills with one singular purpose in mind: he was going to punish criminals. He was obsessed. Its all he could think about. I am sort of disappointed with the movie Bruce's lack of focus.

agreed.

Well.....

1. In the parade float scene, I remember Joker saying to the goons to scare the people away. There were no people there. So I think that if no innocent people were hurt...
2. Yeah he did kill the guy in the tower but that guy has 2 times his size, there was no way he would be able to overpower him.
3. Joker didn't have to try and escape. That was his decision and Batman didn't try to kill.
4. Two-Face was murdered.
5. Penguin was stupid enough to press the button.
6. Batman is able to cross the line once if it's for the safety of the people. I mean he's only human.

well since my thread was closed but the batman forever and batman and robin thread WASNT closed for some reason,got to say again you are so correct dark age.the batman movies suck even the first two which were even worse than batman forever.

Mr Parker I disagree with the first Batman movies being worse than the later ones. Tim Burton transform and re-invented the image of the Cape crusader in a very dark artistic sense. Maybe Michael Keaton wasn't the best Bruce Wayne, but he certainly made a great Batman. Whereas Clooney and Val were both terrible Bruces and Batmans. Despite that I still enjoyed the films and didn't allow that to be a nuisance while watching the movies. Set aside any disagreements and you might enjoy them better.

I wouldnt say Kilmer was terrible as Batman. He never really got to show what he could do as batman because of a script that had cornly lines in it.If he had been given a more serious script to wrok with like keaton was given I dont think there would be any question whatsoever that he would have been the perfect batman because all his serious lines that he had were as Bruce wayne and thats when he was at his best.He gave a great moving performance when he was talking about how he became batman to chase.Clooney on the other hand,I can agree with you that he was horrible.He was horrible in BOTH roles.As I have said many many times before,the ONLY good things about the first batman movie is kim basinger.she makes the movie worth sitting through and Jack nicholsons great performance of course.other than that,the movie is horrible and dont even get me started on batman returns.that one is even worse than the first film.all the batman movies sucked in one way or another and were just plain horrible sadly.Thank god for batman begins because it looks to me like there will FINALLY be a great batman movie with that film.Nolan unlike Burton seems to care about the fans because unlike burton he made a good casting choice with Bale since he at least fits the role.I am very excited about Batman begins because that film looks to be the batman movie that will please all batman fans and unlike batman 89,I think it will withstand the test of time as well.

Dont start calling Batman begains a good film YET, wait until we see it.

I have my dughts that this would be a good movie, But I could be wrong.

Yeah Im not calling it a good batman movie yet Im just saying that unlike batman 89 I am excited about THIS BATMAN movie which is a good sign I will like it since I wasnt at all excited about batman 89 and I hated it as a result also the last couple years I have been excited about a movie,it hasnt let me down yet so the odds are very much in favor of me enjoying THIS Batman movie.

out of curiousity,why do YOU have your doubts about this batman movie? the one thing that Im not thrilled about is the look of the batmobile.I sure hope that in the sequels in the future,they improve on that.

the Cowl looks odd, and the let down of the last 2 Batman movies(Forever and B&R)

The Batmobile looks a bit odd, and well I dont like the ideal of a Ra Scarecrow team up(Or in the same movie)

I did think 1 and 2 were good, One was better than 2.

I'm more worried it is going to be boring as hell, But then again if it is boring thats a good thing.

I think I would have liked these movies a little more, if they stayed consistent throughout the whole thing.

Whether it would have been Burtons or Shumachers, 4 movies with all the same feel, look, and most importantly actors, it would be more enjoyable to watch.

Instead, they are split right down the center

Batman & Batman Returns.............Batman Forever & Batman and Robin

They are worlds apart, mainly due to the departure of Micheal Keaton

Not even Keaton, as great of a Batman he is, could haved saved Batman and Robin.

With Burton's skills, he could have saved it, He would have change a lot. of couse.

My opinion about Keaton is biased, so I can't really get into an argument about that.

they messed up alot of thigns but the biggest one i think is how popular he is with the ppl, batmans supposed to be the scary dark knight and in the 3rd n 4th movie makes it seem like he's socializing with other ppl going to events and stuff

Keaton would have done better than George Clooney but it still would have sucked. Reason being was the script, and how they did the villians as well.

Plus the car sucked to.

actually not true.Tim Burton was the worst thing to ever happen to the batman franchise.Batman Returns was every bit as horrible as batman and robin was and like Dark age said,Burton made a horrible casting choice with keaton.

Batman and Robin was worse by far.


At least they did well with catwoman in it. Plus Keaton looked very nice as batman.

thats telling him Vaya. Now if you dont mine I going to watch Batman and Batman returns. GREAT Batman movies.

And I dump Batman forever and Batman and Robin in the trash.

I loved Thurman's performance bag

I Can't even look at those 4 movies as 1 continous thing.
There are continuity errors everywhere when you compare the two (meaning shumacher and Burton visions).
The fact that Commishiner Gordon and Alfred are played by the same people are more like cameos. To me, Shumacher's Batmans are not even sequels. Basically, to me they are worlds apart.

Lets recap when comparing Shumacher's and Burtons (putting comic books to the side and just focusing on the movies) and look at the continuity of actors, tone, visuals, and music

1. Different actors playing Batman. Big dichotomy in Charcter between Burton's and Shumachers. Biggest continuity problem.

2. Different actors playing Harvey Dent. Burtons: Billy D Williams. Shumachers: Tommy lee Jones.

3. Different music. Burtons (amazing), Shumachers (Godawful)

4. Gotham City. Burtons: dirty, crime infested, gray, cavernous stretches of buildings, ordinary looking people and thugs. Ordinary looking cars and buildings infrastructure (to some degree, there still is a lot of art deco in there). Shumachers: Clean, bright, much more open, Ridiclous sky scraper size statues. Odd looking gang members that somehow can only operate where there are black lights, and neon lights on everything.

5. The batmobile. Burtons: black, used in both movies (good move). Shumachers. Cool designs, but what with all of the stupid lights.

6. Wayne Manor: Different house in both of Burtons, but diferent again in Shumachers.

7. Special effects. Burtons: simple, only used to tell the story and doesn't go ridiculously over the top (For the most part, stupidest thing was the penquin army). Schumachers: Ridiclously over the top and completely unbelieveable "sky surfing on a door and giant green plastic laser fortress thing on a 'Holy Rusted metal' island, yeah right"

I disagree.If I HAD to choose,I would rather sit through and be bored with Batman and Robin than Batman Returns.The reason being is Batman and Robin -while being a bad film, didnt try to be serious.Its a laughable Batman movie but at least its amusing to watch because its so bad its funny.Batman Returns TRIED to be serious and thats why I cant sit through that one because even though its really horrible,its NOT funny.Thats the difference between the two.Batman and Robin I at least get comedy relief from,not so with Batman Returns.speaking of catwoman,she was the ONLY good thing about that movie just like Kim Basinger is the only good thing about the first batman movie.

batman returns wasn't a comedy, in case you hadn't noticed...



i love how you go around treating these statements like facts...

well Batman and Robin is a bad film.

Batman and Batman Return's were serious movies. So I enjoy them way more, than Forever and B&R
So if they made a comdy of Spiderman 3? It will surpast Spiyd 1 and 2??

hmm..i thought you liked Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker as well...

For your Information Batman did kill in the comics. Very early on too.
I just got Vol. 1 of the Dc comics Batman archives, and within the 1st 7 issues he killed like 4 or 5 people.
One in particular he swung from his rope and killed the guy buy breaking his neck, and he wasn't an arch enemy he was just a thug.

Slightly bizarre leap in logic there.

I thought the first film was excellent, then it went progressively downhill. Then Batman and Robin tunnelled through the hill and through the various layers of the Earth's crust.

Does anyone else think this is a pointless thread? This is a Batman thread for Batman fans...we shouldn't be getting pissed off at each other, this is supposed to be a fun forum for fans of the same thing to get together and make rumors and discuss the cool things we haven't seen yet. Do you guys really wanna waste any more time arguing about whether one of you thinks the movies sucked and the other doesn't? Who cares? I for one liked the movies minus Batman & Robin, and none of you are changing my mind about that, and I think thats how its gonna stay. Whoever hates them hates them, whoever doesn't, doesn't. Big deal, now get over it the both of you and start updating the Batman Begins rumor thread lol.

Originally posted by SpyCspider
hmm..i thought you liked Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker as well...

I did but Jacks not hot looking like Kim is so I think you can forgive me if i skip through all the scenes that dont have Kim in them?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Slightly bizarre leap in logic there.

I thought the first film was excellent, then it went progressively downhill. Then Batman and Robin tunnelled through the hill and through the various layers of the Earth's crust.

actually he has great logic here.He is pointing out so brilliantly that Keaton was a horrible choice for the role of batman because of how physically wrong he was for the role.Thats why the first two films were so horrible because of the horrible casting choice of keaton.Like he said so brilliantly in that post,who cares if keaton did a good acting job in the films,he brought no crediblity to it because he didnt even come close to fitting the role.Nolan unlike Burton I am pleased to see cares about the fans because Bale at least looks the part of Bruce wayne in Batman Begins.I sure hope that movie is as great as it looks because there has yet to be a good batman movie made so far.

He never said KEATON was a bad Batman, Your putting words in his mouth.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
actually he has great logic here.He is pointing out so brilliantly that Keaton was a horrible choice for the role of batman because of how physically wrong he was for the role.

So brilliantly? By mentioning that because a ten year old girl would make a bad Batman, Keaton does as well?

Of course physical appearance is important, the analogy just sucked.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
actually he has great logic here.He is pointing out so brilliantly that Keaton was a horrible choice for the role of batman because of how physically wrong he was for the role.Thats why the first two films were so horrible because of the horrible casting choice of keaton.Like he said so brilliantly in that post,who cares if keaton did a good acting job in the films,he brought no crediblity to it because he didnt even come close to fitting the role.Nolan unlike Burton I am pleased to see cares about the fans because Bale at least looks the part of Bruce wayne in Batman Begins.I sure hope that movie is as great as it looks because there has yet to be a good batman movie made so far.

As mention before Mr Parker....Keaton wasn't a bad batman. Keaton was bad as Bruce Wayne. Keaton did capture the darkness and seriousness of the character Batman. But his portrayal of Bruce wasn't very good. The same thing happen with Kilmer as Bruce Wayne. He was a pretty good batman but a terrible Bruce Wayne. Then in Batman and Robin the opposite happens with Clooney. In this film Clooney makes a great Bruce Wayne, but unfortunally he is terrible as batman. He doesn't capture the role of Batman even worse his lines in the movie don't help him much either.

As the Batman Begins trailers are starting to be shown. I'm noticing something positive in the Batman movies. For the first time it seems like an actor (Christian Bale) will dominate both roles of Batman and Bruce Wayne. Despite being the same person Bruce and Batman are totally different characters. They both are from different enviorements and with different personalities. That's why this film seems more promising than it's predecesors.

You're totally right WindDancer, Batman is a definately a complicated character and as far as I'm concerned no-one so far has met the challenge, but hopefully Bale will.

And I do think Keaton was a bad Batman. What I was trying to point out in that analogy was that physical similarity does matter to at least some extent.