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

That'd be cool, right?

It would've been a lot more realistic, and better.

I would have loved to seen Tim Burton direct Two-Face.

He would have made him dark instead of a moron like Joel portrayed him.

The Riddler would've been more of The Riddler too, he wouldn't have been The Joker + 5 or 6 easy questions.

Good point, NoFate007. Joel Schumacher made all of his villains wannabe JOKERS. Tommy Lee Jones was a great actor for Two Face and was wasted in FOREVER along with the usually calm and cunning THE RIDDLER who reminded me of a reincarnated Ace Ventura. BATMAN & ROBIN wasted Poison Ivy as a bad actor. BANE was disrespected the most out of any villian with a bad plot with a bad brainless character and bad acting from old and retarded wrestlers who have heart attacks almost as tragic as the movies they made the same year. I liked Mr.Freeze. My mom hasn't seen BATMAN & ROBIN since we saw it in theaters with my little brothers in 1997 and she still remembers the part where Mr.Freeze watches his frozen wife. This effect is ruined since the button that opens the room is behind a TV Dinner. But still. It would've been awesome if Tim Burton directed BATMAN FOREVER and there was no ROBIN.

Michael Keaton would have also been in Batman Forever if Burton did it, becuase the film wouldn't have been to light for his tastes, i think this would have helped with continuity and empathy with Bruce/Batman. ARGH, It could have been really good

Actually it would have sucked even worse than it did suck if he directed it.That idiot Burton would have had batman getting the crap beat out of him by Two Faces goons making him a wuss like he did in the first batman film and if he could not have cast keaton who was the worst casting choice in comicbook history,he would have gone and cast someone else like keaton who also was physically wrong for the role of bruce wayne.Thank god schumacher came along because batman forever of the four films made before begins was the only halfway decent batman movie made of the four even though it sucked as well.

You are kidding right...I mean sure thing you can hate the first two movies all you like but "keaton who was the worst casting choice in comicbook history" is just a plain stupid thing to say.....everyone that has seen Batman and Robin can name roughly four more that were worse than Keaton......

Mr. Parker, do you ever shut up? It's always the same arguement with you. And even though it has been a pleasure to debate with you and your Spider-Man movie hating friend, now it is getting stupid. No one likes Forever except a few, and nobody will take you seriously on this forum if you say, "Keaton was the worst casting choice in comic movie history." because quiet frankly, it's not true at all.

Originally posted by peejay88
Michael Keaton would have also been in Batman Forever if Burton did it, becuase the film wouldn't have been to light for his tastes, i think this would have helped with continuity and empathy with Bruce/Batman. ARGH, It could have been really good

Michael Keaton was a wack batman . Thank god for val kilmor !

And why is everyone dicen Batman 3 and 4 both movies were mostly made for kids and I bet whoever saw it at a young age liked it and if tim berton were to do it he would of forgot about robin again , and like batman but i rather see both batman and robin together Like the oldschool episodes in the 70's!

Well said Pimp. A lot of people like batdude just cant comprehend it though that Keaton was a wack and Kilmer was a much better choice for the role.They just dont get it that if an actor doesnt even come close to fitting the role which keaton did not,they bring no crediblity to the part.Yeah thank god for Schumacher,if Burton had done forever,we would never have had Robin who is an important part of the history of Batman.Thats like Abbot and costello without costello or The Lone Ranger without Tonto.Not saying that Robin has to be in every Batman movie,but he should at least eventually come on in a sequel and had burton directed forever,we never would have had Robin in a sequel and like I said,Burton would have had batman be a wuss and get the crap beat out of him by those goons of two faces and we never would have seen his martial arts skills he possesses like he demonstrated in forever and Burton would have cast an actor who would have again been short,half bald,and out of shape.so thank god for shumacher in the fact that forever was much more loyal to the comicbook than burtons were and not near as bad a film as burtons batman movies were.Batman and Robin however is a different story though.THAT film WAS as bad as Burtons batman movies were.Clooney was as bad a choice for that role as keaton was as well.

Originally posted by sevenman
Good point, NoFate007. Joel Schumacher made all of his villains wannabe JOKERS. Tommy Lee Jones was a great actor for Two Face and was wasted in FOREVER along with the usually calm and cunning THE RIDDLER who reminded me of a reincarnated Ace Ventura. BATMAN & ROBIN wasted Poison Ivy as a bad actor. BANE was disrespected the most out of any villian with a bad plot with a bad brainless character and bad acting from old and retarded wrestlers who have heart attacks almost as tragic as the movies they made the same year. I liked Mr.Freeze. My mom hasn't seen BATMAN & ROBIN since we saw it in theaters with my little brothers in 1997 and she still remembers the part where Mr.Freeze watches his frozen wife. This effect is ruined since the button that opens the room is behind a TV Dinner. But still. It would've been awesome if Tim Burton directed BATMAN FOREVER and there was no ROBIN.

The movie would have sucked far worse with Burton directing it and no Robin. Well I take that back,Chris O'donnel was just as horrible a choice for Robin as Keaton was for batman in the fact like Keaton,he did not fit the role either since he was wayyy too old for the part and a horrible actor as well.anybody would have been a better robin than o'donnel was so a batman movie without o'donnel as robin is better than a batman movie WITH o'donnel as robin anyday of the year.
btw,while you are talking about a bad brainless character with bad acting,dont forget to mention Danny Devito as well,he clearly belongs in that group.His acting which is normally great in all his other movies,was just horrible in this movie.Hopefully Nolan will make a sequel with Penguin in it and do Penguins character justice.

As usual, i agree with Parker.

I think that Burton would have taken Two Face and made him more zany, which would have taken him further from his roots of tragedy.

Let's face it. Tim Burton is a half-baked Stanley Kubrick, anyways, minus any shred of subtelty.

Kubrick's Two-face would have been correct. Kubrick's movie, however, would be four hours long, include a rape scene, and be completely incomprehensible.

See I think Burton rooted his characters to the ground for the most part. Selina Kyle was a great, great portrayal of the character. Penguin was different, but I think it was done really innovative and good. Not the "its new so its good" stuff, I think it actually worked. His jokes are always lame in his movies, but I think if he were to do the film, he'd have Two-Face be the Catwoman - very realistic, and Riddler be the Penguin, where its just a tad over the top in some aspects. Plus, O'Donnell wouldn't have been casted, I'm pretty positive on that one. He was a horrible Robin, which disgraced the character almost as bad as that 60s tv show which gave him the reputation of being homosexual.

It was the 60's what do you accpect!

Burton would have given everyone a great movie, but sadly, dumb ass Schumacher came and killed Batman. The weapons of use, neon, butt shots, nipples, and Joker wanna be villians.(even Mr. Freeze was acting this way in B&R!) Why do you like Forever, it wasn't close to the comics at all! Two-Face kept flipping his coin to get the answer HE wanted! Two-Face doesn't do that! And Riddler wasn't Riddler at all! Same goes for Two-Face. And Kilmer couldn't act his way out of a paper bag! He sucked! And don't get me started on O' Donnell. At LEAST Alfred's character was quite decent. And Commishiner Gordan was ok.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Burton would have given everyone a great movie, but sadly, dumb ass Schumacher came and killed Batman. The weapons of use, neon, butt shots, nipples, and Joker wanna be villians.(even Mr. Freeze was acting this way in B&R!) Why do you like Forever, it wasn't close to the comics at all! Two-Face kept flipping his coin to get the answer HE wanted! Two-Face doesn't do that! And Riddler wasn't Riddler at all! Same goes for Two-Face. And Kilmer couldn't act his way out of a paper bag! He sucked! And don't get me started on O' Donnell. At LEAST Alfred's character was quite decent. And Commishiner Gordan was ok.


Batman forever is true to the original comics and all that neon sh*t you don't like i love only Schumacher didn't want to make his ghetto's to look like all the rest he wanted to make Gotham city a sico frenzy plus I know every body want a dark and serious batman even i do sometimes but not all the damn time I liked the humor in batman and robin especially when batman took out his visa card in one of the parts,and yo val kilmer can act and he looks better as a batman unlike that short half bald guy from the first two and as for the butt shots just ignore them. You got's to be crazy if you think the riddler was wack that was the best riddler i've seen so far.As for two-face he wasn't the meanbad-guy he was a sicotick man that could be laughing and getting drunk as hell then if you said something he didnt like your a$$ is shot and thats why i liked him!

dude batman forever is not true to the comics..you must be out of your mind....

I don't really give a shit if it was or wasn't straight up i liked both scumachers movies actually you know what I even liked batman and robin more than batman begins, my little cousin fell asleep through BB and he's a batman fanatic If you don't like it to bad and who knows i probably am out of my mind. What Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you liked batman and robin !

Yep got a problem with that biaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Ive been reeding all the other threads about people saying they dont like this they dont like that batman had nipples they showed his a$$ please stop whining If you dont like BF or B&R dont watch it fools it's just a movie nobody's forcing you to watch it, I loved batman forever and i liked B&R and i still like watching both because i dont give a shit about the plot or Corney things i just like watching batman and robin instead of just batman and it also reminds me of back in the day when i was younger. and anybody that dont like it can kiss my Latin ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!gun_bandana

Keaton looked like a little bich!!!!

Originally posted by jinzin
dude batman forever is not true to the comics..you must be out of your mind....

Its not word for word true to the comics but it was much more loyal to the comicbook than Burtons Batman movies.After all,Batman isnt a half bald short wuss who cant even beat up one goon.

Originally posted by lil pimp
I don't really give a shit if it was or wasn't straight up i liked both scumachers movies actually you know what I even liked batman and robin more than batman begins, my little cousin fell asleep through BB and he's a batman fanatic If you don't like it to bad and who knows i probably am out of my mind. What Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude I am glad that you agree with me that keaton was a horrible Batman because of how miscast he was in that role but your not helping me hear though credibility wise saying you liked batman and robin better than Batman Begins.stick with saying you liked batman forever better than Batman Begins because even though I still would not agree with you on that note,you would at least bring more credibility to your points since forever was the only halfway decent batman movie made of the burton and schumacher batman movies.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude I am glad that you agree with me that keaton was a horrible Batman because of how miscast he was in that role but your not helping me hear though credibility wise saying you liked batman and robin better than Batman Begins.stick with saying you liked batman forever better than Batman Begins because even though I still would not agree with you on that note,you would at least bring more credibility to your points since forever was the only halfway decent batman movie made of the burton and schumacher batman movies.

Dragging out the ol facts again eh?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude I am glad that you agree with me that Keaton was a horrible Batman because of how miscast he was in that role but your not helping me hear though credibility wise saying you liked batman and robin better than Batman Begins.stick with saying you liked batman forever better than Batman Begins because even though I still would not agree with you on that note,you would at least bring more credibility to your points since forever was the only halfway decent batman movie made of the burton and schumacher batman movies.

I got you kid ,but you got to understand that when i was little i loved them two movies and whenever I watch them it reminds me of when i was younger that is really the reason i like B&R.
What i can't stand is somebody saying Keaton was the best batman like i said before he looked like a little bi*ch in the costume and didn't even look like he knew how to fight!!!

HA.....as if Clooney knew how to fight......

By the way whenever someone says "I liked Batman and Robin" I only hear "I hate Batman" .....

Yea i forgot about clooney he sucked too. I don't hate batman either the movie just remineds me of the good old days.

Originally posted by Bardock42

By the way whenever someone says "I liked Batman and Robin" I only hear "I hate Batman" .....

Originally posted by lil pimp
I got you kid ,but you got to understand that when i was little i loved them two movies and whenever I watch them it reminds me of when i was younger that is really the reason i like B&R.
What i can't stand is somebody saying Keaton was the best batman like i said before he looked like a little bi*ch in the costume and didn't even look like he knew how to fight!!!

oh okay I see where your coming from.yeah batman 89 is a joke the way burton made him into such a wuss getting the crap beat out of him by one guy.that was a joke.Batman Begins showed his true character how he is capable of beating up dozens of people at one time.the real batman would have been able to beat that guy easily blindfolded.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
oh okay I see where your coming from.yeah batman 89 is a joke the way burton made him into such a wuss getting the crap beat out of him by one guy.that was a joke.Batman Begins showed his true character how he is capable of beating up dozens of people at one time.the real batman would have been able to beat that guy easily blindfolded.


yeah the real Batman is more than just a man....

























....he's a legend.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Its not word for word true to the comics but it was much more loyal to the comicbook than Burtons Batman movies.After all,Batman isnt a half bald short wuss who cant even beat up one goon.

depends on what comic book you're reading...the campy 60's version that gave batman and robin an "ambiguous" name in the frist place or MILLER'S stories that were n print at the time...given the books that were circulating at the time burton's is far more accurate than the ladder two.

batman also isn't supposed to look like he's hindu/mexican/whatever else clooney looks like.

keaton had the perfect scowl for batman when his mask was on...he just made a horrible bruce wayne....val kilmer was the exact opposite...he played a great bruce wayne pretty-playboy, but he lacked any of the dark elements that make up who batman is and looked horrible with the cowl on..clooney looked horribly out of place either way....and bale is perfect for both batman and bruce wayne (has the darkside thingdown), on top of that he even talks in a low growl as was described in the comics....AWESOME.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Its not word for word true to the comics but it was much more loyal to the comicbook than Burtons Batman movies.After all,Batman isnt a half bald short wuss who cant even beat up one goon.

that is just dumb...

he had crashed his plane, his bloody plane... fit or not its a wonder he walked away from it...

Originally posted by pr1983
that is just dumb...

he had crashed his plane, his bloody plane... fit or not its a wonder he walked away from it...

whao..I forgot about that...good call...

Originally posted by jinzin
depends on what comic book you're reading...the campy 60's version that gave batman and robin an "ambiguous" name in the frist place or MILLER'S stories that were n print at the time...given the books that were circulating at the time burton's is far more accurate than the ladder two.

batman also isn't supposed to look like he's hindu/mexican/whatever else clooney looks like.

keaton had the perfect scowl for batman when his mask was on...he just made a horrible bruce wayne....val kilmer was the exact opposite...he played a great bruce wayne pretty-playboy, but he lacked any of the dark elements that make up who batman is and looked horrible with the cowl on..clooney looked horribly out of place either way....and bale is perfect for both batman and bruce wayne (has the darkside thingdown), on top of that he even talks in a low growl as was described in the comics....AWESOME.


I can undestand you not likeing the 60's version but you got to respect it, it was the first ,and that was really how batman is supposed to be, all the dark stuff in batman is new he really is supposed to be just little bit meaner then superman. Also keaton looked retarted with the cowl on, it looked like he had no chin !

Originally posted by jinzin
whao..I forgot about that...good call...

Im just saying... who can walk away from that? not many humans...

Originally posted by lil pimp
I can undestand you not likeing the 60's version but you got to respect it, it was the first ,and that was really how batman is supposed to be, all the dark stuff in batman is new he really is supposed to be just little bit meaner then superman. Also keaton looked retarted with the cowl on, it looked like he had no chin !

i thought keaton looked fine in the suit...

(auto quote)

this just goes to show how little you know about batman at his core....

the original batman came out in the forties he had a gun and he KILLED people...he was very dark and very different from the bats you know today...the hero he was based on was even darker and almost a kind of villain...I don't have to respect the 60's version because it was and IS a travesty to what batman is and is supposed to represent.....FEAR...DARKNESS...THE BAT-freakin-MAN!...not some micheal jackson wannabe.

keaten looked great with the cowl on....clooney looked like a clown...a pretty clown..but a clwon none the less..

yeah back in the day Bats would bust'sta cap in a bad guy @ss! gun Bat Gats fo shizzle dizzle wickedph

I love that smilie mainstream.....you just won't let it go huh? hahahaha...how's it going man?

Originally posted by jinzin
I love that smilie mainstream.....you just won't let it go huh? hahahaha...how's it going man?

good I'm chillin like victor Freeze wickedph

Originally posted by jinzin
Originally posted by lil pimp
I can undestand you not likeing the 60's version but you got to respect it, it was the first ,and that was really how batman is supposed to be, all the dark stuff in batman is new he really is supposed to be just little bit meaner then superman. Also keaton looked retarted with the cowl on, it looked like he had no chin !

this just goes to show how little you know about batman at his core....

the original batman came out in the forties he had a gun and he KILLED people...he was very dark and very different from the bats you know today...the hero he was based on was even darker and almost a kind of villain...I don't have to respect the 60's version because it was and IS a travesty to what batman is and is supposed to represent.....FEAR...DARKNESS...THE BAT-freakin-MAN!...not some micheal jackson wannabe.

keaten looked great with the cowl on....clooney looked like a clown...a pretty clown..but a clwon none the less..

Sorry i didn't know, i can admit when im wrong, you won't happen to know if they still sell those comics would you?

EVERY-BODY FREEZE!


lol @ arnie...

Originally posted by lil pimp
this just goes to show how little you know about batman at his core....

the original batman came out in the forties he had a gun and he KILLED people...he was very dark and very different from the bats you know today...the hero he was based on was even darker and almost a kind of villain...I don't have to respect the 60's version because it was and IS a travesty to what batman is and is supposed to represent.....FEAR...DARKNESS...THE BAT-freakin-MAN!...not some micheal jackson wannabe.

keaten looked great with the cowl on....clooney looked like a clown...a pretty clown..but a clwon none the less..

Sorry i didn't know, i can admit when im wrong, you won't happen to know if they still sell those comics would you?

it's all good....they have some of his older stuff in book stores in the graphic novel sections...that's your best bet...unless you have thousands upon thousands of dollars to blow on the originals...

Don't they have the big DC Archives (Hardcover books) ......or is that not the beginning?

I'm not sure what' you're reffering to...it could be...usually when somethings in graphic novel form it will come out in several variations...

I think Burton would have done a fabulous job and it would have been great to have Keaton return for it...which he would have! I remember they were talking about Robin Williams as the Riddler before the studio wanted to go lighter with the film and Burton backed out..then Keaton followed.


The comics always were dark..except for the stuff in the 50's and sixties...then came the good stuff of the 70's through what we have now. The 70'2 finally brought back the darkness and adult stuff. TG! i love how adult the comics are now! That kiddie stuff just sucked.

Here's an old Bats page..how does this resemble anything for the 60's tv show?....That show was basically done as a send up like Airplane and Scary Movie...in that kind of vain. It was meant to be a joke on comics..not a serious Batman show.

Originally posted by lil pimp
I can undestand you not likeing the 60's version but you got to respect it, it was the first ,and that was really how batman is supposed to be, all the dark stuff in batman is new he really is supposed to be just little bit meaner then superman. Also keaton looked retarted with the cowl on, it looked like he had no chin !


The 60's Batman wasn't the first......there were the 40's serials that came first, where Batman used a gun and the like. The costume is kind of dorky..but hey..it was the 40's!

Damn i seen that before i must of forgot all about it!

Originally posted by lil pimp
Damn i seen that before i must of forgot all about it!

it happens.

If Burton would direct batman forever it would be as bad as it is directed by Schumacher. The batman franchise was dead since the first movie, casting the short, unmuscular, almost bald, unnatractive and bad figher michael keaton for the role of batman and bruce wayne. I cant believe in a movie with a 5'7 or 5'8 guy with a wig trying to be a play boy. Plus, his strange behaving as bruce, forgeting the places in his own houses or being a bubling idiot with women was totally stupid. Same with batman returns. Plus, not origin, not enought development in batman character, the villains being the main characters, a stupid and retarded freak penguin, the total waste of gordon, etc. Batman forever and batman and robin were pretty bad too, but at least, kilmer looked more as bruce wayne than keaton and clooney. But at least, Nolan did a great job casting Christan Bale, who not only looks the part, he plays the part very well and is a great actor. Batman begins is a great movie, the other four movies were crap.

Originally posted by jinzin
I'm not sure what' you're reffering to...it could be...usually when somethings in graphic novel form it will come out in several variations... I a refering to this

As for the Villains being the main characters in Returns and 89...sure...but they still were goo movies.,...not allöl that exact but at least good while Batman and Robin sucked...I can't really place Forever...I don't hate it....don't love it either though......

Oh here's a pic of the Archives:

He didn't forget the places in his house. He was just trying to make Vicki feel more comfortable by making her laugh(though Batman doesn't have a sense of humor, he didn't go over the top like in B&R and Forever though)

Man , you are wrong. See batman returns, he forget the bat cave entry. See his conversations with viky or with seline, he looks a total goofy idiot in those scenes. I dont know, but keaton and burtond did of bruce wayne some kind of abstedminded and goofy fool, insecure with women. What is the opposite of the character.

Originally posted by jinzin
whao..I forgot about that...good call...

actually thats a laughable and poor excuse from him he always comes up with.The batman from the comics and the batman from batman begins could have easily beat that guy blindfolded.its not like he broke two legs or anything like that.this is a martail arts expert,who was hardly seriously injured from that fall,that was inexcusable on burton and the screenwriters part.

BATMAN RETURNS ROCKS!

Originally posted by peejay88
Michael Keaton would have also been in Batman Forever if Burton did it, becuase the film wouldn't have been to light for his tastes, i think this would have helped with continuity and empathy with Bruce/Batman. ARGH, It could have been really good

Yeah, man.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Actually it would have sucked even worse than it did suck if he directed it.That idiot Burton would have had batman getting the crap beat out of him by Two Faces goons making him a wuss like he did in the first batman film and if he could not have cast keaton who was the worst casting choice in comicbook history,he would have gone and cast someone else like keaton who also was physically wrong for the role of bruce wayne.Thank god schumacher came along because batman forever of the four films made before begins was the only halfway decent batman movie made of the four even though it sucked as well. Micheal Keaton would have done it if Tim Burton did it so they would not have casted another actor. Val Kilmer gave a wooden portrayal as Bruce Wayne unlike Micheal Keaton who was a very unlikely casting choice but ended up being the best Batman of all. If you have a beef with it my only conclusion is that you existed some time before the movie came out and was a big fan of the comics and was pissed off that Micheal Keaton was casted that Batman and either did not see or did not like, somehow, the dark teaser they released to covince fans of the dark kight that Batman was going to be portrayed well way back in 1988. Micheal Keaton was a good Batman. Get over it. Now Val Kilmer, in the movie you liked was a wooden sex clown in black leather that Joel Schumacher hired because he was "Younger" and looked "Sexy". I hear girls saying all the time "I LOVE BAMTAN FOREVER" and I'm like "Why" and they like "I DONT KNOW BUT I DID". I am not into bat nipples I am into a good or at least a consistant trilogy. George Clooney sucked the most out of every Batman in the world but it is not his fault.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are kidding right...I mean sure thing you can hate the first two movies all you like but "keaton who was the worst casting choice in comicbook history" is just a plain stupid thing to say.....everyone that has seen Batman and Robin can name roughly four more that were worse than Keaton...... Agreed, Bardock42. Val Kilmer and George Clooney were far worse choices. Just stick with Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton. The REAL dynamic duo.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Mr. Parker, do you ever shut up? It's always the same arguement with you. And even though it has been a pleasure to debate with you and your Spider-Man movie hating friend, now it is getting stupid. No one likes Forever except a few, and nobody will take you seriously on this forum if you say, "Keaton was the worst casting choice in comic movie history." because quiet frankly, it's not true at all. I concur.

Originally posted by lil pimp
Michael Keaton was a wack batman . Thank god for val kilmor !

And why is everyone dicen Batman 3 and 4 both movies were mostly made for kids and I bet whoever saw it at a young age liked it and if tim berton were to do it he would of forgot about robin again , and like batman but i rather see both batman and robin together Like the oldschool episodes in the 70's! Then watch the Batman of the 1970's and leave it out of a trilogy-that-never-was. That is what fans feared the most but Tim Burton was their savior. Well the REAL savior was Frank Miller. But still.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well said Pimp. A lot of people like batdude just cant comprehend it though that Keaton was a wack and Kilmer was a much better choice for the role.They just dont get it that if an actor doesnt even come close to fitting the role which keaton did not,they bring no crediblity to the part.Yeah thank god for Schumacher,if Burton had done forever,we would never have had Robin who is an important part of the history of Batman.Thats like Abbot and costello without costello or The Lone Ranger without Tonto.Not saying that Robin has to be in every Batman movie,but he should at least eventually come on in a sequel and had burton directed forever,we never would have had Robin in a sequel and like I said,Burton would have had batman be a wuss and get the crap beat out of him by those goons of two faces and we never would have seen his martial arts skills he possesses like he demonstrated in forever and Burton would have cast an actor who would have again been short,half bald,and out of shape.so thank god for shumacher in the fact that forever was much more loyal to the comicbook than burtons were and not near as bad a film as burtons batman movies were.Batman and Robin however is a different story though.THAT film WAS as bad as Burtons batman movies were.Clooney was as bad a choice for that role as keaton was as well. You can not change the actor in the trilogy or it is sloppy and the movies do not feel like they are linked together. Micheal Keaton is able to fit any role from comedy to the darkest of knights and he proved that in Batman and Batman Returns. Joel Schumacher was sent by Satan to **** everything up and he succeeded. Robin is the start of a long line of ad ons that do not really matter. The original purpose of the first Batman film was to go back to the dark roots of Batman and that is how it should have ended if Tim Burton directed Batman Forever. With no Robin just like you said. The way it should have been. If Robin is going to be with Batman he has to be there from the start and be a consistant character from there on out to the final shot in the trilogy. If he is not in the first one do not bother putting him in the second one and you should DEFINITELY not put him in the third since it is far too late by then. How do you know he would make Batman a wuss? You do not have a time machine to go back to the past and alter the events of the space time continuum to see if Tim Burton would have done a better job directing Batman Forever. Batman KILLED in the first Batman movies and he was ****ing awesome. Tim Burton would have went all out with Batman Forever if the Joel Schumacher plague did not come and wreck everything. Batman fought right out in the open dramatically in Batman Forever and people were CHEERING for him when he is supposed to be at odds with society and the police except for commissioner Gordon in some flashy fakeout hollywood neon fight as opposed to the far superior and mythological fights he would use in secret and to save a city of peoples that have fallen into total chaos in times of emergency. Micheal Keaton is not short, half bald, or out of shape. George Clooney sucks but my mommy likes him (**** you). I do not know who the **** Abbot and Costello is but The Lone Ranger had his own movie without Tonto and he did damned good, too. Batman would have too if there was no Robin, no bat bimbo, no, Joel Schumacher. Just Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton. ****ing awesome.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
The movie would have sucked far worse with Burton directing it and no Robin. Well I take that back,Chris O'donnel was just as horrible a choice for Robin as Keaton was for batman in the fact like Keaton,he did not fit the role either since he was wayyy too old for the part and a horrible actor as well.anybody would have been a better robin than o'donnel was so a batman movie without o'donnel as robin is better than a batman movie WITH o'donnel as robin anyday of the year.
btw,while you are talking about a bad brainless character with bad acting,dont forget to mention Danny Devito as well,he clearly belongs in that group.His acting which is normally great in all his other movies,was just horrible in this movie.Hopefully Nolan will make a sequel with Penguin in it and do Penguins character justice. I never wanted there to be a Batman & Robin, *******. Micheal Keaton was old and experienced with alot of training just like the real Batman unlike that ****head Val Kilmer. Danny Devito was a great actor as the Penguin and very new and convincing in the movie. Nerds get mad when people **** with the Penguins character and hate the Penguins character because it ****ing sucks. Tim Burton did something different like he did with the Joker and everyone accepted it. So you're saying...you would rather have a movie with a braindead actor as opposed to be willing to sacrifice a scene for the integrity of the overall movie? Good thing Tim Burton directed the first two films and not you.

Originally posted by tpaquin
As usual, i agree with Parker.

I think that Burton would have taken Two Face and made him more zany, which would have taken him further from his roots of tragedy.

Let's face it. Tim Burton is a half-baked Stanley Kubrick, anyways, minus any shred of subtelty.

Kubrick's Two-face would have been correct. Kubrick's movie, however, would be four hours long, include a rape scene, and be completely incomprehensible. Either way you are a *****. You are bitching about either way. Tim Burton was able to focus on the tradegdy of The Penguin and he would be able to do the same for Two Face and/or Scarecrow. The Riddler seems to belong in the 1966 Batman TV show the more I think about it.

Originally posted by NoFate007
See I think Burton rooted his characters to the ground for the most part. Selina Kyle was a great, great portrayal of the character. Penguin was different, but I think it was done really innovative and good. Not the "its new so its good" stuff, I think it actually worked. His jokes are always lame in his movies, but I think if he were to do the film, he'd have Two-Face be the Catwoman - very realistic, and Riddler be the Penguin, where its just a tad over the top in some aspects. Plus, O'Donnell wouldn't have been casted, I'm pretty positive on that one. He was a horrible Robin, which disgraced the character almost as bad as that 60s tv show which gave him the reputation of being homosexual. Yo, I liked Burt Ward. He enjoyed the role just as much as Adam West. They are going to be called homosexual either way. It is the nature of man to acuse two men who spend alot of time together a gay butt ****er. That's life. I will never hear in my life "This is good and new in something old". So I am not surprised some dorks were arguing over The Penguin's new origin. It is like the Joker and Catwoman but it is still cool. None of Tim Burton's characters were over the top. They were subtle when they needed to be and dramatic at the climax. I felt so sorry for The Penguin when I saw him die for the first time when I was two, I still can recall.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Burton would have given everyone a great movie, but sadly, dumb ass Schumacher came and killed Batman. The weapons of use, neon, butt shots, nipples, and Joker wanna be villians.(even Mr. Freeze was acting this way in B&R!) Why do you like Forever, it wasn't close to the comics at all! Two-Face kept flipping his coin to get the answer HE wanted! Two-Face doesn't do that! And Riddler wasn't Riddler at all! Same goes for Two-Face. And Kilmer couldn't act his way out of a paper bag! He sucked! And don't get me started on O' Donnell. At LEAST Alfred's character was quite decent. And Commishiner Gordan was ok. THEY WAS THERE LONGER THAN THE BATMANS WAS!

Originally posted by lil pimp
Batman forever is true to the original comics and all that neon sh*t you don't like i love only Schumacher didn't want to make his ghetto's to look like all the rest he wanted to make Gotham city a sico frenzy plus I know every body want a dark and serious batman even i do sometimes but not all the damn time I liked the humor in batman and robin especially when batman took out his visa card in one of the parts,and yo val kilmer can act and he looks better as a batman unlike that short half bald guy from the first two and as for the butt shots just ignore them. You got's to be crazy if you think the riddler was wack that was the best riddler i've seen so far.As for two-face he wasn't the meanbad-guy he was a sicotick man that could be laughing and getting drunk as hell then if you said something he didnt like your a$$ is shot and thats why i liked him! Batman Forever is FAR off from the original comics and the first two are FAR closer to the original comics because they were dark. You say "He did not want to make them look like the rest". That is because movies were ripping off of the original Batman's Gotham City. It was the original not the rest. Psycho frezies do not exist in neon colors because Gotham City has something called a Police Force but there are some things they cannot handle and alot are corrupt and it is very complex but Joel Schumacher completely tossed this aside for two hours of stories nonsense as opposed to realism in a realistic enviornment like the Gotham City from the first two Batman films. Dark and serious was what the original trilogy was supposed to be. All the damn time. There is intellegent humor but if you spell "Psycho" as "Sico" you would not be able to spot it. They could have done a funny Batman series of movies but that has been done before and the fans did not want it. The Visa part killed, no, shattered the darkness that was once Batman. Even George Clooney regrets having done the part and says he was told he was doing an ice show as opposed to a dark, complex, and realistic movie. Jim Carey's The Ridler was an Ace Ventura wannabe and Frank Gorshin, rest in peace, was the best The Riddler there was or ever will be. You basically describe Two Face as some drunk guy. *****. EWW. Two Face is better than that. Micheal Keaton looks DAMN good! If you like Val Kilmer and his butt shots so much why don't you go **** him. I don't know who...you are...but **** you too.

Originally posted by jinzin
dude batman forever is not true to the comics..you must be out of your mind.... Seriously. What in **** this wangsta talkin?

Originally posted by lil pimp
I don't really give a shit if it was or wasn't straight up i liked both scumachers movies actually you know what I even liked batman and robin more than batman begins, my little cousin fell asleep through BB and he's a batman fanatic If you don't like it to bad and who knows i probably am out of my mind. What Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow. Your little cousin must be ****ing retarded. The exact opposite happened with my nine year old brother Joey. He fell asleep in front of Batman & Robin when I was watching it on DVD to rant on the internet about how it sucked so bad and his eyes widened the whole way through Batman Begins on bootleg after we saw it in theaters.

Originally posted by jinzin



you liked batman and robin !

LMAO HES RETARDED YO ROFL

Originally posted by lil pimp
Ive been reeding all the other threads about people saying they dont like this they dont like that batman had nipples they showed his a$$ please stop whining If you dont like BF or B&R dont watch it fools it's just a movie nobody's forcing you to watch it, I loved batman forever and i liked B&R and i still like watching both because i dont give a shit about the plot or Corney things i just like watching batman and robin instead of just batman and it also reminds me of back in the day when i was younger. and anybody that dont like it can kiss my Latin ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!gun_bandana You the only one who is whining, little wigger. We are reviewing movies and your mind might not be able to comprehend this but the opprotunity for a feature Batman film comes once in a blue moon and we need to pay close attention to them and handle them with upmost care for we are true Batman fans.

Originally posted by lil pimp
Keaton looked like a little bich!!!! Look who's talking.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Its not word for word true to the comics but it was much more loyal to the comicbook than Burtons Batman movies.After all,Batman isnt a half bald short wuss who cant even beat up one goon. Did you even watch Batman? He ahinaliated all of The Jokers best men when they had a car chase with the Batmobile. In Batman returns he punched a guy in the face and then straped a bomb to his chest in five senconds and plunged him down a hole. Did you even...watch the first two movies? The first two Batman movies are the truest to the comic book besides Batman Begins. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin SUCK.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude I am glad that you agree with me that keaton was a horrible Batman because of how miscast he was in that role but your not helping me hear though credibility wise saying you liked batman and robin better than Batman Begins.stick with saying you liked batman forever better than Batman Begins because even though I still would not agree with you on that note,you would at least bring more credibility to your points since forever was the only halfway decent batman movie made of the burton and schumacher batman movies. Batman Forever SUCKED. Batman was ****ING AWESOME and Batman Returns was twice as good.

Originally posted by lil pimp
I got you kid ,but you got to understand that when i was little i loved them two movies and whenever I watch them it reminds me of when i was younger that is really the reason i like B&R.
What i can't stand is somebody saying Keaton was the best batman like i said before he looked like a little bi*ch in the costume and didn't even look like he knew how to fight!!! That is because Tim Burton wanted Bruce Wayne to look like a common man when Micheal Keaton as Batman would whup yo ass.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
oh okay I see where your coming from.yeah batman 89 is a joke the way burton made him into such a wuss getting the crap beat out of him by one guy.that was a joke.Batman Begins showed his true character how he is capable of beating up dozens of people at one time.the real batman would have been able to beat that guy easily blindfolded. Who the **** you talkin bout? The ****** at the end? He was hard because he was the thoughest of all of The Joker's men and he was also trying to make it like he was losing the fight on purpose so he could use his ninja powers of deception to make it seem like he won so when his guard was down the most he could throw him down the stairs of a hundred story building. Batman had control of the fight the whole time. I win the arguement.

Originally posted by jinzin
depends on what comic book you're reading...the campy 60's version that gave batman and robin an "ambiguous" name in the frist place or MILLER'S stories that were n print at the time...given the books that were circulating at the time burton's is far more accurate than the ladder two.

batman also isn't supposed to look like he's hindu/mexican/whatever else clooney looks like.

keaton had the perfect scowl for batman when his mask was on...he just made a horrible bruce wayne....val kilmer was the exact opposite...he played a great bruce wayne pretty-playboy, but he lacked any of the dark elements that make up who batman is and looked horrible with the cowl on..clooney looked horribly out of place either way....and bale is perfect for both batman and bruce wayne (has the darkside thingdown), on top of that he even talks in a low growl as was described in the comics....AWESOME. Micheal Keaton was a great Bruce Wayne. How the **** is he aint a good Bruce Wayne? Val Kilmer is a ****ed up Bruce Wayne and Batman. He plays a wooden Bruce Wayne and a horny depressed man dressed up like a bat.

Originally posted by pr1983
that is just dumb...

he had crashed his plane, his bloody plane... fit or not its a wonder he walked away from it... I love that part.

Originally posted by lil pimp
I can undestand you not likeing the 60's version but you got to respect it, it was the first ,and that was really how batman is supposed to be, all the dark stuff in batman is new he really is supposed to be just little bit meaner then superman. Also keaton looked retarted with the cowl on, it looked like he had no chin ! Actually the Batman was very dark in the original 1939 through the 1940's comics. In the FIRST comic that Batman premired in May of 1939, Detective Comics #28, Batman watched a thug fall into a vat of acid and all he had to say as he looked upon the sight was in a dark growl "A fitting end for his kind..." You, like Joel Schumacher are just sad, strange, confused little men who do not understand this and are more accustomed to the campy, in-favor-of-superman Batman of the 1950's-1970's meanwhile Tim Burton was going with what Bob Kane started when he first created Batman with Bill Finger: A mysterious and adventruous figure fighting for rightousness and apprehending the wrong doer, in his lone battle against the evil forces of society...his identity remains unkown. This dismisses him fighting in public, having a computer doing everything for him, falling in love with Poison Ivy, having a Robin, or being equiped with a team of sex diseased bat bimbos. The only movies that stayed true the original comics are Batman 1989, Batman Returns, and Batman Begins. THAT'S IT.

Originally posted by bakerboy
If Burton would direct batman forever it would be as bad as it is directed by Schumacher. The batman franchise was dead since the first movie, casting the short, unmuscular, almost bald, unnatractive and bad figher michael keaton for the role of batman and bruce wayne. I cant believe in a movie with a 5'7 or 5'8 guy with a wig trying to be a play boy. Plus, his strange behaving as bruce, forgeting the places in his own houses or being a bubling idiot with women was totally stupid. Same with batman returns. Plus, not origin, not enought development in batman character, the villains being the main characters, a stupid and retarded freak penguin, the total waste of gordon, etc. Batman forever and batman and robin were pretty bad too, but at least, kilmer looked more as bruce wayne than keaton and clooney. But at least, Nolan did a great job casting Christan Bale, who not only looks the part, he plays the part very well and is a great actor. Batman begins is a great movie, the other four movies were crap. Old fart, what does he know....

Originally posted by Bat Dude
He didn't forget the places in his house. He was just trying to make Vicki feel more comfortable by making her laugh(though Batman doesn't have a sense of humor, he didn't go over the top like in B&R and Forever though) Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different people, buddy.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Man , you are wrong. See batman returns, he forget the bat cave entry. See his conversations with viky or with seline, he looks a total goofy idiot in those scenes. I dont know, but keaton and burtond did of bruce wayne some kind of abstedminded and goofy fool, insecure with women. What is the opposite of the character. Wrong. In 1989 he forgot the cave entry but only because he was charming as a millionaire play boy even when he was not trying to be and so into a conversation with Vicki Vale that he walked in the wrong direction for a second. It is called "Humor" and it is another factor that made the 1989 Batman great. He never forgot it in Batman Returns! He still ****ed the girls in the end and that is the root definition of "Play boy", not acting like Johnny Bravo and not getting a feel of them love handles.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
actually thats a laughable and poor excuse from him he always comes up with.The batman from the comics and the batman from batman begins could have easily beat that guy blindfolded.its not like he broke two legs or anything like that.this is a martail arts expert,who was hardly seriously injured from that fall,that was inexcusable on burton and the screenwriters part. Mr Parker said an oxymoron. You are saying that he is a martail arts expert so he should be injured from the fall. So you are implying that he is not a martial arts expert because he was not injured by the fall. So that means he wasn't You are saying that it is Batman walking away from a jet crash is an excuse for being strong. Then you are saying he is weak for not breaking his legs in the plane. The Batman in the comics, The Batman from the 1989 movie, and The Batman from the 1989 comics are all the same Batman. They have all honored the title of Batman many times over. The screen writers did a briallnt job with Batman 1989 and Batman Returns. If you directed the 1989 Batman movie Batman would be stuck in a broken jet with broken legs. Way to go, Spielberg.

Batman is not the series to go for if you want your bat nipples, neon lights, bat bimbos, ambiguously gay sidekicks, bat bimbos, neon lights, shit for brains directors, butt shots, credit cards that say "BATMAN FOREVER" on it, bad actors, wasted ****ing awesome characters, played out character reincarnations, popular teen female characters added to make things less gay, suits you cannot fight in, and giant naked statues. But you want to know what a natural is for that sort of thing? SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN! **** THEM UP, LEAVE BATMAN ALONE BITCHES!

I guess what I'm trying to say is.

LEAVE BATMAN ALONE.

Listen you peace of shit i was just ****ing around, dont go pissing in your batman underoos you damn geek, you want to call my cousin a retard well **** you and your peace of shit family ***** .if you think Keaton looked good well *** **** the chinless wonder your self . you wanna start something with this Latino, mother****a good , even though you aint nothing but a ***** with a big mouth.you want to call me retard just because i said something good about batman 4, geeks dont know how to take a joke it seems ,and you all mad cause of the nipples on the costumes when you still suck on your dirty mommas nipples, ***** please you must be doing that since all you do is cry cry cry cry on this forum. Also why is your name sevenman do you want **** seven men well i bet you are going to start with Michel Keaton since you think he looked so fine. so if you finally done bitchen **** off you silly little HO!!!

Hey pimp,you keep talking like that and using that kind of language,you will get banned here.relax dude.dont let a few internet dudes who dont know a crappy batman movie when its right in front of their eyes get to you, it not worth it.hit the ignore button,thats what I have done with some of them.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
I would have loved to seen Tim Burton direct Two-Face.

He would have made him dark instead of a moron like Joel portrayed him.

how do you know that? Burton made the penguin into a sewer dwelling moron like schumacher did with two face.

Originally posted by sevenman
BATMAN RETURNS ROCKS!



Yeah, man.

Micheal Keaton would have done it if Tim Burton did it so they would not have casted another actor. Val Kilmer gave a wooden portrayal as Bruce Wayne unlike Micheal Keaton who was a very unlikely casting choice but ended up being the best Batman of all. If you have a beef with it my only conclusion is that you existed some time before the movie came out and was a big fan of the comics and was pissed off that Micheal Keaton was casted that Batman and either did not see or did not like, somehow, the dark teaser they released to covince fans of the dark kight that Batman was going to be portrayed well way back in 1988. Micheal Keaton was a good Batman. Get over it. Now Val Kilmer, in the movie you liked was a wooden sex clown in black leather that Joel Schumacher hired because he was "Younger" and looked "Sexy". I hear girls saying all the time "I LOVE BAMTAN FOREVER" and I'm like "Why" and they like "I DONT KNOW BUT I DID". I am not into bat nipples I am into a good or at least a consistant trilogy. George Clooney sucked the most out of every Batman in the world but it is not his fault.

Agreed, Bardock42. Val Kilmer and George Clooney were far worse choices. Just stick with Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton. The REAL dynamic duo.

I concur.

Then watch the Batman of the 1970's and leave it out of a trilogy-that-never-was. That is what fans feared the most but Tim Burton was their savior. Well the REAL savior was Frank Miller. But still.

You can not change the actor in the trilogy or it is sloppy and the movies do not feel like they are linked together. Micheal Keaton is able to fit any role from comedy to the darkest of knights and he proved that in Batman and Batman Returns. Joel Schumacher was sent by Satan to **** everything up and he succeeded. Robin is the start of a long line of ad ons that do not really matter. The original purpose of the first Batman film was to go back to the dark roots of Batman and that is how it should have ended if Tim Burton directed Batman Forever. With no Robin just like you said. The way it should have been. If Robin is going to be with Batman he has to be there from the start and be a consistant character from there on out to the final shot in the trilogy. If he is not in the first one do not bother putting him in the second one and you should DEFINITELY not put him in the third since it is far too late by then. How do you know he would make Batman a wuss? You do not have a time machine to go back to the past and alter the events of the space time continuum to see if Tim Burton would have done a better job directing Batman Forever. Batman KILLED in the first Batman movies and he was ****ing awesome. Tim Burton would have went all out with Batman Forever if the Joel Schumacher plague did not come and wreck everything. Batman fought right out in the open dramatically in Batman Forever and people were CHEERING for him when he is supposed to be at odds with society and the police except for commissioner Gordon in some flashy fakeout hollywood neon fight as opposed to the far superior and mythological fights he would use in secret and to save a city of peoples that have fallen into total chaos in times of emergency. Micheal Keaton is not short, half bald, or out of shape. George Clooney sucks but my mommy likes him (**** you). I do not know who the **** Abbot and Costello is but The Lone Ranger had his own movie without Tonto and he did damned good, too. Batman would have too if there was no Robin, no bat bimbo, no, Joel Schumacher. Just Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton. ****ing awesome.


No BATMAN RETURNS SUCKS BIG TIME

Kilmer was only wooden when he had corny lines to read as batman which was most the time,the times he had good lines such as IF BRUCE WAYNE COULD HAVE SAVED YOUR PARENTS BY GIVING HIS LIFE FOR THEM,HE WOULD HAVE.he was great at,most the times his serious lines were as bruce wayne and thats when he exclled the most.your shwoing why kilmer was better with those points,kilmer brought more crediblity to the role because he at least fit the part,if an actor doesnt even come close to resembling the role which keaton did not,then he brings no credibility to the role.its like burt reynolds being cast for boss higg,he brings no credibilty to the role because he does nt fit the part,same thing with keaon,how hard can that be to comprehend? : No keaton and clooney were far worse than Kilmer.the REAL dynamin duel is bale and Nolan.KEATON AND BURTON suck royally. keaton brought no crediblity to the role because he did not come even close to fitting the role and acted like a goofy idiot not remembering where he was in the mansion,thats not batman.Kilmer portrayed Wayne much better than keaton did.the dark roots of batman that burton did was make him into a cowardly killer,that butchered to death his character. yes batman killed and he should have been wanted for murder at the end,it was much more like a james bond flick than a batman movie. michael keaton and tim burton were a freaking horrible combination for batman.thank god for shumacher and kilmer,at least schumacher did not cast someone only because he was friends with him. which is what burton did,he did not care about pissing off the true batman fans out there who hated the horrible casting of keaton. DEAL WITH IT.

and also,the TRUE batman from the comics would easily have beat that goon of the jokers blindfolded.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Hey pimp,you keep talking like that and using that kind of language,you will get banned here.relax dude.dont let a few internet dudes who dont know a crappy batman movie when its right in front of their eyes get to you, it not worth it.hit the ignore button,thats what I have done with some of them.


I understand what you saying, i was going to ignore him until he called my little cousin a retard so if he going to talk about my family im going to talk about his.if i get banned thats just to damn bad!!!

yo sevenman i noticed every time i mentioned batman 3 or 4 you always say something about the nipples and the butt shots is that all you looked at in the damn movie were the nipples thats probably why you didnt like it because you weren't even looking at the movie. All you were thinking about were the nipples and butts, man you one perverted fruit!!!

Originally posted by sevenman
I never wanted there to be a Batman & Robin, *******. Micheal Keaton was old and experienced with alot of training just like the real Batman unlike that ****head Val Kilmer. Danny Devito was a great actor as the Penguin and very new and convincing in the movie. Nerds get mad when people **** with the Penguins character and hate the Penguins character because it ****ing sucks. Tim Burton did something different like he did with the Joker and everyone accepted it. So you're saying...you would rather have a movie with a braindead actor as opposed to be willing to sacrifice a scene for the integrity of the overall movie? Good thing Tim Burton directed the first two films and not you.

Either way you are a *****. You are bitching about either way. Tim Burton was able to focus on the tradegdy of The Penguin and he would be able to do the same for Two Face and/or Scarecrow. The Riddler seems to belong in the 1966 Batman TV show the more I think about it.

Yo, I liked Burt Ward. He enjoyed the role just as much as Adam West. They are going to be called homosexual either way. It is the nature of man to acuse two men who spend alot of time together a gay butt ****er. That's life. I will never hear in my life "This is good and new in something old". So I am not surprised some dorks were arguing over The Penguin's new origin. It is like the Joker and Catwoman but it is still cool. None of Tim Burton's characters were over the top. They were subtle when they needed to be and dramatic at the climax. I felt so sorry for The Penguin when I saw him die for the first time when I was two, I still can recall.

THEY WAS THERE LONGER THAN THE BATMANS WAS!

Batman Forever is FAR off from the original comics and the first two are FAR closer to the original comics because they were dark. You say "He did not want to make them look like the rest". That is because movies were ripping off of the original Batman's Gotham City. It was the original not the rest. Psycho frezies do not exist in neon colors because Gotham City has something called a Police Force but there are some things they cannot handle and alot are corrupt and it is very complex but Joel Schumacher completely tossed this aside for two hours of stories nonsense as opposed to realism in a realistic enviornment like the Gotham City from the first two Batman films. Dark and serious was what the original trilogy was supposed to be. All the damn time. There is intellegent humor but if you spell "Psycho" as "Sico" you would not be able to spot it. They could have done a funny Batman series of movies but that has been done before and the fans did not want it. The Visa part killed, no, shattered the darkness that was once Batman. Even George Clooney regrets having done the part and says he was told he was doing an ice show as opposed to a dark, complex, and realistic movie. Jim Carey's The Ridler was an Ace Ventura wannabe and Frank Gorshin, rest in peace, was the best The Riddler there was or ever will be. You basically describe Two Face as some drunk guy. *****. EWW. Two Face is better than that. Micheal Keaton looks DAMN good! If you like Val Kilmer and his butt shots so much why don't you go **** him. I don't know who...you are...but **** you too.


except bruce wayne is NOT an old an old bald man,your crippling your arguments dude.devito was not at all convincing in that movie,thats hte most laughable statement of all you have made. again your crippling your arguments because everyboyd did NOT accept it,what burton did with the penguin or to the joker. Tim Burton made the penguin into a laughable idiot which is not true to his character.At least the riddler was funny,the penguin was not.with a character namedlike the penguin of course you would feel sorry for him to die.I wanted to see batman die in the first two batman movies because he was a cowardly killer who killed people in cowardly ways and should have been wanted for mureder at the end,thats horrible screenwriting,thats why batman begins was believeable unlike the burton batman films because it was realisitic when the commissioner said they will be no vigilantes taking the law into their own hands in his town.so the law was after batman in the film,thats good screenwriting,Burtons batman movies have horrible screenwriters. okay let me put it this way,a batman sequel without robin is like starskey and hutch without hutch or the dukes of hazzard with luke duke but not his cousin bo duke,same thing. the first two films are only loyal in the fact that they are dark,thats the only good point you have made so far.But they were too dark in the fact that they turned batman into a cowardly killer which crossed the line.Batman Begins at least did not make him into a cowardly killer which made batman a likeable guy for a change.

there was no realisem in the first two batman films.a movie about some guy who murders people and is treated like a hero at the end instead of being wanted for murder like he should have been is hardly realisem.the first two batman films were boring as hell all they did was stand around and talk most the damn time,thats nuts for batman film.please,the penguin was laughable as a villian,he wasnt real.If anything,two faces character was MORE real than the penguion.and a lady falling off a building and then coming to life because some cats bite her is realisem? ha ha,you crap me up with your laughable posts. thats all you got in the first two batman films was two nonsense story films.

The first tow batman films had no humor whatsoever,you CAN make a good dark serious batman movie and use humor in it the same time as batman begins proved.batman forever had some great humor in it and was dramatic at the same time,and had far better special effects than either of those crapfest burton batman films.at least jim carrey was funny as the riddler,devito was boring as hell and gave a horrible acting performance.

Originally posted by bakerboy
If Burton would direct batman forever it would be as bad as it is directed by Schumacher. The batman franchise was dead since the first movie, casting the short, unmuscular, almost bald, unnatractive and bad figher michael keaton for the role of batman and bruce wayne. I cant believe in a movie with a 5'7 or 5'8 guy with a wig trying to be a play boy. Plus, his strange behaving as bruce, forgeting the places in his own houses or being a bubling idiot with women was totally stupid. Same with batman returns. Plus, not origin, not enought development in batman character, the villains being the main characters, a stupid and retarded freak penguin, the total waste of gordon, etc. Batman forever and batman and robin were pretty bad too, but at least, kilmer looked more as bruce wayne than keaton and clooney. But at least, Nolan did a great job casting Christan Bale, who not only looks the part, he plays the part very well and is a great actor. Batman begins is a great movie, the other four movies were crap.


Very well spoken Bakerboy.I could not have said it better myself.

Originally posted by sevenman
Seriously. What in **** this wangsta talkin?

Wow. Your little cousin must be ****ing retarded. The exact opposite happened with my nine year old brother Joey. He fell asleep in front of Batman & Robin when I was watching it on DVD to rant on the internet about how it sucked so bad and his eyes widened the whole way through Batman Begins on bootleg after we saw it in theaters.

LMAO HES RETARDED YO ROFL

You the only one who is whining, little wigger. We are reviewing movies and your mind might not be able to comprehend this but the opprotunity for a feature Batman film comes once in a blue moon and we need to pay close attention to them and handle them with upmost care for we are true Batman fans.

Look who's talking.

Did you even watch Batman? He ahinaliated all of The Jokers best men when they had a car chase with the Batmobile. In Batman returns he punched a guy in the face and then straped a bomb to his chest in five senconds and plunged him down a hole. Did you even...watch the first two movies? The first two Batman movies are the truest to the comic book besides Batman Begins. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin SUCK.

Batman Forever SUCKED. Batman was ****ING AWESOME and Batman Returns was twice as good.

That is because Tim Burton wanted Bruce Wayne to look like a common man when Micheal Keaton as Batman would whup yo ass.

Who the **** you talkin bout? The ****** at the end? He was hard because he was the thoughest of all of The Joker's men and he was also trying to make it like he was losing the fight on purpose so he could use his ninja powers of deception to make it seem like he won so when his guard was down the most he could throw him down the stairs of a hundred story building. Batman had control of the fight the whole time. I win the arguement.

Micheal Keaton was a great Bruce Wayne. How the **** is he aint a good Bruce Wayne? Val Kilmer is a ****ed up Bruce Wayne and Batman. He plays a wooden Bruce Wayne and a horny depressed man dressed up like a bat.

I love that part.

Actually the Batman was very dark in the original 1939 through the 1940's comics. In the FIRST comic that Batman premired in May of 1939, Detective Comics #28, Batman watched a thug fall into a vat of acid and all he had to say as he looked upon the sight was in a dark growl "A fitting end for his kind..." You, like Joel Schumacher are just sad, strange, confused little men who do not understand this and are more accustomed to the campy, in-favor-of-superman Batman of the 1950's-1970's meanwhile Tim Burton was going with what Bob Kane started when he first created Batman with Bill Finger: A mysterious and adventruous figure fighting for rightousness and apprehending the wrong doer, in his lone battle against the evil forces of society...his identity remains unkown. This dismisses him fighting in public, having a computer doing everything for him, falling in love with Poison Ivy, having a Robin, or being equiped with a team of sex diseased bat bimbos. The only movies that stayed true the original comics are Batman 1989, Batman Returns, and Batman Begins. THAT'S IT.


thanks for proving with your points how tim burtons batman movies suck and are not at all true to the comics.Batman is not the cowardly killer that Burton made him into.He would never take a life unless he absolutely had and there was no way out.Killing those goons of the jokers sending in the batmobile by remote and dropping the bomb in front of them was so cowardly of him,and then putting that bomb in that guys pants,again cowardly,thats what james bond would do,NOT batman.thats murder.actually besides batman begins,batman forever is the most true of the four before it.the first two films butchered to death his character with him killing people in cowardly ways. Batman 89 sucked and batman returns sucked twice as worse.batman forever was far better than those two.

oh is that what batman told you? that he was losing on purpose? yeah whatever.he never ever had control of that fight.If he wanted to beat up that guy he could have easily hit him in the nuts and knocked him out cold.sorry but as usual,you lose the argument just like all the burton keaton batman apologists do. If anybody played a wooden horny depressed bruce wayne,that would be keaton.Keaton just tried to copy chris reeves great performance from superman by being cool as batman and a goofy nerd as bruce wayne.Kilmers wayne was at least loyal to the comic bruce wayne by being suave and charming with the women the same way Bale was in Batman Begins.

No that would be you and Tim Burton who would be someone who would be a sad strange little man who does not understand how this movie butchered to death his character making him a coward.No the ONLY BATMAN movie that has stayed true to the original comics is Batman Begins.THATS IT!!!!!!

Thats why they restarted the franchise series because many batman fans to this day are outraged over the horrible casting choice of keaton as batman and how they made him into a cowardly killer.I know that because I have friends that are in their 50's who read the comics and still have the issues and have told me over the years they hated the burton batman movies because they were not at all loyal to the comicbook which is so correct.

Why must this war continue to rage?

War?

Originally posted by lil pimp
Listen you peace of shit i was just ****ing around, dont go pissing in your batman underoos you damn geek, you want to call my cousin a retard well **** you and your peace of shit family ***** .if you think Keaton looked good well *** **** the chinless wonder your self . you wanna start something with this Latino, mother****a good , even though you aint nothing but a ***** with a big mouth.you want to call me retard just because i said something good about batman 4, geeks dont know how to take a joke it seems ,and you all mad cause of the nipples on the costumes when you still suck on your dirty mommas nipples, ***** please you must be doing that since all you do is cry cry cry cry on this forum. Also why is your name sevenman do you want **** seven men well i bet you are going to start with Michel Keaton since you think he looked so fine. so if you finally done bitchen **** off you silly little HO!!! Yo, c'mon. Don't be a flat-liner, man.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Hey pimp,you keep talking like that and using that kind of language,you will get banned here.relax dude.dont let a few internet dudes who dont know a crappy batman movie when its right in front of their eyes get to you, it not worth it.hit the ignore button,thats what I have done with some of them. You like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin because you are ignorant.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
how do you know that? Burton made the penguin into a sewer dwelling moron like schumacher did with two face. If you say that The Penguin is a sewer dwelling moron then you did not understand his tormented character. That is why I like him. He is a born freak and Batman has to wear a mask. That's powerful stuff if you could just sit down and enjoy it. Two Face wasn't a sewer dwelling moron. You're a sewer dwelling moron!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No BATMAN RETURNS SUCKS BIG TIME

Kilmer was only wooden when he had corny lines to read as batman which was most the time,the times he had good lines such as IF BRUCE WAYNE COULD HAVE SAVED YOUR PARENTS BY GIVING HIS LIFE FOR THEM,HE WOULD HAVE.he was great at,most the times his serious lines were as bruce wayne and thats when he exclled the most.your shwoing why kilmer was better with those points,kilmer brought more crediblity to the role because he at least fit the part,if an actor doesnt even come close to resembling the role which keaton did not,then he brings no credibility to the role.its like burt reynolds being cast for boss higg,he brings no credibilty to the role because he does nt fit the part,same thing with keaon,how hard can that be to comprehend? : No keaton and clooney were far worse than Kilmer.the REAL dynamin duel is bale and Nolan.KEATON AND BURTON suck royally. keaton brought no crediblity to the role because he did not come even close to fitting the role and acted like a goofy idiot not remembering where he was in the mansion,thats not batman.Kilmer portrayed Wayne much better than keaton did.the dark roots of batman that burton did was make him into a cowardly killer,that butchered to death his character. yes batman killed and he should have been wanted for murder at the end,it was much more like a james bond flick than a batman movie. michael keaton and tim burton were a freaking horrible combination for batman.thank god for shumacher and kilmer,at least schumacher did not cast someone only because he was friends with him. which is what burton did,he did not care about pissing off the true batman fans out there who hated the horrible casting of keaton. DEAL WITH IT.

and also,the TRUE batman from the comics would easily have beat that goon of the jokers blindfolded. Yes. BATMAN RETUNRS ****ING ROCKS BIG TIME!

When Val Kilmer said "If Bruce Wayne could have saved your parents by giving his life for them, he would have" that was not because he was a good actor. It was because of good writers. Micheal Keaton could have done it better along with any other line in the film if Tim Burton directed it with no Robin. Over an two hours of script was cut out in the final script of Batman Forever to make it more "Family-Friendly" or in other words "Cash Cow" instead of the dark, interesting, and realisitc stories of Batman and Batman Returns. Robin was a gimmick to give credibility to Bruce Wayne when he was already credible. He was not supposed to have a character at all besides millionaire play boy. If his character was intense and advertised everywhere then everyone in Gotham City would know Bruce Wayne is Batman. It is not realistic and Batman does not need Robin to be a great character. He is stronger than that and Tim Burton realized this. He casted Micheal Keaton because he wanted Bruce Wayne to look like an every day man and even though the world was against it he proved that he was worthy of the title of the Dark Knight with the powerful performances he displayed in the first two films. The new Dukes of Hazzard sucks, I agree. The Dukes of Hazzard was funny when it came to sex but I feel all they had was sex as an advertisment...that's it. Burt Reynolds didn't prove me wrong because he did not play a convincing Boss Hogg. Micheal Keaton portrayed an awesome Bruce Wayne and Batman. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO........Val Kilmer and George Clooney was FAR worse than micheal Keaton. I agree with you that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan have made Batman Begins a great Batman movie but Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton are still the FOR REAL Dynamic Duo. He only forgot which direction he was going in for a second in the first movie and it charmed Vickie Vale. It's called a "Joke". Get over it. It was not "Batman" it was "Bruce Wayne". BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG difference. Micheal Keaton portrayed both Bruce Wayne and Batman better than Val Kilmer and George Clooney combined. Batman was a killer in the first two films because Batman was at odds with the police in the first two Batman movies except with Commissioner Gordon. You have a retarded nerve for saying that Batman and Batman Returns were like James Bond flciks because both love intrests had reason and passion behind them while Dr. Chase Maridian became the first bat bimbo. She treated Batman as if he were a rebelious rock star that she could use for sex like a horny school girl and Batman went to her and RISKED HER GETTING HURT BY THOSE WHO WISH TO KILL THE BAT WHICH HAPPENED AT THE END. Now THAT ruins credibility! Bruce Wayne is a millionaire play boy to distract people from suspecting that he is secretly The Batman. He does use his alternate persona to get chicks and does date every woman he meets as both Bruce Wayne AND Batman. Joel Schumacher butchered Batman way more than Tim Burton did. Tim Burton is a blessing. Joel Schumacher is garbage. Joel Schumacher/Val Kilmer and Joel Schumacher/George Clooney are ****ing horrible cominations for Batman. Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton was an excellent combination for Batman. **** it. Micheal Keaton IS Batman. Saying "Thank god for Schumacher" about anything ruins your credibilty to argue and as a human being. You also can't say that Joel Schumacher is so great for not casting someone who is not his friend because Tim Burton handed down his would-have-been-trilogy to Joel Schumacher only because he was his friend so if you always wanted it to be that way Batman Forever would have been directed by Tim Burton and the Joel Schumacher Batman films would have either come ten years later in a NEW and "Different" trilogy where you can **** up Batman all you want with Robin, neon lights, and nipples or would have not have even existed. Tim Burton did not cast Micheal Keaton just because he was good friend with him but also because Micheal Keaton could tackle any role you through at him from comedy to a serious film which he proved in Batman and Batman Returns. He is like Jim Carey even though he sucked as The Riddler. Tim Burton is PIMP like that, yo. He told the true Batman fans to DEAL with it and they loved it. It's been done delt with, yo. Micheal Keaton was casted well and even though all Batman fans feared they would be in store for a campy Adam West style Batman they got the first dark portrayal of Batman on a mainstream scale since 1939. Be specific about what "Goon" you are talking about. Batman did beat the final ****** in the first Batman film blind folded. He tricked him into thinking he was winning so he could dust him off like an old coffee table. You are not mature enough to get that. Well, you know what? YOU SUCK ROYALLY!

You mean...BATMAN FOREVER SUCKS BIG TIME!!!

Fixed your typo.

Originally posted by lil pimp
I understand what you saying, i was going to ignore him until he called my little cousin a retard so if he going to talk about my family im going to talk about his.if i get banned thats just to damn bad!!! Don't be talking trash!

Originally posted by lil pimp
yo sevenman i noticed every time i mentioned batman 3 or 4 you always say something about the nipples and the butt shots is that all you looked at in the damn movie were the nipples thats probably why you didnt like it because you weren't even looking at the movie. All you were thinking about were the nipples and butts, man you one perverted fruit!!! I'm Batman, I don't need to here no trash from you.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
except bruce wayne is NOT an old an old bald man,your crippling your arguments dude.devito was not at all convincing in that movie,thats hte most laughable statement of all you have made. again your crippling your arguments because everyboyd did NOT accept it,what burton did with the penguin or to the joker. Tim Burton made the penguin into a laughable idiot which is not true to his character.At least the riddler was funny,the penguin was not.with a character namedlike the penguin of course you would feel sorry for him to die.I wanted to see batman die in the first two batman movies because he was a cowardly killer who killed people in cowardly ways and should have been wanted for mureder at the end,thats horrible screenwriting,thats why batman begins was believeable unlike the burton batman films because it was realisitic when the commissioner said they will be no vigilantes taking the law into their own hands in his town.so the law was after batman in the film,thats good screenwriting,Burtons batman movies have horrible screenwriters. okay let me put it this way,a batman sequel without robin is like starskey and hutch without hutch or the dukes of hazzard with luke duke but not his cousin bo duke,same thing. the first two films are only loyal in the fact that they are dark,thats the only good point you have made so far.But they were too dark in the fact that they turned batman into a cowardly killer which crossed the line.Batman Begins at least did not make him into a cowardly killer which made batman a likeable guy for a change.

there was no realisem in the first two batman films.a movie about some guy who murders people and is treated like a hero at the end instead of being wanted for murder like he should have been is hardly realisem.the first two batman films were boring as hell all they did was stand around and talk most the damn time,thats nuts for batman film.please,the penguin was laughable as a villian,he wasnt real.If anything,two faces character was MORE real than the penguion.and a lady falling off a building and then coming to life because some cats bite her is realisem? ha ha,you crap me up with your laughable posts. thats all you got in the first two batman films was two nonsense story films.

The first tow batman films had no humor whatsoever,you CAN make a good dark serious batman movie and use humor in it the same time as batman begins proved.batman forever had some great humor in it and was dramatic at the same time,and had far better special effects than either of those crapfest burton batman films.at least jim carrey was funny as the riddler,devito was boring as hell and gave a horrible acting performance. I am not your dude. And your arguements are crippled not mine. Bruce Wayne was not an old bald man he was a great man portrayed by Micheal Keaton. But not TOO great or his cover is blown. Danny Devito was convincing you could not just accept it. Saying that everyone did not accept it is saying that everyone didn't accept the Joker. Watch Mask of the Phantasm THEN you can talk.You can laugh at The Penguin because you do not understand how tormented he was and if you do not get that you need to watch the movie again because you did not understand where Tim Burton was coming from by making The Penguin's character great. You can stay "True to the roots" but then no one likes The Penguins character because he was boring. This jazzes him up a bit and makes him awesome and dark. This has been happening since the very begining. When Detective Comics #27 came out it was not originally The Red Hood that fell into the acid and became The Joker. They changed this later on because it made the universe awesome and people did not ***** about it because their were no fans of the universe with some regular guy dying in a vat of chemicals and The Batman universe had no structure. People bitched about The Penguin's origins being changed later on because their was structure but that did not change the fact that it was cooler than just some random crime boss. Like The Riddler from the 1966 Batman series they did have a character but it either sucked or was non-existant until their revamped appearences made them awesome, noticable, and provoked geeks to to try to ***** out the wise decision of change. I laugh at anyone who says The Penguin is funny. He is not supposed to be. That is because all of the villains of the Batman universe are distinct from The Joker, who is the only one laughing. Tim Burton did not need The Joker to make a great Batman film because their were other personalities and emotions to explore with other villains but all Joel Schumacher could say to excuse the butchering of The Riddler's character was "At least The Riddler was funny" and that just makes us go "yeah...thats it". EXACTLY. The Penguin was ridiculed by society much like you are ridiculing his character now. You are just trying to be too cool and it's not working. You view villains in the first person. If they are funny you like them if they are ugly you make fun of them. You are like Catwoman in Batman Returns so if you want to see how your arguement ends up with the Penguin being a mutant freak just sit back and watch Batman Returns. It is called the third person. You are not on either side but merely watching from afar. The Batman almost did die in the first Batman films so if you want him to die it is interesting to see how he surrvives and if he can or not. Batman was not a coward he was realistic. If you watch Batman Begins at first he fights Ducard in ways that are not "Cowardly" with different fighting techniques but Ducard starts fighting with him dirty and wins and excalims that this was not a dance. Batman realized this in Batman Returns so he did not fight like a coward nor portray a dance...he fought like a man. The Batman. The Batman was at odds with the police in the first two films except with Commissioner Gordon but in Batman Forever, the sequel to Batman Returns, Batman is not at odds after commiting murder. Batman and Batman Returns had excellent screenwriting that was believable like Batman Begins. Commissioner Gordon said that their will be no vigilantes because of good writing. It had nothing to do with the director or actor. I agree with you that Batman Begins was a great movie but so was Batman and Batman Returns. Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Begins are both good movies in their own right. Tim Burton's movies were believable because I believed it. Your arguement is not crippled. You have no arguement. A Batman sequel without Robin is not like Starskey and Hutch without Hutch or The Dukes of Hazzard with Luke Duke but no cousin Bo Duke and it is not the same thing. Those duos were together from THE START and if you are going to have Batman and Robin togethner you need to do it from the START like they did with Batman #1. You are saying that there should first be a movie with Starskey and then add Hutch in the sequel and The Dukes of Hazzard movie with Luke Duke in the first one and have Cousin Bo Duke added in the second one. Same thing. That has to be the biggest load of pig shit I have ever heard! If you want Robin then the first three Batman films should have been Batman alone just to show you how much cooler he is alone then start a whole new series by Joel Schumacher in a trilogy with an old Robin, neon lights, and nipples on the bat suit. That way you would get what you like without ruining the dark lone vigilante Batman I like. You said you liked Batman Begins with Batman being alone so I do not know why you insist on ruining it with Robin and a whole truck load of homosexual jokes that you and me combined would never be able to fight off. The first Batman film and Batman Returns was not too dark. It is impossible for Batman to be too dark. Batman is not a coward. Batman KILLS. Batman crossed the line and Beyond. If you want a likeable guy then read Superman or Spiderman comics. Batman Begins is a good movie in its own right and I respect the idea of Batman not killing anyone as long as it stays out of the real and only one true Batman universe. God Bless America.

There was realism in the first two Batman films because Batman was not some guy he was Batman and he was not treated like a hero they even say in the Batman films if Batman should be a friend or a foe. He is at odds with the police and society except for Commissioner Gordon but still fights for Gotham City even though they are fighting him along with the crimainals of Gotham City because he believes that Gotham City is not beyond saving. This is gone deeper into with Batman Begins if you want to really understand. They were thankful that Batman saved them at the end of the first film because they could have died. If we did not fight the war that America is in recently and kill the people who wish to do us harm we would have died and we are thankful for our troops and they are killers. It is realism because it happened in real life after those first two films. They were not boring as hell they were very interesting because it was not all action they were very deep films where conversations, circumstances, and mysteries would lead up to final battles instead of being meaningless violence. It is not nuts for a Batman film. It is a Batman film. You can laugh at The Penguin and that is what makes him great. You are not supposed to like him because he is misunderstood and if you watched movies from the third person instead of the first perons like a normal human being you would enjoy his character. Two Face was a fakeout The Joker who would easily be foiled by the police with his rediculous schemes defeating the purpose of needing Batman for him. You are right. Joel Schumacher's Two Face, The Riddler, Poison Ivy, Bane, and Mr.Freeze were not just wannabe The Jokers. YOU ARE! You make fun of the movies by explaining them comedically instead of portaying them in the sad-but-true light that Tim Burton did except you are not like Tim Burton because you do a horrible job doing it. Just have one The Joker. Tim Burton's The Joker, The Penguin, and Catwoman were better than Joel Schumacher's Two Face, The Riddler, Poison Ivy, Bane, and Mr.Freeze combined. Simple as that. The origin of Catwoman was all circumstance. What if she was not really brought to life by cats but they just wanted to eat her? What if she did not all those times but just happened to surrvive? It is possible and the times she died were surrvivable. Selina Kyle was just in a state of mind that she was Catwoman but was not actually meta-huaman just like The Penguin and The Joker. If you are a keen audience member you would realize that instead of believing the nonsense you make the Tim Burton films look like in your dim light. Batman and Batman Returns did not suck. YOU SUCK!

Originally posted by bakerboy
If Burton would direct batman forever it would be as bad as it is directed by Schumacher. The batman franchise was dead since the first movie, casting the short, unmuscular, almost bald, unnatractive and bad figher michael keaton for the role of batman and bruce wayne. I cant believe in a movie with a 5'7 or 5'8 guy with a wig trying to be a play boy. Plus, his strange behaving as bruce, forgeting the places in his own houses or being a bubling idiot with women was totally stupid. Same with batman returns. Plus, not origin, not enought development in batman character, the villains being the main characters, a stupid and retarded freak penguin, the total waste of gordon, etc. Batman forever and batman and robin were pretty bad too, but at least, kilmer looked more as bruce wayne than keaton and clooney. But at least, Nolan did a great job casting Christan Bale, who not only looks the part, he plays the part very well and is a great actor. Batman begins is a great movie, the other four movies were crap. Tim Burton would have made Batman Forever better than Joel Schumacher did. The Batman Franchise was ressurected by the first movie. Micheal Keaton was not short, nor unmuscular, and not balding at all, and upright, and fought like a mother Micheal Keaton for the role of Batman and Bruce Wayne. It was amazing how everyone said that Micheal Keaton was the worst choice for Batman and now most people think he was the best one to ever play Batman and Bruce Wayne. He only forgot which direction to go for a second and the first Batman film and it was funny because he was distracted by how beautiful Vickie Vale was and she was charmed by this and it cripples the arguements that the first two Batman films were too dark and not funny. EXACTLY. Thank you for proving my point, my friend. He was not a bubling idiot he was like an ordianary man except he had a way with women that you could not begin to understand. No wnoder you do not get women because you think the only ways to get women are stupid. I think that Butthead from Beavis and Butthead put it best when he said "Sometimes you have to like...act like a wuss to get chicks and stuff". That's so true. Batman Returns was better than the first Batman. They did not develop the Batamn Character in the first Batman film because it was year one for Batman not the time during his training which is more like year zero and pre-Batman. His character develops by exploring his past whilst already amidst his future. The Penguin was not stupid because he was able to play a ****ing city like a harp from hell nor retarded he was just an animal with basic instincts and their is no ultimate goal to evolution so you have no arugment. You could releate to the parents of the Penguin the most because you hate him so much and are not mature enough to handle such a sophisticated such as Batman Returns. Commissioner Gordon was not as big in the comics as he was in Batman Begins so that is entirely new so you cannot blame it on the 1989 original and Batman Returns for not doing anything with that becaus all three are good films in their own right. You should bad mouth Batman Forever and Batman & Robin more than you do the first to films! r u retarded or something??? Micheal Keaton looked exactly like how Bruce Wayne looked. An oridinary man who is a millionaire playboy. Micheal Keaton can play any role you give him no matter what and Val Kilmer is just for show who will not stay for more than one movie who cannot act as well as Micheal Keaton can. Christian Bale rocks as hard as Micheal Keaton. You're shit, dickass. Micheal Keaton is 5'9 and he did not have a wig and he was a play boy, or as people say today, "Player" because he got in bed later. That is saying more than you can, NERD!!!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Very well spoken Bakerboy.I could not have said it better myself. Then you come in kissing ass with your brown nose after all that talk about Batman Forever being "So great". Suckadick.

Originally posted by sevenman
BATMAN RETURNS ROCKS!



Yeah, man.

Micheal Keaton would have done it if Tim Burton did it so they would not have casted another actor. Val Kilmer gave a wooden portrayal as Bruce Wayne unlike Micheal Keaton who was a very unlikely casting choice but ended up being the best Batman of all. If you have a beef with it my only conclusion is that you existed some time before the movie came out and was a big fan of the comics and was pissed off that Micheal Keaton was casted that Batman and either did not see or did not like, somehow, the dark teaser they released to covince fans of the dark kight that Batman was going to be portrayed well way back in 1988. Micheal Keaton was a good Batman. Get over it. Now Val Kilmer, in the movie you liked was a wooden sex clown in black leather that Joel Schumacher hired because he was "Younger" and looked "Sexy". I hear girls saying all the time "I LOVE BAMTAN FOREVER" and I'm like "Why" and they like "I DONT KNOW BUT I DID". I am not into bat nipples I am into a good or at least a consistant trilogy. George Clooney sucked the most out of every Batman in the world but it is not his fault.

Agreed, Bardock42. Val Kilmer and George Clooney were far worse choices. Just stick with Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton. The REAL dynamic duo.

I concur.

Then watch the Batman of the 1970's and leave it out of a trilogy-that-never-was. That is what fans feared the most but Tim Burton was their savior. Well the REAL savior was Frank Miller. But still.

You can not change the actor in the trilogy or it is sloppy and the movies do not feel like they are linked together. Micheal Keaton is able to fit any role from comedy to the darkest of knights and he proved that in Batman and Batman Returns. Joel Schumacher was sent by Satan to **** everything up and he succeeded. Robin is the start of a long line of ad ons that do not really matter. The original purpose of the first Batman film was to go back to the dark roots of Batman and that is how it should have ended if Tim Burton directed Batman Forever. With no Robin just like you said. The way it should have been. If Robin is going to be with Batman he has to be there from the start and be a consistant character from there on out to the final shot in the trilogy. If he is not in the first one do not bother putting him in the second one and you should DEFINITELY not put him in the third since it is far too late by then. How do you know he would make Batman a wuss? You do not have a time machine to go back to the past and alter the events of the space time continuum to see if Tim Burton would have done a better job directing Batman Forever. Batman KILLED in the first Batman movies and he was ****ing awesome. Tim Burton would have went all out with Batman Forever if the Joel Schumacher plague did not come and wreck everything. Batman fought right out in the open dramatically in Batman Forever and people were CHEERING for him when he is supposed to be at odds with society and the police except for commissioner Gordon in some flashy fakeout hollywood neon fight as opposed to the far superior and mythological fights he would use in secret and to save a city of peoples that have fallen into total chaos in times of emergency. Micheal Keaton is not short, half bald, or out of shape. George Clooney sucks but my mommy likes him (**** you). I do not know who the **** Abbot and Costello is but The Lone Ranger had his own movie without Tonto and he did damned good, too. Batman would have too if there was no Robin, no bat bimbo, no, Joel Schumacher. Just Micheal Keaton and Tim Burton. ****ing awesome.

First of all, sevendude. Relax, boy, you are being pretty inmature and childish for insulting the people only for critizing the batman movies. Have you some mental problems or something? We arent talking about your family or friends, only about movies. If you are soo poor that you need to post insults in stead of arguments, the discussion is dead . Being something clever and post reasonable arguments not crappy and childish insults.

The best batman was bale, not keaton. I agree that kilmer and clooney sucked in their performances as well,but at least, kilmer looked the part and portrayed the bruce wayne character as he is in the comics. Keaton didnt any of those things.
Agree with shumacher gay tone, it was terrible.

Keaton was a terrible batman and a terrible bruce wayne.

The real dynamic duo is Nolan-Bale. They did the first good batman movie and very loyal to the comics, with a great script, great lines and great performances. The burton-keaton duo was terrible because they did batman and his world in his own way, his own and weird way, not as he is.

Keaton is a good actor, but he was terrible in batman. The part isnt for him, he was a terrible casting choice.

Yeah, the dark tone was great, and the music. and michelle pfeiffer was catwoman. But everyting else in burton movies were crap.

Batman killing is awsonme? You have a very weird concept of the character. Batman is a detective and a heroe, not a killer. He hates the muder , because his parents were murdered. You should read the comics again to understand the character. Well, you and tim burton.

Michael keaton is short, out of sharpe and half bald. Look at him in mr mom or bettlejuice or johnny dangeroulsy.


Keaton and burton were pretty bad in the batman movies.

Originally posted by sevenman
I never wanted there to be a Batman & Robin, *******. Micheal Keaton was old and experienced with alot of training just like the real Batman unlike that ****head Val Kilmer. Danny Devito was a great actor as the Penguin and very new and convincing in the movie. Nerds get mad when people **** with the Penguins character and hate the Penguins character because it ****ing sucks. Tim Burton did something different like he did with the Joker and everyone accepted it. So you're saying...you would rather have a movie with a braindead actor as opposed to be willing to sacrifice a scene for the integrity of the overall movie? Good thing Tim Burton directed the first two films and not you.

Either way you are a *****. You are bitching about either way. Tim Burton was able to focus on the tradegdy of The Penguin and he would be able to do the same for Two Face and/or Scarecrow. The Riddler seems to belong in the 1966 Batman TV show the more I think about it.

Yo, I liked Burt Ward. He enjoyed the role just as much as Adam West. They are going to be called homosexual either way. It is the nature of man to acuse two men who spend alot of time together a gay butt ****er. That's life. I will never hear in my life "This is good and new in something old". So I am not surprised some dorks were arguing over The Penguin's new origin. It is like the Joker and Catwoman but it is still cool. None of Tim Burton's characters were over the top. They were subtle when they needed to be and dramatic at the climax. I felt so sorry for The Penguin when I saw him die for the first time when I was two, I still can recall.

THEY WAS THERE LONGER THAN THE BATMANS WAS!

Batman Forever is FAR off from the original comics and the first two are FAR closer to the original comics because they were dark. You say "He did not want to make them look like the rest". That is because movies were ripping off of the original Batman's Gotham City. It was the original not the rest. Psycho frezies do not exist in neon colors because Gotham City has something called a Police Force but there are some things they cannot handle and alot are corrupt and it is very complex but Joel Schumacher completely tossed this aside for two hours of stories nonsense as opposed to realism in a realistic enviornment like the Gotham City from the first two Batman films. Dark and serious was what the original trilogy was supposed to be. All the damn time. There is intellegent humor but if you spell "Psycho" as "Sico" you would not be able to spot it. They could have done a funny Batman series of movies but that has been done before and the fans did not want it. The Visa part killed, no, shattered the darkness that was once Batman. Even George Clooney regrets having done the part and says he was told he was doing an ice show as opposed to a dark, complex, and realistic movie. Jim Carey's The Ridler was an Ace Ventura wannabe and Frank Gorshin, rest in peace, was the best The Riddler there was or ever will be. You basically describe Two Face as some drunk guy. *****. EWW. Two Face is better than that. Micheal Keaton looks DAMN good! If you like Val Kilmer and his butt shots so much why don't you go **** him. I don't know who...you are...but **** you too.

The real batman is old??? Man, read the comics again. Bale and kilmer were in the right age when they did the batman movies, keaton not.

Devito is a great actor , but he was terrible in batman returns. Maybe is the scripters fault, but he was awful. Burton did a very weird thing with the penguin and not, you are posting lies, NOT ANYBODY LIKED AND ACEPT IT. Even the dc comics people and the warner bross people disliked that freak version of the penguin.

Yeah, the riddler was terrible. Very gay. But the penguin wasnt less terrible. A freak idiot without any intelligence. The penguin is supposed to be very clever. The origin of the character was a joke, rised by penguins in a sewer. The penguin sucked. If they would go with the comics character with some variations, like a gangter , it would be a lot more interesting, not that elephant man bad copycat. " Im not a man, im a animal". Pretty stupid.


The penguin and catwoman origins were pretty stupid and unrealistic. Devito performance, as nicholson, was histroinic and over the top. See his speech to the penguins, one of the worst speechs ever. And penguins with missiles at his back. Very mature and realistic.

Batman forever and batman and robin were as different and unloyal as batman and batman returns. As you saying that batman and returns are loyal to the comics?? Man, read the comics.

Yeah, batman forever and batman and robin sucked. But batman and returns too. And keaton looked pretty bad, a 5'8 guy trying to be batman. It was ridiculous.

Originally posted by sevenman
Seriously. What in **** this wangsta talkin?

Wow. Your little cousin must be ****ing retarded. The exact opposite happened with my nine year old brother Joey. He fell asleep in front of Batman & Robin when I was watching it on DVD to rant on the internet about how it sucked so bad and his eyes widened the whole way through Batman Begins on bootleg after we saw it in theaters.

LMAO HES RETARDED YO ROFL

You the only one who is whining, little wigger. We are reviewing movies and your mind might not be able to comprehend this but the opprotunity for a feature Batman film comes once in a blue moon and we need to pay close attention to them and handle them with upmost care for we are true Batman fans.

Look who's talking.

Did you even watch Batman? He ahinaliated all of The Jokers best men when they had a car chase with the Batmobile. In Batman returns he punched a guy in the face and then straped a bomb to his chest in five senconds and plunged him down a hole. Did you even...watch the first two movies? The first two Batman movies are the truest to the comic book besides Batman Begins. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin SUCK.

Batman Forever SUCKED. Batman was ****ING AWESOME and Batman Returns was twice as good.

That is because Tim Burton wanted Bruce Wayne to look like a common man when Micheal Keaton as Batman would whup yo ass.

Who the **** you talkin bout? The ****** at the end? He was hard because he was the thoughest of all of The Joker's men and he was also trying to make it like he was losing the fight on purpose so he could use his ninja powers of deception to make it seem like he won so when his guard was down the most he could throw him down the stairs of a hundred story building. Batman had control of the fight the whole time. I win the arguement.

Micheal Keaton was a great Bruce Wayne. How the **** is he aint a good Bruce Wayne? Val Kilmer is a ****ed up Bruce Wayne and Batman. He plays a wooden Bruce Wayne and a horny depressed man dressed up like a bat.

I love that part.

Actually the Batman was very dark in the original 1939 through the 1940's comics. In the FIRST comic that Batman premired in May of 1939, Detective Comics #28, Batman watched a thug fall into a vat of acid and all he had to say as he looked upon the sight was in a dark growl "A fitting end for his kind..." You, like Joel Schumacher are just sad, strange, confused little men who do not understand this and are more accustomed to the campy, in-favor-of-superman Batman of the 1950's-1970's meanwhile Tim Burton was going with what Bob Kane started when he first created Batman with Bill Finger: A mysterious and adventruous figure fighting for rightousness and apprehending the wrong doer, in his lone battle against the evil forces of society...his identity remains unkown. This dismisses him fighting in public, having a computer doing everything for him, falling in love with Poison Ivy, having a Robin, or being equiped with a team of sex diseased bat bimbos. The only movies that stayed true the original comics are Batman 1989, Batman Returns, and Batman Begins. THAT'S IT.

Stop the insults, dude. You are behaving like a 7 years old boy posting insults.

Hahahaha, that is pretty good. You are a true batman fan? You are acepting those unfaithful and unloyal batman films by tim burton and you are a true batman fan??. A true batman fan is the one who hates the four previous movies an understand that batman begins is the only one good and loyal movie. And the thing that we understand is that the burton movies were pretty bad movies, and unloyal to the characters, as the schumacher movies were.

Hahahaha, batman killing is true to the character. Man, what are you talking about??? Could you pos