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

Okay I cant believe all of what I am seeing here.Batman 89 and Batman Returns were crappy movies, except for a few wise people all I see here is people talking about how great they are and how they are actually better than Batman Forever and how Batman Forever and Batman and Robin suck.Whats even more hilarious is people actually saying it was better than Batman Begins.If you all would actually read the comicbooks you would know how insane it is to make those kind of statements.

The first two Batman movies were a disgrace to the Batman comics because 1.they were all about the villians and Batman was hardly in it.2.They had little action in it like a Batman movie should have.3.We never knew Bruce Waynes motivations or reasons for fighting crime or why he dressed up like a bat.None of that was explained until Batman Forever when it should have been explained in the first one,the origin story.3.Michael Keaton as Batman? You got to be kidding me.Yeah right.How could Burton make such a horrible casting choice in Keaton? He so much had the wrong look and wrong physical build and was so miscast.Val Kilmer at least had the right look and the right physical build.4.But the worst sin of all for Burtons stupid Batfilms is how he made Batman a killer.Committing the ultimate crime,killing The Joker.His arch villian.then later the penguin.

Thank goodness for Nolan.He is a fans director and unlike Burton,cares about the fans and cared about doing Batmans character justice.Burton ruined everything Batman stood for.

Although I agree with you, perpetuating this argument over and over again is not going to do anything but pool more resentment.

Although I disagree with you......in both Batman Forever as well as Batman Begins, Batman does indeed kill his villains again....so that point is just not that good.

Batman is n ot aboot action, it's just a side effect of it. Batman was always stories....and the Villains are a big part in them. Oh and we saw some of Batmans screwed up psyche in 89. I don't thinl that the origin story was necessary ion 89. It was not a movie aboot Bruce Wayne but aboot Batmans start and especially the Villain, joker. There were three films that followed, in each of them one could learn more aboot more (could as in, we did not cause they were screwed up). But there was just one movie that could show the Joker and what a great Joker it was.

Keaton although he doesn't really look like Wayne acted relatively good while Val Kilme and even worse Clooney sucked big time.

Now what Schumacher did to Batman is jsut an atrocity, he killed the character, he made him a second rate superan, nothing more. HE surely didn't care aboot the fans...well maybe the 12 year old fans that like bright colors but that's it.

I agree with Nolan though, his Batman is by far the best. Burtons is interesting though.

Originally posted by snake_eyes616
Okay I cant believe all of what I am seeing here.Batman 89 and Batman Returns were crappy movies, except for a few wise people all I see here is people talking about how great they are and how they are actually better than Batman Forever and how Batman Forever and Batman and Robin suck.Whats even more hilarious is people actually saying it was better than Batman Begins.If you all would actually read the comicbooks you would know how insane it is to make those kind of statements.

The first two Batman movies were a disgrace to the Batman comics because 1.they were all about the villians and Batman was hardly in it.2.They had little action in it like a Batman movie should have.3.We never knew Bruce Waynes motivations or reasons for fighting crime or why he dressed up like a bat.None of that was explained until Batman Forever when it should have been explained in the first one,the origin story.3.Michael Keaton as Batman? You got to be kidding me.Yeah right.How could Burton make such a horrible casting choice in Keaton? He so much had the wrong look and wrong physical build and was so miscast.Val Kilmer at least had the right look and the right physical build.4.But the worst sin of all for Burtons stupid Batfilms is how he made Batman a killer.Committing the ultimate crime,killing The Joker.His arch villian.then later the penguin.

Thank goodness for Nolan.He is a fans director and unlike Burton,cares about the fans and cared about doing Batmans character justice.Burton ruined everything Batman stood for.




Hell yeah!!! That is what im trying to tell them.

Totally agree.

Burton's Batman movies rule

The thread starter of this thread hit the nail right on the head.He is so right.Burtons Batman movies suck royally.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
The thread starter of this thread hit the nail right on the head.He is so right.Burtons Batman movies suck royally.

so true...as far as I'm concerned Batman Begins it the first "true" live action Batman movie.

Batman 89 was a GREAT movie.

Originally posted by Joker1237
Batman 89 was a GREAT movie.

I agree.

So was Batman Returns.

ppl are so ignorant. i give up trying to tell them that B89 and BR are awsome films and surpass anything schumacher AND nolan has ever done. nolan didnt have style. schumacher had TOO much. i didnt enjoy BB at all like i did B89, its a pure awsome batman film and ppl on here feel threatned that it is and was a much bigger success then BB was. you could not believe the hupe for B89 back then, it was insane. ppl loved it, and its still the highest grossing (and most memorable) Batman film to date. keaton was awsome, everything about the film was awsome. i dont pay attention to moronic threads like this that only aim to critisize the shear greatness and awsomeness that is B89 and BR. they were great films, they were BATMAN films, and you my friend are a ignorant f*** that wouldnt know a good film if it bit you in the ass. ppl saying "oh i totally agree with you" are also just as ignorant. im ashamed to even be apart of this forum, what a bunch ignorant non-batman fans!

Batman and batman returns sucked pretty bad.

And the previous post is one of the most fascists and childish stuff that i have read in these forums ever.

Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin were all excellent movies.

The true evil here is Batman Begins. I think that movie was absolutely horrible. But did I start a thread about it? No.

And the previous post is one of the funniest posts ever.

Originally posted by EsteemedLeader
Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin were all excellent movies.

The true evil here is Batman Begins. I think that movie was absolutely horrible. But did I start a thread about it? No.

You thought Batman and Robin was excellent but you hate Batman Begins??

Originally posted by Mainstream
so true...as far as I'm concerned Batman Begins it the first "true" live action Batman movie.

It sure is.Right on my man.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
You thought Batman and Robin was excellent but you hate Batman Begins??

I dont know who's posts are more insane now,this guy gives Batman Returns a run for his money.I'd say its pretty even now of who is the poster on here who doesnt have a clue on anything about batman.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
You thought Batman and Robin was excellent but you hate Batman Begins??

Hell yes. To each his own, I guess.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
You thought Batman and Robin was excellent but you hate Batman Begins??

I would have to say the same to you doc when saying you liked keaton as batman even though many people have pointed out how horribly miscast he was in that role or you actually liked the burton batman movies? . I guess like he said though,to each his own.

Who is "Many people"???

The few people in this thread???

I think the huge success of Burton's Batman movies speaks on how the people in general liked Keaton as Batman.

Money talks.

Look at 'Catwoman' with Halle Berry.That crap fest bombed big time at the box office and was slayed by the critics.

what? please give me a better argument than money talks,that one is old and lame and has been addressed countless of times.If a movie is good because money talks then according to that logic,despite the fact that most star wars fans and critics agree that empire strikes back is the best star wars movie of all time,then the phantom menace must be much better than it is since it made way more money at the box office than it did.not just the people on this thread,but the few logical people in the batman section at shh who have bashed the movies over the years and the countless of people I have run into over the years in real life saying they hated keaton and burtons batman movies and you know me better to know that Im not the kind of person who makes up things like that.If keaton was any good or the films were any good,i wouldnt run into those kinds of people Like I have countless of times over the years.

We have been over that argument before that the success of batman 89 at the box office means nothing.That he is such an extremely popular character that you could have cast willie nelson in that role and it would have been the huge success it was.The critics that like keaton as batman obviously never read the comics or they would understand how horribly miscast he was in the role.

Of course that other crapfest comicbook movvie catwoman bombed at the box office.There was never any doubt in my mind it would because 1.it was horribly promoted like batman begins was.2.not just fans but movie goers in general were offended by what catwoman looked like in that film,looking more like a hooker than a villian 3..woman female comicbook charaters never do well at the box office.Look at Elektra.That was one of the best comicbook movies ever.Much better than sm 1 or sm2 or the burton/schumacher batman movies,yet it did badly at the box office.thats the way it will always be for female comicbook charaters.that'll never change,even if its the better superiour film than the male comicbook character is so thats a poor example.surely you can come up with a better argument than that old and lame money talks argument.I mean come on,there have been countless movies made over the years that were crap such as the phantom menace that were huge box office successes at the movies and terrific well done documentary movies made over the years that bombed at the box office.that hardly means they were bad movies or a movie was great because of its box office.

Are you seriously telling me that the box office figures mean nothing to a movie???

Come on Parker.We both know that's BS.

Female superhero characters never do well at the box office?? Supergirl did well.

Elektra failed because it was a dull movie with bland and forgettable performances.

why the surprise? I have mentioned that countless of times to you in discussions before that in cases like the phantome meance and comicbook movies that it means nothing? not all the time but in the case of the star wars phantom menace movie and batman 89 and the spiderman movies it appplies because of the already established well built in fan base they already had.I told you before it was my friend green goblin from shh who brought up that well made point to me.he is 100% right on that.no its not bs its true.your memory doesnt serve you well either because supergirl bombed BIG TIME at the box office.

Elecktra wasnt dull.It was sure as hell a lot more exciting than that crapfest batman 89.The first hour in a half all they did was stand around and talk the whole damn time with a few action scenes here and there.thats absurd for a batman movie.Elektra didnt have bland and forgettable performances,everybody in that film was great for the most part.Only thing dissapointing about it was the length of the film.

People didn't go to see Elektra because, well, Elektra sucks.

I just pointed out why they didnt,read the post.something else i will add on to it is Elektra isnt a kids movie and you need the kids to go back again and again for a huge success.Must I also add that it was rated R? that being the case,of course its not going to be a huge draw at the box office because its not kid oriented.

Originally posted by Batman Returns
ppl are so ignorant. i give up trying to tell them that B89 and BR are awsome films and surpass anything schumacher AND nolan has ever done. nolan didnt have style. schumacher had TOO much. i didnt enjoy BB at all like i did B89, its a pure awsome batman film and ppl on here feel threatned that it is and was a much bigger success then BB was. you could not believe the hupe for B89 back then, it was insane. ppl loved it, and its still the highest grossing (and most memorable) Batman film to date. keaton was awsome, everything about the film was awsome. i dont pay attention to moronic threads like this that only aim to critisize the shear greatness and awsomeness that is B89 and BR. they were great films, they were BATMAN films, and you my friend are a ignorant f*** that wouldnt know a good film if it bit you in the ass. ppl saying "oh i totally agree with you" are also just as ignorant. im ashamed to even be apart of this forum, what a bunch ignorant non-batman fans!

What do you mean Nolan lacked style? His color palette was outstandingly original for a superhero movie, not concentrating on pastels, nor on black, but instead settling into a humane brown. In addition to that, his amazing downcity lighting style made it look as though the entire place was on fire, and really etched it into your memory. The stark contrast of shadowy figures and the orange landscape created a world that truly felt as though it were on the brink of destruction, while still seeming natural.

My general opinion of Tim Burton "style" is that he is an overblown Stanley Kubrick knockoff, minus any trace of edge, subtlety, or the 65 MM film that Kubrick used.

And people are ignorant, in your ironically ignorant opinion, due to the fact they disagree with you, oh grand master of all things Batman? Alright, then.

Recal what mr parker said, supergirl sucked big time in box office and reviews. I didnt like elecktra, i liked daredevil more. But at least, it had better performances and stories that the man spider movies.

To recall to that tim burton didnt anything original with his dark and gothic style. See the universal horror classics, the german expresionism and the hammer films. Also the roger corman adaptations of edgard allan poe novels, with vincent price. Burton ripped off a lot of those films.

Nolan did something more original with his visual style. See memento or insomnia.

Originally posted by bakerboy
To recall to that tim burton didnt anything original with his dark and gothic style. See the universal horror classics, the german expresionism and the hammer films. Also the roger corman adaptations of edgard allan poe novels, with vincent price. Burton ripped off a lot of those films.


I never made the connection to german expressionism...I'm gonna have to pop in Cabinet of Dr. Calgari again...

burtons films are awsome. baker boy, go suck it. your wrong.

http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/4645/johnnycash6tg.jpg

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I dont know who's posts are more insane now,this guy gives Batman Returns a run for his money.I'd say its pretty even now of who is the poster on here who doesnt have a clue on anything about batman.

oh and this post is funny. your so lost, and BB sucked hairy balls. how *YAWN* un-exciting it was. i fell asleep through halkf the film, how boring.

oh and your not offending me, just showing me contsanatly how immature you are. thanks! oh and i think your 9 right? must be nine about...
srry but BB sucked hard. get used to it bud.

What the hell is your prob BR?

Originally posted by mattador
What the hell is your prob BR?

parker and bakerboy. what bit**es.

Originally posted by tpaquin
What do you mean Nolan lacked style? His color palette was outstandingly original for a superhero movie, not concentrating on pastels, nor on black, but instead settling into a humane brown. In addition to that, his amazing downcity lighting style made it look as though the entire place was on fire, and really etched it into your memory. The stark contrast of shadowy figures and the orange landscape created a world that truly felt as though it were on the brink of destruction, while still seeming natural.

My general opinion of Tim Burton "style" is that he is an overblown Stanley Kubrick knockoff, minus any trace of edge, subtlety, or the 65 MM film that Kubrick used.

And people are ignorant, in your ironically ignorant opinion, due to the fact they disagree with you, oh grand master of all things Batman? Alright, then.

Dude,the more and more you respond to him your just playing his game that he wants you to play.He is just on here seeking attention and to stir things up so I urge you,dont respond to his posts.your falling right into the trap that he wants you to.It has been proven to him countless of times that burton butchered to death batmans character and that his movies betrayed everything about batman and that he has no knowledge of batman.why waste your time with someone that is in denial that burtons batman films are crap?he is not worth it.

Originally posted by mattador
What the hell is your prob BR?

He is just on here seeking attention and to stir things up.He goes around insulting anybody who bashs burtons batman movies.Its best to ignore him.

OK! mr. parker, show us some mercy for the love of god, you're smart, but please, HOLD ON.

I like tim burtons batman movies better than the other ones.
yes I went there, But we all know Batman Begins totally overrules all batmam movies. there, thread closed.

IMO!

Well,well, well. What can I say? I can't recall the last time I had so much fun reading a forum.

All I'm gonna say is that both Batman 89 and Batman Returns are indeed fantastic films! Without a doubt two of the most entertaining films I have ever seen! I have to be on Batman Returns side for this argument. But I disagree with BR, for one thing, and thats that I enjoyed Batman Begins. I liked it, and liked the realistic tone and that it kept true to the comics.

But.....it was not as entertaining as Burton's Batman's. If I had to choose a Batman film to watch, I would choose one of Burton's.

Hopefully Batman Begins 2 can be as much fun as Batman 89 or Batman Returns!

Batman '89 ruled. It was the best Batman until "Batman Begins" the other 3 batman movies sucked hard.

What killed me was the "Batman platinum card". The movies almost made me not like Batman the character anymore but i kept the faith and it paid off with "Batman Begins"

Hearing that Batman '89 sucked or was a bad movie was the 1st time I've ever heard that in my life. Tim Burton is a great director and Keaton was perfect as Batman, he pulled it of 10 times better than Kilmer and Cloony did combined in my opinion.

The Batman has been resurrected as a result of the abortion of a movie Forever and Batman and Robin were. Demand turned on the Bat sign. and he returned, kick-ass style.

Batman Begins is the best Batman movie.

I have high hopes for the sequel.

Batman 89 and Batman Returns are very good. They are without a doubt far more superior than Schumacher's. Batman Begins is the best out of all of them tho.

And I totally agree with FistOfTheNorth. Burton is one fantastic director, Keaton was awesome as Wayne/Batman, Kilmer made Batman look bad, and Clooney made the whole franchise into a joke with all the puns and bad lines.

But I have to say Bale is the best Batman ever. 2nd would have to be Keaton. As for Kilmer and Clooney.... Well.... Let's not talk about them

Originally posted by barand1
Well,well, well. What can I say? I can't recall the last time I had so much fun reading a forum.

All I'm gonna say is that both Batman 89 and Batman Returns are indeed fantastic films! Without a doubt two of the most entertaining films I have ever seen! I have to be on Batman Returns side for this argument. But I disagree with BR, for one thing, and thats that I enjoyed Batman Begins. I liked it, and liked the realistic tone and that it kept true to the comics.

But.....it was not as entertaining as Burton's Batman's. If I had to choose a Batman film to watch, I would choose one of Burton's.

Hopefully Batman Begins 2 can be as much fun as Batman 89 or Batman Returns!

they are actually indeed crappy films.the movies totally butchered to death his character,they dont deserve to be called batman the way burton turned him into a cowardly killer killing people in cowardly ways,the ulimate sin him killing the joker,burton should be shot for such a travesty of justice betraying the comics like that. BATMAN BEGINS is 100 times better,it didnt make the same stupid mistakes burton did.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
they are actually indeed crappy films.the movies totally butchered to death his character,they dont deserve to be called batman the way burton turned him into a cowardly killer killing people in cowardly ways,the ulimate sin him killing the joker,burton should be shot for such a travesty of justice betraying the comics like that. BATMAN BEGINS is 100 times better,it didnt make the same stupid mistakes burton did.

well i agree on one account.


begin's was 100x better. thats it.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Batman '89 ruled. It was the best Batman until "Batman Begins" the other 3 batman movies sucked hard.

What killed me was the "Batman platinum card". The movies almost made me not like Batman the character anymore but i kept the faith and it paid off with "Batman Begins"

Hearing that Batman '89 sucked or was a bad movie was the 1st time I've ever heard that in my life. Tim Burton is a great director and Keaton was perfect as Batman, he pulled it of 10 times better than Kilmer and Cloony did combined in my opinion.

The Batman has been resurrected as a result of the abortion of a movie Forever and Batman and Robin were. Demand turned on the Bat sign. and he returned, kick-ass style.

Batman Begins is the best Batman movie.

I have high hopes for the sequel.

well your halfway right.ALL four of them sucked hard.Burtons batman movies sucked even more hard than forever because keaton was such a horrible casting choice as others here have tried to point this out to you.Burton is a good director,but not when it comes to batman films.Keaton a perfect batman? thats hilarious.batman isnt a short runt who gets the crap beat out of him by ONE guy who has no special fighting skills.He was horribly miscast,he didnt even fit the part.Kilmer would have been great if he had just had good lines to work with,he suffered frome a bad script though with corny lines.again,ALL the BATMAN movies,the burton AND schumacher batman films,were abortions of a batman movie.thank god for batman begins because you got one thing right here.

BATMAN BEGINS is the best batman movie ever.

Originally posted by Mr Parker


BATMAN BEGINS is the best batman movie ever.


understatement of the year.

Originally posted by TMACalicious
Batman 89 and Batman Returns are very good. They are without a doubt far more superior than Schumacher's. Batman Begins is the best out of all of them tho.

And I totally agree with FistOfTheNorth. Burton is one fantastic director, Keaton was awesome as Wayne/Batman, Kilmer made Batman look bad, and Clooney made the whole franchise into a joke with all the puns and bad lines.

But I have to say Bale is the best Batman ever. 2nd would have to be Keaton. As for Kilmer and Clooney.... Well.... Let's not talk about them

Man their crap.they are only superiour in being more crappy than batman forever.yeah burton is a fantastic director but not when it comes to batman films.Keaton was awesome as bruce wayne? that is hysterical. bruce wayne isnt a short runt who is half bald and acts like a bumbling dolt around women. Kilmer made batman look much better than keaton did and brought respect back to his character by not killing people in cowardly ways and making a mockery of batmans character like burton did.He also made batman look much better than keaton did by showing what a true martial arts expert he is taking out 6 goons of two faces at the beginning.Burtons batman was a disgrace to the comics making him look like a wuss getting the crap beat out of him by one guy now clooney? you wont get any argument out of me on THAT one because your correct on that count.I would also say your correct on Bale being the best ever.no question on that one.

Originally posted by Mandorallen
understatement of the year.

Not only would I say best batman movie ever but best film of the year as well.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
well your halfway right.ALL four of them sucked hard.Burtons batman movies sucked even more hard than forever because keaton was such a horrible casting choice as others here have tried to point this out to you.Burton is a good director,but not when it comes to batman films.Keaton a perfect batman? thats hilarious.batman isnt a short runt who gets the crap beat out of him by ONE guy who has no special fighting skills.He was horribly miscast,he didnt even fit the part.Kilmer would have been great if he had just had good lines to work with,he suffered frome a bad script though with corny lines.again,ALL the BATMAN movies,the burton AND schumacher batman films,were abortions of a batman movie.thank god for batman begins because you got one thing right here.

BATMAN BEGINS is the best batman movie ever.

Lol, I read in one of your post that Keaton as Batman was pudgy, short and bald? That made me lowly chuckle..Keaton as batman rocked. And can you tell me whom Burton's Batman killed?, because i don't recall, not saying he didn't, just askin' you to refresh my memory.

Kilmer was a Joke as the Batman and don't get me started on Cloony, lol. Keaton gave me the best and most convincing Batman impression out of all the movies. And Keaton wasn't as you describe, you falsified his appearance, don't do that. He was slim, he was fit. He wasn't short, he looked great in the bat suit and he kicked ass. What about when he was fighting those thugs in the alleyway, what about when he blocked every single hit that double machete-wielding Asian thug delivered. I saw about 6 clean skillful blocks in a row, with his arms and legs, in that scene, only to make the dude somersault, knocking his ass out. That was part was frikken kick ass. So don't say he couldn't fight.


A "Batman Returns" line i like also:

Penguin in Batman's face: "You don't really think you'll win do you?"

That lines a Classic.

yea cuz Batman totally didn't kill Two-Face by throwing coins in the air and letting him plunge to his death in Batman Forever....

Originally posted by FistOfThe North



A "Batman Returns" line i like also:

Penguin in Batman's face: "You don't really think you'll win do you?"

That lines a Classic.

A classic scene that was.

I loved it.

"I played this stinkin city like a harp from hell" I like that line.

i liked "eat floor, high fiber"

Guard: don't kill us lady!

Guard: we only make 300 bucks a week!

Catwoman: get lost..your over payed. (think that's how the lines went)

Catwoman: You and I have something in common.
Penguin: Sounds familiar.Appetite for destruction?? Contempt for the zsars of fashion?? Wait don't tell me.Naked sexual charisma.
Catwoman: Batman.The thorn in both our sides.The fly in our ointment.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
BATMAN BEGINS is 100 times better

Earlier on you found an understatement

Well now i've found an overstatement

To say that "Batman Begins" was 100 times better than "Batman" '89 is pushing it and smells of fan-boyism.


You also said something along the lines of, according to you, from now on, "Batman Begins" is the 1st true action "Batman" movie i started lmao.

"Batman Begins" had more drama than action more than that any of the previous Batman movies. Don't get it twisted, guy.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Lol, I read in one of your post that Keaton as Batman was pudgy, short and bald? That made me lowly chuckle..Keaton as batman rocked. And can you tell me whom Burton's Batman killed?, because i don't recall, not saying he didn't, just askin' you to refresh my memory.

Kilmer was a Joke as the Batman and don't get me started on Cloony, lol. Keaton gave me the best and most convincing Batman impression out of all the movies. And Keaton wasn't as you describe, you falsified his appearance, don't do that. He was slim, he was fit. He wasn't short, he looked great in the bat suit and he kicked ass. What about when he was fighting those thugs in the alleyway, what about when he blocked every single hit that double machete-wielding Asian thug delivered. I saw about 6 clean skillful blocks in a row, with his arms and legs, in that scene, only to make the dude somersault, knocking his ass out. That was part was frikken kick ass. So don't say he couldn't fight.


A "Batman Returns" line i like also:

Penguin in Batman's face: "You don't really think you'll win do you?"

That lines a Classic.

Your clearly in a world of denial here because your the ONLY Burton apologist batman fan-"someone who refuses to see the shortcomings and failures of burtons horrible batman films." your the only one on here I have encountered that has gone to the extents of denying that Keaton was short,pudgy and half bald.All the other burton apologists at least have all acknowledge he wasnt physically right for the role and had the wrong look.Their weak argument has always been _sure he wasnt physically right for the role but he was a great batman because he did such a great job in his role.That is a bad argument as well because according to that logic,if a guy is 400 pounds and is 5 feet tall is considered the best actor in the world,then according to that kind of logic,he should be cast for batman.your chuckling about that because your clearly living in denial on that count.

Okay Keatons Batman killed people in cowardly ways when he drove the unmanned batmobile into the jokers warehouse with clear intentions to murder those thugs by dropping the bomb right in front of them.That was so cowardly of batman to do that.Then there is the end when he shot the batarang at joker and caused him to fall to his death.He caused his death and regardless of the jokers past actions batman should have been wanted for murder at the end by the police instead of them treating him like a damn hero.thats horrible screenwriting at its worst.Then there is Batman returns where again,like a coward,he puts a bomb in the pants of one of the goons of the penguins.Burton made batman into such a cowardly killer,I was hoping he would die in the first batman movie,him killing people like that makes him no better of a person than those criminals.Those kind of things would have been good in a punisher movie,but this is a batman movie for god sakes.Burton butchered to death his character.Even in the begiing when batman carries a gun and killed people,he only did so when he absolutely had to and there was no other way>he never did it in such cowardly ways that burton had him doing it with the clear intentions to murder people.

NO that was Keaton that was a joke as batman because you obviously missed again batman is NOT a short runt who gets the crap beat out of him by one guy. The proof is in the pudding that keaton is a short runt.just freeze the VCR sometime and as bruce wayne,it shows he is no taller than kim basinger is in his scenes with her.You must need glasses if you never noticed that.again your living in a world of denial here.Underneath his shirt you can clearly see a pudgy belly sticking out as bruce wayne.I also just proved to you that he was in fact a short runt. next thing your going to say is he had a full set of hair in your desperate attempts to show he was a good batman.

Thats what is so inexcusable about burtons batman films is how he somehow beats up those guys and then later gets the crap beat out of him by ONE goon,the jokers at the end.a guy with no special fighting skills.horrible and inconsistent screenwriting.


Oh and about clooney,dont worry,you wont get any argument from me on that one.I would say he was an even worse choice for batman than keaton was.Clooney is one ugly looking dude and this guy gets cast for handsome bruce wayne? just like keaton,he was a joke as batman as well.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Earlier on you found an understatement

Well now i've found an overstatement

To say that "Batman Begins" was 100 times better than "Batman" '89 is pushing it and smells of fan-boyism.


You also said something along the lines of, according to you, from now on, "Batman Begins" is the 1st true action "Batman" movie i started lmao.

"Batman Begins" had more drama than action more than that any of the previous Batman movies. Don't get it twisted, guy.



No its not because any true batman fan-the ones that dont accept those crapfest burton/schumacher batman films would see those films for what they are.Pure crap.The only thing that Burton did right in the first film was casting Kim Basinger as Vickie Vale.She is the ONLY thing that makes the first film worth sitting through.The other scenes without her is when its time to fastforward the VCR. your getting it twisted that Keaton wasnt a short runt and half bald dude.Yes Batman Begins is the first true live action batman movie and Begins actually had a nice balance of action and drama in it unlike those crapfest Burton films.Thats why I say Batman Forever is by far much better than that crapfest batman 89 because batman 89 was boring as hell.The first hour in half all they did was stand around talking the whole damn time with just a few actions scenes here and there and the action didnt begin till the last 30 minutes of the movie.boring boring boring.at least forever had a lot more action in it like a batman movie SHOULD have.thats insane for a batman movie to have them just stand around and talk most the time.

Long live BTAS

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Your clearly in a world of denial here because your the ONLY Burton apologist batman fan-"someone who refuses to see the shortcomings and failures of burtons horrible batman films." your the only one on here I have encountered that has gone to the extents of denying that Keaton was short,pudgy and half bald.All the other burton apologists at least have all acknowledge he wasnt physically right for the role and had the wrong look.Their weak argument has always been _sure he wasnt physically right for the role but he was a great batman because he did such a great job in his role.That is a bad argument as well because according to that logic,if a guy is 400 pounds and is 5 feet tall is considered the best actor in the world,then according to that kind of logic,he should be cast for batman.your chuckling about that because your clearly living in denial on that count.

Okay Keatons Batman killed people in cowardly ways when he drove the unmanned batmobile into the jokers warehouse with clear intentions to murder those thugs by dropping the bomb right in front of them.That was so cowardly of batman to do that.Then there is the end when he shot the batarang at joker and caused him to fall to his death.He caused his death and regardless of the jokers past actions batman should have been wanted for murder at the end by the police instead of them treating him like a damn hero.thats horrible screenwriting at its worst.Then there is Batman returns where again,like a coward,he puts a bomb in the pants of one of the goons of the penguins.Burton made batman into such a cowardly killer,I was hoping he would die in the first batman movie,him killing people like that makes him no better of a person than those criminals.Those kind of things would have been good in a punisher movie,but this is a batman movie for god sakes.Burton butchered to death his character.Even in the begiing when batman carries a gun and killed people,he only did so when he absolutely had to and there was no other way>he never did it in such cowardly ways that burton had him doing it with the clear intentions to murder people.

NO that was Keaton that was a joke as batman because you obviously missed again batman is NOT a short runt who gets the crap beat out of him by one guy. The proof is in the pudding that keaton is a short runt.just freeze the VCR sometime and as bruce wayne,it shows he is no taller than kim basinger is in his scenes with her.You must need glasses if you never noticed that.again your living in a world of denial here.Underneath his shirt you can clearly see a pudgy belly sticking out as bruce wayne.I also just proved to you that he was in fact a short runt. next thing your going to say is he had a full set of hair in your desperate attempts to show he was a good batman.

Thats what is so inexcusable about burtons batman films is how he somehow beats up those guys and then later gets the crap beat out of him by ONE goon,the jokers at the end.a guy with no special fighting skills.horrible and inconsistent screenwriting.


Oh and about clooney,dont worry,you wont get any argument from me on that one.I would say he was an even worse choice for batman than keaton was.Clooney is one ugly looking dude and this guy gets cast for handsome bruce wayne? just like keaton,he was a joke as batman as well.

How can I refuse to see short comings and failures that aren't there.

You know what, I'll have to re-watch Batman '89 in order to see what you somehow and apparently see that no one I know, including "true" Batman fans don't see at all. I'm not saying your perspectives aren't in the film, just wanna see if they really are in there for myself. But since i haven't seen it in like a year, i wont elaborate much in this discussion because, like i said i wanna re-watch the film again due to the fact that i'm not closed minded even though you said im in denial which your wrong in, of course, but I digress.

You said Keaton as Batman was pudgy which basically means you're calling him short and fat, literally. Look it up. Keaton was in no way short and fat. Christian Bale as height Bruce Wayne is 6' (1.83 m). http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/bio . Micheal Keatons height as Bruce was 5' 10" (1.78 m) . http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000474/bio
Are you telling me that Keaton being shorter than Bale as Bruce Wayne, by only a mere 2 inches makes Keaton short pudgy and "horribly cast" as you said on a previous post, as Batman? And did you ever even considered the fact that Vikki Vale was probably as tall as Keaton/Wayne was because of the high stiletto heels she always had on?

Ok. Keatons Batman killed no one in cowardly ways when he drove the unmanned batmobile into the jokers warehouse. He was destroying an immanent terrorist threat. The building along with any other threats, but the building mostly. Batman is a detective and detectives are similar to cops kinda. And sometimes cops kill thugs for good reasons, one of them is imminent threat. Are those cops cowardly for killing thugs that almost kill them. If your answers yes than your in the minority buddy. Just like your in the minority in saying Batman '89 sucked. But to each his own right?

So Batman is, in your words, "a cowardly killer" because he put a bomb in the pants of that one goon that tried to kill him. What would you have done? Say "stoppit!" lol or "shoo" maybe. To me, Batman would've been a coward if he didn't do what he did. And thats beside the fact that Batman was pissed off out of his mind already. He about had it with the Penguin and goons at that point. ANd I don't recall Batman carrying a gun and killing people as you said.

Ah the biggest Batman '89 misconception: Batman killed the Joker. Batman did not kill the Joker. Batman merely attached his batarang around the Jokers ankle with the intention of not allowing him to escape or capturing him, not murder him as you so falsely believe. And obviously and with reason, given the moment, Batman, like anyone else, didn't take into account how much the Joker's fat arse weighed and/or how strong the statue was. But to say Batman intentionally killed the Joker would be incorrect. Why do you think Batman kept a shocked glare down at the Joker as he fell. It was as if Batman couldn't believe the Joker fell.

I think you need trifocals more than i need the glasses because I dont think you clearly saw in Batman '89 when the Batjet crashed into the church head on. You try telling me how you feel after a plane crash. Then after you tell me how you feel, climb 50 or more stories and fight a well rested bulky goon that wants you tears you to shreds, but remember you have to beat him, just like Batman did. Then tell me, ok.

And your Cloony remark about him being ugly, id have to say nothing about it. I dont know what an ugly guy looks, I'm hetro. And didn't people mag vote him like the sexiest guy alive a couple of years ago? I thought girls went nuts over Clooney..

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No its not because any true batman fan-the ones that dont accept those crapfest burton/schumacher batman films would see those films for what they are.Pure crap.The only thing that Burton did right in the first film was casting Kim Basinger as Vickie Vale.She is the ONLY thing that makes the first film worth sitting through.The other scenes without her is when its time to fastforward the VCR. your getting it twisted that Keaton wasnt a short runt and half bald dude.Yes Batman Begins is the first true live action batman movie and Begins actually had a nice balance of action and drama in it unlike those crapfest Burton films.Thats why I say Batman Forever is by far much better than that crapfest batman 89 because batman 89 was boring as hell.The first hour in half all they did was stand around talking the whole damn time with just a few actions scenes here and there and the action didnt begin till the last 30 minutes of the movie.boring boring boring.at least forever had a lot more action in it like a batman movie SHOULD have.thats insane for a batman movie to have them just stand around and talk most the time.

Are you insinuating that "true" Batman fans are not true if they like Batman '89. If so you, you're just being comical now.

So, to you, Vikki Vale was the ONLY thing that made the first film worth sitting through? Why, cause she was cute? Not very subtle, are you.

I've been using my "Batman Forever" DVD case with Dvd in it, as a doorstop, ever since the first and last time seeing the film. "Forever" sucked so hard, lol.

You must be crazier than the Joker if you think anything Batman is filled with non-stop action from beginning to end. You made it sound like that when you wrote " a lot more action in it like a batman movie SHOULD have."..Any story with too much action and little depth is doomed to fail.

First of all: michael keaton isnt 5,10, he is shorter. Jack nicholson is like 5'8 and he was taller than keaton. Keaton is 5'7 as much. See his movies and compare his height with another actors. Shorter than jack nicholson, matthew moddine, melanie grifith, robert de niro, keneth branagh, alec baldwin, geena davies, denzel washintong, etc.

Bale is 6'1, compare his height in his another movies with another actors.

Batman begins have a very nice balance between action and drama. The burton movies were more about weird things and boring dialogues of the villains than action. The schumacher films were the same but more gay.

The correct way to make a batman movie is get a nice balance between drama and action, not one thing more than the other, and batman begins did it in a fine way.

Yeah, forever sucked, as the other three films sucked as well.

That is a poor excuse for batman being beat by that goon of the joker. Batman is martial arts artist, that isnt a valid excuse. He didnt look that hurted when he beat the crap of the joker.

That is simlply false. Batman knowed that the cathedra was in a bad condition. See how the jokers breaked the wall only with a few kicks. Batman isnt an idiot , he knowed that if he trapped the joker with the batarang to the gargoyle, the helicopter could break that runied gargoyle. Come one, batman is a very clever man, even an idiot could see that. What a poor excuse.

Keaton was short and out of sharpe. You are the one how need glasses.

Any true batman fan could see that the four previous movies were totally unfaithful to the comics and bad movies, that didnt any kind of justice to the character. Batman beings did.

Originally posted by bakerboy
First of all: michael keaton isnt 5,10, he is shorter. Jack nicholson is like 5'8 and he was taller than keaton. Keaton is 5'7 as much. See his movies and compare his height with another actors. Shorter than jack nicholson, matthew moddine, melanie grifith, robert de niro, keneth branagh, alec baldwin, geena davies, denzel washintong, etc.

Bale is 6'1, compare his height in his another movies with another actors.

That is a poor excuse for batman being beat by that goon of the joker. Batman is martial arts artist, that isnt a valid excuse. He didnt look that hurted when he beat the crap of the joker.

That is simlply false. Batman knowed that the cathedra was in a bad condition. See how the jokers breaked the wall only with a few kicks. Batman isnt an idiot , he knowed that if he trapped the joker with the batarang to the gargoyle, the helicopter could break that runied gargoyle. Come one, batman is a very clever man, even an idiot could see that. What a poor excuse.

Keaton was short and out of sharpe. You are the one how need glasses.


Again, Christian Bale's height as Bruce Wayne is 6' (1.83 m). http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/bio . Micheal Keatons height as Bruce was 5' 10" (1.78 m) . http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000474/bio

So plane-crashing dead on into a cathedral and surviving, getting out and then climbing up 50 or more flights to face a well rested muscle-headed goon is a poor and invalid excuse for Batman getting hit a few times even though Batman defeated the guy? lol

Wake up and smell the Foldgers.

And hey, I may need glasses to you, which I don't, but at least my spelling is "sharpe",

like me..

We are talking here about batman, not about spelling, if you want to talk crap about spelling, go to a school or something.

If you think that those heights of imdb are the bible, you are on crack. There are a lot of height mistakes in that page. Only see the reality, compare their heights with another people heights in the movies. Keaton isnt 5'10 and bale is 6'1.

I repeat, batman has being even more hurted in the comics and he did beat the crap of people like killer croc, clayface or man-bat, who are monsters of superhuman strenght. Batman, as a martial arts expert, could beat that guy more easily that he had in the movie, even with the plane crash and all.

Nex time post some arguments more reasonable, because those ones are just crap.

I thought Batman in his first movie was more of a boogeyman..the way they portrayed him. He wasn't supposed to be "in your face, i'll kick ur ass" sorta guy. Kinda like how they did him in Batman Begins as well...he just appears and disappears

Look at him in the VERY FIRST scene. He let those guys shoot bullets into him, he fell, and the moment they turned around, they saw his shadow come up and then he kicked their asses. Same as the alley scene when they were about to take off his mask. He's always playing dead....so he can come back to life and be more intimidating.

His defeating that goon served the same purpose. He let the guy tire himself out and throw a few punches at him, relying on armor to protect him. And guess what? IT WORKED. The guy threw him off the ledge and the next moment, two legs come up to grab him and toss him off. That's just the way he's portrayed. You hit him and just when you think he's done for, he comes back to haunt you.

and dude...I CAN BEAT UP the Joker. Batman not showing how hurt he was when he was beating up Joker means nothing. It just means Joker can't fight for sh*t...why else would he needs thugs protecting him? And when Joker did punch him, he just stood there and let his armor do the work. That's the essence of the what scares the sh*t out of criminals..the fact that Batman is this fearful presence that just can't be killed.

Man, that is bullshit. Batman didnt let that goon to gave him some punches, he WAS LOOSING THE FIGHT. He didnt any martial arts movement, what a joke. Keaton batman was only a boogeyman,as you said, but batman is supposed to be a combination of a boogeyman in a bat costume and a martial arts artist, and that wasnt in the movie. Keaton was a poor fighter and he only did beat that goon with luck and tricks. Nothing more.

And i dont care if the joker cant fight, if batman would be so hurted as some people try to say, he would be hurted fighting any person, even the joker. I dont remember any pain in his face when he was fighting the joker.

Ok..I guess you totally forgot bout the whole alley scene when he threw some of the most memorable martial arts skills that is always played in the trailers and commercials. Naw...that didn't happen AT ALL.

And guess what? That's what Batman is. Half of the time he's CHEATING...because that's how he functions. Tricks and all that...that's what makes Batman so awesome, because he doenst' have to go into boxing matches with anyone short of Bane.

Batman wasn't really fighting Joker. They exchanged a few blows and like i said, it doesnt' take much to kick Joker's ass.

So what did you want Batman to do when JOker was "fighting" him? Grunt and rub his stomach with a tear swelling in his right eye? Then unleash some Matrixy Kungfu on that clown's ass? That was the finale and I'm sorry it wasn't a slugfest like you wanted it to be.

Don't get worked up because I have a different perspective (i mean "bullsh*t" than you. I'm sure Mr Parker would flock to your protection any minute now. Probably with the lines: "Well said, Bakerboy"

Hahaha. Good one. So, the scene in the alley is one of the most memorable moments of martial arts skills? Man, surely you dont have seen any martial arts movie. Because those martial arts from keaton were slow as hell and pathetic as much.

Go and read more batman comics. Batman is a combination of gadgets , intelligence and martial arts. The first one was in the movie, the second and third one were pathetic showed.

Mmmmm, he wasnt figthing the joker. So, the great batman of keaton punched the joker three or four times with all his rage and fury , the powerful batman of keaton, and even that wasnt enought to beat the crap of the old and poor joker, who throwed batman and vicky out of the cathedral roof.

The last part of your post is only nonsense and garbage. I post my opinion and my point of view, i dont search for any lines back me up. That is totally absurd.

Yea....too bad your response to any other people's opinion is "THAT'S BULLSHIT" Good debating skills, top notch.

And now you're seriously just digging for details. What I'm saying is in that alley scene, he demonstrated martial arts skill that people REMEMBER in a Batman movie. Yes, with all the knives, the kicks, and the music theme in the background. That, my friend is what constitutes memorable. If I you wanted Iron Monkey or Once Upon a Time in China or Fists of Fury, check your calendar and remember this was 1989....before the advent of Matrix telling Hollywood they needed to beef up on their kungfu choreagraphy. The only other scene I can remember where Bats was this good was in BF when he did the spread-eagled kick to those goons faces.

As for Bats punching Joker....YES, he punched him off the roof. What's your point? IT WASN'T a slugfest. And did you simply give up on your bewilderment that he showed no pain when Joker punched him?

Originally posted by bakerboy
The last part of your post is only nonsense and garbage. I post my opinion and my point of view, i dont search for any lines back me up. That is totally absurd.

BUT...YOU KNOW it will happen. That's why it's so amusing

Dude, you are mixing the things. If you see many movies from 1989 or before, there are many fight scenes better than that scene from the alley. In that scene, keaton showed poor fighting skills. Not as batman is supposed to be.

Kilmer was a way better fighter, and bale, off course. Compare their fighting scenes with keaton's.

My point is that if batman would be so hurted by the plane crash as you are trying to say, he wouldnt be able to fight any man or woman. He wasnt that hurted, that is an excuse. He was in enough condition to fight, but he showed poor fighting skills. Its very clear.

Batman rocks, Batman returns rocks, Batman Begins rocks slightly, and i mean slightly more...at times i like the new version and at times i like the old...B89 and BR had some of the most kick ass villians in movie history...that is one reason why i like those better sometimes...BB had some cool villians, but they were not as entertaining to me...BB had the better story line...

I loved Batman Begins...don't get me wrong. But I think most people would agree the fighting scenes in which Bale was Batman (not talking about when he was in training) weren't that great. EVEN if he was doing something good, it wasn't depicted that clearly in the movie. As for Kilmer in BF, I think he did a decent job with the fighting...like I said, I remember the spread-eaged kick quite well. The next kick where he just kicks the guy who was flashing his hands was a straight copy of what Keaton did in 89 with that Asian thug with the knives.

And MY point is that even though Batman's very hurt by the crash, Joker is still no martial arts thug. Therefore, Bats WOULDN'T need to feel pain (protected by armor) or be intimidated or have to come up with fancy tricks (like he did with the big goon). He just decks him, false teeth went flying, and then walks menacingly towards Joker. In fact, he overestimated Joker because the moment he punched Joker off the roof, he thought it was over but Joker came up to grab him.

Anyways, those are my 2 cents. At least I hope we agree the fighting in B&R doesn't even need mentioning...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Again, Christian Bale's height as Bruce Wayne is 6' (1.83 m). http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/bio . Micheal Keatons height as Bruce was 5' 10" (1.78 m) . http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000474/bio

So plane-crashing dead on into a cathedral and surviving, getting out and then climbing up 50 or more flights to face a well rested muscle-headed goon is a poor and invalid excuse for Batman getting hit a few times even though Batman defeated the guy? lol

Wake up and smell the Foldgers.

And hey, I may need glasses to you, which I don't, but at least my spelling is "sharpe",

like me..

Even if he is 5'10,thats just average at best for a male.For a character like Batman that is ideed a short runt. Yes that is an extremely poor excuse that the apologists such as yourself like to cling to because he was hardly seriously injured.YOU need to wake up and smell the folgers and stop apogizing for the shortcomings and failures of this film.He was walking at a very rapid pace once he got to the cathredral and he could have easily have taken out that goon with one karate punch so yes that is indeed a poor and flimsy excuse.in your OWN words,wake up and smell the folger.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
How can I refuse to see short comings and failures that aren't there.

You know what, I'll have to re-watch Batman '89 in order to see what you somehow and apparently see that no one I know, including "true" Batman fans don't see at all. I'm not saying your perspectives aren't in the film, just wanna see if they really are in there for myself. But since i haven't seen it in like a year, i wont elaborate much in this discussion because, like i said i wanna re-watch the film again due to the fact that i'm not closed minded even though you said im in denial which your wrong in, of course, but I digress.

You said Keaton as Batman was pudgy which basically means you're calling him short and fat, literally. Look it up. Keaton was in no way short and fat. Christian Bale as height Bruce Wayne is 6' (1.83 m). http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/bio . Micheal Keatons height as Bruce was 5' 10" (1.78 m) . http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000474/bio
Are you telling me that Keaton being shorter than Bale as Bruce Wayne, by only a mere 2 inches makes Keaton short pudgy and "horribly cast" as you said on a previous post, as Batman? And did you ever even considered the fact that Vikki Vale was probably as tall as Keaton/Wayne was because of the high stiletto heels she always had on?

Ok. Keatons Batman killed no one in cowardly ways when he drove the unmanned batmobile into the jokers warehouse. He was destroying an immanent terrorist threat. The building along with any other threats, but the building mostly. Batman is a detective and detectives are similar to cops kinda. And sometimes cops kill thugs for good reasons, one of them is imminent threat. Are those cops cowardly for killing thugs that almost kill them. If your answers yes than your in the minority buddy. Just like your in the minority in saying Batman '89 sucked. But to each his own right?

So Batman is, in your words, "a cowardly killer" because he put a bomb in the pants of that one goon that tried to kill him. What would you have done? Say "stoppit!" lol or "shoo" maybe. To me, Batman would've been a coward if he didn't do what he did. And thats beside the fact that Batman was pissed off out of his mind already. He about had it with the Penguin and goons at that point. ANd I don't recall Batman carrying a gun and killing people as you said.

Ah the biggest Batman '89 misconception: Batman killed the Joker. Batman did not kill the Joker. Batman merely attached his batarang around the Jokers ankle with the intention of not allowing him to escape or capturing him, not murder him as you so falsely believe. And obviously and with reason, given the moment, Batman, like anyone else, didn't take into account how much the Joker's fat arse weighed and/or how strong the statue was. But to say Batman intentionally killed the Joker would be incorrect. Why do you think Batman kept a shocked glare down at the Joker as he fell. It was as if Batman couldn't believe the Joker fell.

I think you need trifocals more than i need the glasses because I dont think you clearly saw in Batman '89 when the Batjet crashed into the church head on. You try telling me how you feel after a plane crash. Then after you tell me how you feel, climb 50 or more stories and fight a well rested bulky goon that wants you tears you to shreds, but remember you have to beat him, just like Batman did. Then tell me, ok.

And your Cloony remark about him being ugly, id have to say nothing about it. I dont know what an ugly guy looks, I'm hetro. And didn't people mag vote him like the sexiest guy alive a couple of years ago? I thought girls went nuts over Clooney..

Im saying he is pudgy because you can clearly see he has a pudgy belly sticking out from under that shirt and he clearly had a receding hairline back then and was half bald which =horrible miscasting.

Yes he was totally being a coward about that your just in denial on that.His life was never in danger and killing those goons was completely cowardly of him,you need to stop living in denial on that.Batman is NOT authorized by the police dude to go around and kill criminals,he should have been wanted for murder for that.When cops do the kind of thing like batman did,thats considered breaking the law,there are crooked cops out there you know. Batman could have if he wanted to,capture those goons without killing them,he has all kinds of ways he could do that with his resources he has available.I am talking about the comics when batman carried a gun and shot and killed people but even back then he only did it when there was no other way out and he had no other choice,not the cowardly ways burton had him do it.Again it was not neccessary for him to put that bomb in the penguins goons pants so that was extremely cowardly of him.batman isnt authorized by the police to kill people,this isnt a punisher movie where that would have been appropriate,wake up and smell the folgers.

Yes Batman should have been wanted for murder at the end for the joker,regardless of the jokers past actions,batman is no better a person than those criminals or the joker if he kills them.You go out and kill a known criminal in front of cops that are wanting to capture a criminal,guess what? Ill see you in jail.Batman would have gone to jail as well,horrible screenwriting and not at all believeable. Begins WAS believeable because other than Gordon,the police wanted to track Batman down and capture him.Thats why Begins unlike Burtons Batman movies,had realisem in it.

The people who run people magazine are idiots they have made some horrible choices like that several times in the past so that wasnt surprising to me when they said that about clooney.

OMG some peeps are taking this way to seriously,please out of curiosity how long does it take to write essay answers?????i doubt anyone reads them
now for my opinion B89 and BR rocked bigtime,it showed a dark and gothic side to batman,and you say he killed joker and penguin right,well i dont think he killed them,he just didnt save them.which is what he did to ra's in BB so dont say batman never killed anyone in BB

Are you kidding???

The early Batman was more of a coward, if we go by your way of thinking.

He could have easily brought the Red Hood alive, But all he did was killed the RED HOOD in his sleep. Batman's life was not in danger, and the Red Hood was as helpless as one could get, being a sleep and all.

come on, Bats89 is the better movie, and I have giving up trying to make you see the light.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Are you insinuating that "true" Batman fans are not true if they like Batman '89. If so you, you're just being comical now.

So, to you, Vikki Vale was the ONLY thing that made the first film worth sitting through? Why, cause she was cute? Not very subtle, are you.

I've been using my "Batman Forever" DVD case with Dvd in it, as a doorstop, ever since the first and last time seeing the film. "Forever" sucked so hard, lol.

You must be crazier than the Joker if you think anything Batman is filled with non-stop action from beginning to end. You made it sound like that when you wrote " a lot more action in it like a batman movie SHOULD have."..Any story with too much action and little depth is doomed to fail.

yeah and its comical that people like you can call yourself a true fan to accept those crappy burton batman fans that so much betrayed the comicbook.yes kim basinger is the only thing that makes that movie worth sitting through because batman 89 like all the burton/schumacher movies were horribly miscast.Keaton as batman,Jack nicholson as the joker.He was a great joker but thats not the build that the joker has.Ceasar romero is the true joker brought to life from the comicbooks.Thats just it though Batman begins did NOT have too much action and little depth,thats why it was a great movie and thats why forever is better than the first two because it wasnt extremely boring like the first two films.sorry but a batman movie where they are just standing around the first hour in a half with little action in it=crappy batman movie which is what the first two films are.btw,bakerboy is right,the people that listed keatons height at that site totally got it wrong because as bakerboy said so well,in all of keatons other movies,he is standing next to actors who aer very short actors such as Henry winkler,melanie griffith,winkler and griffith are only like 5'6" inches tall and so is jack nicholson.In batman 89 it shows keaton standing next to nicholson and not only is he not taller than nicholson he is no taller than melanie griffith and henry winkler in the films he is in with them,the pics clearly show him at the same height as they are,proof that he is a short runt. those statistics obviously measured him with high heels on wehn they took the measurements of his height because keaton is clearly not 5'10" in his movies.as bakerboy said so well,put bale next to people like aleck baldwin and denzel washington,guys that stand 6'2" and he will compare favorably as the same height as them where keaton compares favorably well as the same heights as people such as nicholson and henry winkler,men who are known for sure to only be 5'6" so that 5'10'' measurement of keaton is false.as I said,maybe in real high heels he is but not in normal shoes.normal shoes he is only 5'6" obviously.

Originally posted by Joker1237
Are you kidding???

The early Batman was more of a coward, if we go by your way of thinking.

He could have easily brought the Red Hood alive, But all he did was killed the RED HOOD in his sleep. Batman's life was not in danger, and the Red Hood was as helpless as one could get, being a sleep and all.

come on, Bats89 is the better movie, and I have giving up trying to make you see the light.

thats because its YOU who refuse to see the light. as I just proved batman is not a short runt who is half bald and out of shape with a receding hairline like keaton.not only is batman 89 crap its worse than batman forever,kilmer at least looked the role of bruce wayne. lets see proof that he killed whats his name in his sleep,even if you have that proof,just because it happened in the comics doesnt mean it should happen in the movie because thats not believeable screenwriting for batman to not be wanted for murder at the end for thje joker,thats horrible screenwriting. thats why begins is far superiour because it had realisem in it because even though batman did not kill anybody,he was still wanted by the police and they tried to capture him.when that police commissioner said-I want him,nobody takes the law into thier own hands.Not in my town.that was realisem because in real life,nobody is allowed to take the law into their own hands.batman begins =realisem batman 89=no realisem and horrible screenplay.you like others,just choose to live in denial on that though.

Originally posted by SpyCspider
Yea....too bad your response to any other people's opinion is "THAT'S BULLSHIT" Good debating skills, top notch.

And now you're seriously just digging for details. What I'm saying is in that alley scene, he demonstrated martial arts skill that people REMEMBER in a Batman movie. Yes, with all the knives, the kicks, and the music theme in the background. That, my friend is what constitutes memorable. If I you wanted Iron Monkey or Once Upon a Time in China or Fists of Fury, check your calendar and remember this was 1989....before the advent of Matrix telling Hollywood they needed to beef up on their kungfu choreagraphy. The only other scene I can remember where Bats was this good was in BF when he did the spread-eagled kick to those goons faces.

As for Bats punching Joker....YES, he punched him off the roof. What's your point? IT WASN'T a slugfest. And did you simply give up on your bewilderment that he showed no pain when Joker punched him?

Maybe he said that because what you said is total bullshit.It was clear to anybody that has logic and common sense that batman was clearly loosing that fight and getting the crap beat out of him,your just grasping at straws coming up with that wild insane theory because you dont want to admit the truth that he was a wimp that could have easily have beaten that goon with no problems whatsoever if he really wanted to.The batman from the comics easily could have done that. your logic is as laughable as jokers and that other guys is.stick with that other laughable argument that the reason he got beat up so bad by him was he just crashed the plane,either way both theory's are grasping at straws because batman was not anywhere near as hurt as you all make him out to.the way you all make him out to be is he had 2 broken arms,a broken leg and was crawling at snails pace up the stairs,now in THAT instance you would have a good argument that he got beat up so badly because of the plane crash.But the worst that happened to him was he just had minor scars on the cheek and a few bruises,that is very crystal clear in the movie that he is hardly seriously wounded the way you all like to make him out to be.

Red Hood vs Batman, Batman kills Red Hood in his sleep,

Detectvie comics no 32, Octber 1939.


Proof.

The guy was a sleep, and Batman opens fire on the Red Hood and his mistress. I mean you complain about Burton;s Batman killing, but the early Batman was more of a cold blooded killer.

oh yeah, I HAVE THAT COMIC.

And a remake of the comic. and no I dont have a scanner

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Maybe he said that because what you said is total bullshit.It was clear to anybody that has logic and common sense that batman was clearly loosing that fight and getting the crap beat out of him,your just grasping at straws coming up with that wild insane theory because you dont want to admit the truth that he was a wimp that could have easily have beaten that goon with no problems whatsoever if he really wanted to.The batman from the comics easily could have done that. your logic is as laughable as jokers and that other guys is.stick with that other laughable argument that the reason he got beat up so bad by him was he just crashed the plane,either way both theory's are grasping at straws because batman was not anywhere near as hurt as you all make him out to.the way you all make him out to be is he had 2 broken arms,a broken leg and was crawling at snails pace up the stairs,now in THAT instance you would have a good argument that he got beat up so badly because of the plane crash.But the worst that happened to him was he just had minor scars on the cheek and a few bruises,that is very crystal clear in the movie that he is hardly seriously wounded the way you all like to make him out to be.

first of all...how old are you Mr. Parker? Learn how to type English properly...you know, with punctuations so nobody will have to read your run-on essays about the same repeated thing over and over again. And ease up with the "roll-eyes" smilies...they don't help your argument much.

As for whether Batman was hurt or not, READ MY EXPLANATIONS, genius. I said Batman was a boogieman who CHEATS and uses deception in order to win. Even if he was hurt and the guy seemed to have the upper hand, he found a way to defeat him through TACTICS. In 89, he almost always lets the bad guys think they've beaten him. They shot at him in the very beginning. They shot at him in the alley. He bounces back and serves a can of whupass before they realize what was going on. That's what freaks them out...this haunting boogieman image.

DON'T WEEP, however; I enjoyed what Kilmer did as well in BF with the fighting scenes. So there, happy now?

Unlike your debates, I can actually understand and respect Bakerboy 's. I'm surprised you didn't say "well said, Bakerboy" however. That would've made MY DAY.

As Wolverine said to Spidey in Marvel Knights: "man up Parker, it's just a scratch..."
Over and out.

Imo, Batman89 is the best. Followed by Begins and Returns.

Hey I dont have time to look through every mistake I make when I get on the net because Im always rushed all the time.As soon as you stop making points that are insane then the rolleyes will dissapear.

That was not a tactic of his.He only got lucky by falling into that hole,that wasnt planned.He just took advantage of his luck that he got at that moment.

Originally posted by Joker1237
Red Hood vs Batman, Batman kills Red Hood in his sleep,

Detectvie comics no 32, Octber 1939.


Proof.

The guy was a sleep, and Batman opens fire on the Red Hood and his mistress. I mean you complain about Burton;s Batman killing, but the early Batman was more of a cold blooded killer.

Well Like I said before,even if that really did happen in the comics that doesnt mean it should happen in the movie that he should kill like a coward.Its not at all realistic for him to kill criminals and for the police to not care about that to not hunt him down like a murderer.The comics you can get away with it but a movie you cant because there is a fine line on realisem and Burton crossed that line big time.

btw,now that we are talking about batman killing people in cowardly ways I was flipping through channels last night and by accident I came across batman returns and I have tried to forget that other horrible burton movie so I forgot about the other instance where he gets the batmobiles engines in front of that goon of the penguins and purposely ignites the engines flaming him.Man Burton made him into just as much of a sadistic killer as Joker is and no better a person than criminals are.After sitting through that crapfest last night,I was reminded why I cant sit thorugh that one.as horrible of a story as batman 89 is,the screenplay for batman returns is twice as worse.The character of penguin was a disgrace to the comics.The joker was at least well done.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well Like I said before,even if that really did happen in the comics that doesnt mean it should happen in the movie that he should kill like a coward.Its not at all realistic for him to kill criminals and for the police to not care about that to not hunt him down like a murderer.The comics you can get away with it but a movie you cant because there is a fine line on realisem and Burton crossed that line big time.

btw,now that we are talking about batman killing people in cowardly ways I was flipping through channels last night and by accident I came across batman returns and I have tried to forget that other horrible burton movie so I forgot about the other instance where he gets the batmobiles engines in front of that goon of the penguins and purposely ignites the engines flaming him.Man Burton made him into just as much of a sadistic killer as Joker is and no better a person than criminals are.After sitting through that crapfest last night,I was reminded why I cant sit thorugh that one.as horrible of a story as batman 89 is,the screenplay for batman returns is twice as worse.The character of penguin was a disgrace to the comics.The joker was at least well done.

i had trouble sitting through Batman 89...so i just skipped chapters to the non boring parts.

Originally posted by SpyCspider
I thought Batman in his first movie was more of a boogeyman..the way they portrayed him. He wasn't supposed to be "in your face, i'll kick ur ass" sorta guy. Kinda like how they did him in Batman Begins as well...he just appears and disappears

Look at him in the VERY FIRST scene. He let those guys shoot bullets into him, he fell, and the moment they turned around, they saw his shadow come up and then he kicked their asses. Same as the alley scene when they were about to take off his mask. He's always playing dead....so he can come back to life and be more intimidating.

His defeating that goon served the same purpose. He let the guy tire himself out and throw a few punches at him, relying on armor to protect him. And guess what? IT WORKED. The guy threw him off the ledge and the next moment, two legs come up to grab him and toss him off. That's just the way he's portrayed. You hit him and just when you think he's done for, he comes back to haunt you.

and dude...I CAN BEAT UP the Joker. Batman not showing how hurt he was when he was beating up Joker means nothing. It just means Joker can't fight for sh*t...why else would he needs thugs protecting him? And when Joker did punch him, he just stood there and let his armor do the work. That's the essence of the what scares the sh*t out of criminals..the fact that Batman is this fearful presence that just can't be killed.

by thw way your tactics point is irrelevent here because the point me and bakerboy are making here is that as anybody with logic and common sense knows,Batman was loosing that battle with that goon,thats bullshit that he let that goon tire himself out,he was trying as best as he could to beat him and your post is saying he wasnt so bakerboy is correct,that is bullshit that he was letting that guy tire himself out.he was trying his best to beat him and could not and that was a joke because the batman from the comics could easily have beat that guy in 10 seconds or less if he wanted to but burtons batman made him into a wuss and betrayed his character.you get rolleyes from me because you make insane points that are untrue.

Can you feel the love in this thread??

Originally posted by mattador
If you all would actually read the comicbooks you would know how insane it is to make those kind of statements. If we read the comic books we'd actually be losers.

In Batman returns,The ''penquin'' was like some big ugly faat freak and was horribly done

Originally posted by sevenman
If we read the comic books we'd actually be losers.

Originally posted by kmcdude
In Batman returns,The ''penquin'' was like some big ugly faat freak and was horribly done

Thats just one example why Batman Returns just like Batman 89 was such a horrible movie. btw,what made you decide to resurrect this thread KMC dude?

and damn,why did they have to allow sevenman to come back,I thought he had been banned for good. well no matter,the way he conducts himself,its just a matter of time before he gets himself banned permanetely.

Originally posted by pmike
OMG some peeps are taking this way to seriously,please out of curiosity how long does it take to write essay answers?????i doubt anyone reads them
now for my opinion B89 and BR rocked bigtime,it showed a dark and gothic side to batman,and you say he killed joker and penguin right,well i dont think he killed them,he just didnt save them.which is what he did to ra's in BB so dont say batman never killed anyone in BB

wow this post is way off base.Batman killed the joker,people who say he didnt are living in a fantasy world,he should have been wanted for murder at the end by the police regardless of the jokers past actions.The police would never have allowed someone to take the law into their own hands like that.thats the HUGE difference between burton and nolans films,burtons batman movies murdered people,Nolans batman just didnt save people like ra's al goul and his mentor,HUGE difference.some of the burton apologists like this guy just dont get that though.

Originally posted by Mr Parker


and damn,why did they have to allow sevenman to come back,I thought he had been banned for good. well no matter,the way he conducts himself,its just a matter of time before he gets himself banned permanetely.

Agreed.

He's a dirty racist.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Thats just one example why Batman Returns just like Batman 89 was such a horrible movie. btw,what made you decide to resurrect this thread KMC dude?

and damn,why did they have to allow sevenman to come back,I thought he had been banned for good. well no matter,the way he conducts himself,its just a matter of time before he gets himself banned permanetely.

I kmow the thread is a bit old,but I were going to start a thread on how much these movies sucked,but decided to post in here

batman begins is sick so is batman 89...batman return is an okay movie...the rest just suck

I think what he MEANT to say was Batman 89 is sick so is Batman Returns.Batman Begins is an okay movie... the rest just suck.More than likely,thats what he meant to say.I no Xam better than that than to say that Batman Begins was sick.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
wow this post is way off base.Batman killed the joker,people who say he didnt are living in a fantasy world,he should have been wanted for murder at the end by the police regardless of the jokers past actions.The police would never have allowed someone to take the law into their own hands like that.thats the HUGE difference between burton and nolans films,burtons batman movies murdered people,Nolans batman just didnt save people like ra's al goul and his mentor,HUGE difference.some of the burton apologists like this guy just dont get that though.

well consider me living in a fantasy world then...cause to me it's all the same....Batman wanted to catch the Joker, prevent him to escape. Sure he wanted to kill him. But he was trapped by a statue, which caused him to fall. Same as with Batman Begins. Now that is a kill too. Batman knew he would die if he didn't rescue him out of that train. So what is the difference?

I enjoyed both Batman 89 and Batman Returns and loved Batman Begins a bit more. But I absolutely despise Batman and Robin and Batman Forever. My point is Batman 89 and Batman Returns were not bad movies. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were the bad movies.

for the umpteenh time,ALL the burton/schumacher batman movies were crap.sheesh.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
for the umpteenh time,ALL the burton/schumacher batman movies were crap.sheesh.

In YOUR opinion.

Respect other people's.

You should know this better than most,regarding how you were treated at SHH on your opinions about the Spider-Man movies.

oh man,I give up trying to convince you guys.

Good lad.

You just have to accept that everyone has different opinions.

I mean I've seen people who like Halle Berry's Catwoman

IMO the order of Bat-Films Is This...
1.Batman Begins
2.Batman89
3.Batman Returns
4.Batman Forever
1,256,435,734,657,856,223,758,422,556,643.-Batman & Robin

seriously. i was like 10 when that movie came out and i hated it. Batman Begins was an excellent movie. a bit slow at times, but excellent. Batman 89 is amazing. its only true downfall is lack of backstory for bruce. batman returns was my favorite as a child. mostly because of my huge crush on michelle pheifer and seeing her in a skintight leather suit...was...anyway. i really liked batman returns, but some of it was a little hokey and danny devito wasnt the best choice for penguin. batman forever was okay but jim carrey ruined it for me. riddler isnt supposed to be funny. hes supposed to be a sadisitc madman who laughs at toher peoples pain. i liked two-face though. batman and robin was...uggh. i hate it. so bad.

I can't place numbers on them....sometimes I think Batman Returns is better than Batman '89 and vice versa...And Batman Begins is in my opinion a total different movie...they can't be compared...They're certainly eqaully good in my opinion.

I like both burton films

Originally posted by coolmovies
I like both burton films

Same here.

Originally posted by Mainstream
so true...as far as I'm concerned Batman Begins it the first "true" live action Batman movie.

True dat.

Batman Begins is on a whole other plane than Batman and Batman Returns.

Originally posted by SpyCspider
I loved Batman Begins...don't get me wrong. But I think most people would agree the fighting scenes in which Bale was Batman (not talking about when he was in training) weren't that great. EVEN if he was doing something good, it wasn't depicted that clearly in the movie. As for Kilmer in BF, I think he did a decent job with the fighting...like I said, I remember the spread-eaged kick quite well. The next kick where he just kicks the guy who was flashing his hands was a straight copy of what Keaton did in 89 with that Asian thug with the knives.

And MY point is that even though Batman's very hurt by the crash, Joker is still no martial arts thug. Therefore, Bats WOULDN'T need to feel pain (protected by armor) or be intimidated or have to come up with fancy tricks (like he did with the big goon). He just decks him, false teeth went flying, and then walks menacingly towards Joker. In fact, he overestimated Joker because the moment he punched Joker off the roof, he thought it was over but Joker came up to grab him.

Anyways, those are my 2 cents. At least I hope we agree the fighting in B&R doesn't even need mentioning...

There's a point to not showing the fight scenes "clearly" in Begins. I think Nolan is trying to show Batman from the criminal's perspective. To the guy whom Batman is stalking, his movement is blurry and indistinct.

Also, Nolan wanted to self-consciously portray fight scenes that were not overly choreographed. He wanted the violence to seem gutteral and real. I liked this creative decision in the movie. Nolan shows enough to let you know Batman is a badass, but not enough to let you know exactly what he's doing. In my opinion, these fight scenes are better than the conventional kata-driven martial arts routine we see heroes run through. You buy the violence because it's abrupt, roughly punctuated, and blurry.

By the way, the fighting style they mostly used was a kind of jujitsu developed by these two guys about 20 years ago. The names escape me right now. They chronicle some of this in the bonus material on the DVD. It's fascinating. The style was designed for close-quarter fighting and is very brutal. They chose it because the style hasn't been portrayed in any movies yet and looked like the kind of intense, no-nonsense style somebody like Batman would employ.

Jesus christ,theres always some damn newbie that has to come along and resurrect one of these old dead threads that have been buried for ages where the discussion ended a long time ago.

The 89 film was the best.
It had the best action sequence of any batman film to date.
Tell me the sword/knife wielder fight in the alley with the joker goon was not the best action sequence out of ANY batman film!
The essence of that film embodied everything batman, the look, the feel the action. It is one of the greatest comicbook movies of all time.
Saying it was about the villan?
Ya no joke, if you dont have a villan thats as equally bad as the hero is good you have nothing.
The villan was a large part of what made this movie so good. But you would have to know a little something about the distinguished actor Jack Nicholson an his career/other movies to understand that part. An obviously you dont or you wouldnt think what you think.
He was known, WELL known for playing insane characters an won an oscar for one I think. Then everyone heard he was playing the joker an cause a LOT of hype an he totally delivered.
An there was a origin, they just didnt connect the dots for everyone. It was perfect. His parents were killed, now he wears a bat suit to fight crime. He tells the joker " you made me". Thats you're origin. They didnt waste anytime on, gee here is a cave, gee here is a suit. Not to say BB didnt use that well, but the 89' movie just didnt need it.
Could you please describe to me the fight sequences in Batman begins? Cause I sure as hell couldnt, shaky camera, you couldnt tell what the f#ck was going on. I thought maybe they dropped the camera or something. Batman begins was good, but the action was too goofy. An honestly I like the old costume more than the new one.
An to this day Keaton looked better in his costume than ANY other batman thats been played to date. His jaw line is PERFECT for that cowl.

totally false,batman begins is the best to date and has the best action sequence of any to date.What movie you been watching? batman 89 was a boring snoozefest the first hour in a half and had very little action in it at all.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
totally false,batman begins is the best to date and has the best action sequence of any to date.What movie you been watching? batman 89 was a boring snoozefest the first hour in a half and had very little action in it at all.

Your on crack!
Do you even remember that knife/sword fighting scene? Like I said describe a fight scene in Begins. LOL
The opening sequence was brillant, what movie have you been watching? The 1st scene had plenty of action in it. Tell me that scene didnt epitomise batman an I'll tell you you're an idiot.

How is it that I am on crack saying its a boring snoozefest? it really was.. Yeah I remember it but it was very brief,so brief that it was unexciting and boring like the rest of the movie was.sure the opening sequence was brilliant,that was one of the rare good moments in the movie,but after that the movie went totally downhill from there.the first hour in a half in that boring snoozefest movie,they just stood around talking practically the whole damn time with just a few brief action scenes here and there.boring boring boring.Batman begins had plenty of action in it like a batman movie should have.wow I cant believe how bad your memory is.Have you already forgotten the fight scene in begins when he took out many of Flacones goons within seconds? tell me that doesnt epitomise batman who is a martial arts expert and I'll tell you your an idiot. That showed what a true martial arts expert he was.Batman 89 was a disgarace to the character because that idiot tim burton made him into a wuss getting the crap beat out of him by the jokers goon.The batman from the comics could have beaten that guy blindfolded.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
How is it that I am on crack saying its a boring snoozefest? it really was.. Yeah I remember it but it was very brief,so brief that it was unexciting and boring like the rest of the movie was.sure the opening sequence was brilliant,that was one of the rare good moments in the movie,but after that the movie went totally downhill from there.the first hour in a half in that boring snoozefest movie,they just stood around talking practically the whole damn time with just a few brief action scenes here and there.boring boring boring.Batman begins had plenty of action in it like a batman movie should have.wow I cant believe how bad your memory is.Have you already forgotten the fight scene in begins when he took out many of Flacones goons within seconds? tell me that doesnt epitomise batman who is a martial arts expert and I'll tell you your an idiot. That showed what a true martial arts expert he was.Batman 89 was a disgarace to the character because that idiot tim burton made him into a wuss getting the crap beat out of him by the jokers goon.The batman from the comics could have beaten that guy blindfolded.

He showed what might actually happen in a real life fight, cause he does beat the sword/knife fighter then gets SHOT. An plays dead so they stop attacking him. An they showed plenty of joker scenes where people were getting killed, ect. which were perfect as well. The movie was perfectly paced. I loved Batman Begins, but I hated the title an SOME of the action sequences, I like to actually be able to see/makeout the moves/movements in a big budget action movie, HFS! If they can show spidey movements with cool precision they had best be showing Batman laying the beatdown.
Some of those actions scenes reminded me of very, VERY bad B rate action flicks.
In the 89 movie they really fleshed out the joker with a lot of creepy scenes of him doing crazy sh!t. In batman begins I feel like they fell short in making the villans evil enough when compared. They needed more scenes to build the villany to the equal heights of batman

The Scarecrow was very one dimensional in BB. Especially compared to Ra's.

Burton's villains were all very fleshed out and very 3 dimensional.