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

OK, Burton is a moron when it comes to Batman...I just saw Batman (1989) for the first time since I was a kid and noticed that Batman has heavy artillery equipped in his Batmobile and Batwing (chainguns, explosives, etc.) and tried to gun down the Joker and blows up buildings.

The movies seemed really bad to me an I don't see why Batman fans like this movie. (Unlike the first Superman movie which seems to have represented him correctly.)

Batman doesn't use guns or gun people down. Thus, Burton is very foolish when he was representing this character.

Well the stupidest part is that he locks on, fires missiles and shoots a hell of a lot of bullets at him...and misses. It'd have been more productive to just not have him fire at all.

agreed. Ok, I seen Batman 89 about 3 times in my lifetime i think, one time in childhood, but when i rented it last month, I couldnt watch the whole thing! i couldnt sit through i just skipped chapters with boring dialogue...and stupid stuff...Bruce Wayne looking at people in his mansion through a mirror, stupid movie.

Originally posted by NoFate007
Well the stupidest part is that he locks on, fires missiles and shoots a hell of a lot of bullets at him...and misses. It'd have been more productive to just not have him fire at all.

Yeah what the hell was that???

Batman fires like 10 missiles and a huge spray of bullets at Joker,and not one hits him.Not one.And Joker just stands there with his arms stretched out too.

Then Joker pulls out a long barrelled gun and knocks the Batwing out of the sky with one shot.

LMAO!

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Yeah what the hell was that???

Batman fires like 10 missiles and a huge spray of bullets at Joker,and not one hits him.Not one.And Joker just stands there with his arms stretched out too.

Then Joker pulls out a long barrelled gun and knocks the Batwing out of the sky with one shot.

LMAO!

oh man that is pathetic. one shot took the batwing out

It is, its totally pathetic....however that gun is cool lol. But one shot takes out the plane? Psh. The movie is good overall but its nothing compared to what it could've been. You gotta love some of the dialogue though...

"HE TOOK MY BALLOONS!!!......WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE TELL ME HE HAD ONE OF THOSE...THINGS!!!"

or even one of the simple ones people don't mention often:

"You look fiiiine."
"....I didn't ask."


Another stupid thing: Twice in the film, someone shoots Batman in the body armor and he lays down, then gets back up. What a waste of time.

I don't see why it's so well regarded. I was just watching it yesterday and all I could think: It's campy. The fight scenes, on the whole, are pretty bad. The Batmobile looks downright silly. Keaton does not look the part, nor does he do a particularly good job with it. Same with the villain: I like Jack and all, but he's not playing the Joker. He's playing the same nut he plays in almost every movie, just this time he's grinning like an idiot all the time.

I dont think getting shot at point blank range and taking a coupla minutes to recover is stupid.

If anything, thats one of the most believable points of the movie next to that one guy breathing to stay alive and the other guy using a pen to write with.

The batwing super arsenal of doom with the wonky targeting system however is kinda lame.

Listen to commentary on the DVD. He said something about never reading the Batman comics. Strange enough, Burton gave us a dark illustration of Batman. Something that Bob Kane had envision about the character's personality.

Originally posted by NoFate007
Well the stupidest part is that he locks on, fires missiles and shoots a hell of a lot of bullets at him...and misses. It'd have been more productive to just not have him fire at all.

I think Batman missed on purpose. To test the Joker's reaction as he is under attack. But Joker wasn't fearless...he was just plain psychotic.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Listen to commentary on the DVD. He said something about never reading the Batman comics. Strange enough, Burton gave us a dark illustration of Batman. Something that Bob Kane had envision about the character's personality.

I think Batman missed on purpose. To test the Joker's reaction as he is under attack. But Joker wasn't fearless...he was just plain psychotic.

You're defending Burton too much to the point that you are starting to sound ridiculous.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
You're defending Burton too much to the point that you are starting to sound ridiculous.

There is nothing wind dancer says that sounds rediculous.

Originally posted by Doc Ock


Then Joker pulls out a long barrelled gun and knocks the Batwing out of the sky with one shot.


That was a HUGE Barrel.

LA LA LA LA LA not listening LA LA LA LA LA

Originally posted by Mando


That was a HUGE Barrel.

Don't be ridiculous.It was just a long barrel.Not huge just long.

He folded it back into a regular sized gun in the cathedral when he was walking up the stairs with Vicki.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
You're defending Burton too much to the point that you are starting to sound ridiculous.

And you fail to give credit where is due. Burton may have committed some errors in the film. However, give credit to the man for transforming and re-introducing The Caped Crusader as a dark and terrifying heroic character that Bob Kane had originally intended. Watch the documentaries of the DVD. Batman had many changes over the course of many decades. Burton's illustration of Batman did justice for the character.

Remenber! prior to the release of the 1989 film. Many people regarded Batman as the colorful and corny hero of the 1960's TV series. Thanks to Burton the franchise was re-born only to be flatten out by Joel in the 1997 film. And Thank the heavens Nolan for rescuing the franchise from falling into oblivion.

Originally posted by WindDancer

Remenber! prior to the release of the 1989 film. Many people regarded Batman as the colorful and corny hero of the 1960's TV series. Thanks to Burton the franchise was re-born only to be flatten out by Joel in the 1997 film. And Thank the heavens Nolan for rescuing the franchise from falling into oblivion.

Most definatley. It was able to transform from Adam west all the way to Christian bale, thanks to Burton.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Remenber! prior to the release of the 1989 film. Many people regarded Batman as the colorful and corny hero of the 1960's TV series. Thanks to Burton the franchise was re-born only to be flatten out by Joel in the 1997 film. And Thank the heavens Nolan for rescuing the franchise from falling into oblivion.
We note that this applies solely to film adaptations. Frank Miller and others before him had ensured Batman's comics got the grim treatment for some years earlier.
Inasmuch as Batman ('89) was a remarkable improvement from Adam West's time, I recognize that that's indisputable. In that they tried to do all the right things with Batman, I agree. It went for the right tone, the right aesthetic. They just did a poor job of it.
Credit where it is due, though. The film inspired Batman The Animated Series. That show being the ultimate non-comic expression of Batman, I thank my lucky stars that Burton made his film even though I can't make myself like the movie itself.

Many Batman fans despise Adam West role as Batman. I've talk to some of them and they really hate it. I still love those cheesy one liners and comic situations he and Robin would get into it. That tv show may have been corny but I love it.

Adam West's Batman, along with a long list of other programs including The A-Team, are fantastic and entertaining. Not because they are well made but because they're just so damned campy

Batman was awesome...Batman Returns was awesome...it was just another incarnation of batman that imo was kick ass...

Originally posted by Mando
There is nothing wind dancer says that sounds rediculous.

Oh ok thanks for clearing that up for me.

Originally posted by WindDancer
And you fail to give credit where is due. Burton may have committed some errors in the film. However, give credit to the man for transforming and re-introducing The Caped Crusader as a dark and terrifying heroic character that Bob Kane had originally intended. Burton's illustration of Batman did justice for the character.

Remenber! prior to the release of the 1989 film. Many people regarded Batman as the colorful and corny hero of the 1960's TV series.
Um Hello?! have you heard of a man called Frank Miller and a graphic novel called the Dark Knight Returns?! Burton wasn't the first one to do this 'dark and terrifying theme' with the Batman character. I don't care what Burtons intensions were with this character on the DVD, Keaton didn't play Batman as dark as terrifying as you think he did.

The Joker was done well with that film I'll give him that.

Originally posted by Mando
Most definatley. It was able to transform from Adam west all the way to Christian bale, thanks to Burton.

You should give more thanks to Frank Miller and other writers of Batman graphic novels. You credit Burton way too much.

Graphic Novels like Year One, Dark Knight Returns, the Long Halloween is what inspired Nolan. He didn't care for Burton's work at all.

Burton had nothing to do with the way Bale played Batman.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Many Batman fans despise Adam West role as Batman. I've talk to some of them and they really hate it. I still love those cheesy one liners and comic situations he and Robin would get into it. That tv show may have been corny but I love it.

Adam West's portrayal of Batman was never ever meant to reflect Batman in the comics.

You are the one who thinks Burton did a better job with Batman and you're comparing his work to a TV show that wasn't even trying to reflect Batman from the comics. That show was intended to be a comedy and it worked in doing so. I have no idea why you are even comparing the two.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
You should give more thanks to Frank Miller and other writers of Batman graphic novels. You credit Burton way too much.

Graphic Novels like Year One, Dark Knight Returns, the Long Halloween is what inspired Nolan. He didn't care for Burton's work at all.

Burton had nothing to do with the way Bale played Batman.

I understand that. But Burton put down the milestone, movie wise.

If we would have adam west do all the movies, and then all of a sudden come out with Batman begins with bale, what the hell kind of feedback would they get from the audience?

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
OK, Burton is a moron when it comes to Batman...I just saw Batman (1989) for the first time since I was a kid and noticed that Batman has heavy artillery equipped in his Batmobile and Batwing (chainguns, explosives, etc.) and tried to gun down the Joker and blows up buildings.

The movies seemed really bad to me an I don't see why Batman fans like this movie. (Unlike the first Superman movie which seems to have represented him correctly.)

Batman doesn't use guns or gun people down. Thus, Burton is very foolish when he was representing this character.

finally!!!! glad to see that there are finally some people here at kmc besides just a couple like there have only been in the past,that realise how bad burtons batman movies really are.finally i have encountered some people with logic and common sense who see how horrible his batman movies really are.Burton should have never been allowed near a batman franchise,he totally butchered to death batmans character.Burton and samm hamm the screenwriter had no business making a batman film. you are soooo right harvey dent,i cannot believe how the burton apologists accept these horrible movies,they betrayed the comic far worse than batman forever ever did and people are always dishing schumacher for the batman films,scumacher gets way too much unfair criticisem that he does not deserve,batman and robin was just plain god awful and horrible so he deserves criticisem for that batman movie,but burtons batman movies are far worse than anything schumacher did in batman forever,some of these burton apologists just refuse to take the blinders off and see the truth about that like me and you do though.they are hopeless to be reasoned with.

superman one and two stayed true to the source material thats why i am against another superman movie,its not needed.now batman begins WAS needed for the way burton screwed it up from the start.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
finally!!!! glad to see that there are finally some people here at kmc besides just a couple like there have only been in the past,that realise how bad burtons batman movies really are.finally i have encountered some people with logic and common sense who see how horrible his batman movies really are.Burton should have never been allowed near a batman franchise,he totally butchered to death batmans character.Burton and samm hamm the screenwriter had no business making a batman film. you are soooo right harvey dent,i cannot believe how the burton apologists accept these horrible movies,they betrayed the comic far worse than batman forever ever did and people are always dishing schumacher for the batman films,scumacher gets way too much unfair criticisem that he does not deserve,batman and robin was just plain god awful and horrible so he deserves criticisem for that batman movie,but burtons batman movies are far worse than anything schumacher did in batman forever,some of these burton apologists just refuse to take the blinders off and see the truth about that like me and you do though.they are hopeless to be reasoned with.


I'll agree with you to an extent. Burtons "Batman" films were not near as good as Batman begins. But still better than 'Forever' and 'Batman and robin' IMO.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Yeah what the hell was that???

Batman fires like 10 missiles and a huge spray of bullets at Joker,and not one hits him.Not one.And Joker just stands there with his arms stretched out too.

Then Joker pulls out a long barrelled gun and knocks the Batwing out of the sky with one shot.

LMAO!

that is just one example of how even the first batman movie is so horribly written.its like his batplane is a piece of junk,he couldnt even hit the joker with all those bullets and then the batplane gets taken out with ONE bullet.god that is so pathectic for a batman movie that is SUPPOSE to be a serious adaptation. that movie sickens me because of idiotic boneheaded mistakes in that film such as that.

Originally posted by Mando
I'll agree with you to an extent. Burtons "Batman" films were not near as good as Batman begins. But still better than 'Forever' and 'Batman and robin' IMO.


i myself am grateful that schumacher came along.he made a much better casting choice in val kilmer,he at least fit the role and at least had the right look.keaton as batman was as laughable as burt reynolds as boss hogg because he didnt even colse to fitting the role either.schumacher at least cared about making a good casting choice.burton did not care about pissing on the fans casting keaton,he only did so because he felt comfortable working with him.also i hate burton far worse than schumachers batman movies for turning him into a cowardly killer killing the joker was the ultimate sin fot that movie,I wanted to see batman die for that for betraying the comicbook.

harvey dent is so right,BURTON is such a moron when it comes to making batman movies.

Originally posted by jgiant
Batman was awesome...Batman Returns was awesome...it was just another incarnation of batman that imo was kick ass...

another one of those burton apologists who just refuse to take the blinders off and see how bad these movies really are. this post should read-

batman was crap,batman returns was even worse crap.there NOW you have an intelligent post jgiant.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
i myself am grateful that schumacher came along.he made a much better casting choice in val kilmer,he at least fit the role and at least had the right look.


Actually, Schumacher really intended Alec baldwin, or Tom hanks to play the role as "Batman" before Kilmer popped into the picture.

thats why I say thank god for schumacher,he actually had casting choices in mind when casting for batman.tom hanks and especially baldwin,would have been great in that role.burton should have cast baldwin back then,but he did not care about making the best casting choice possible.he only cast keaton ONLY because he was friends with him.

OK, I've been thinking.

Tim Burton has really ****ed up some shit.

Tim burton changed the story, he says that The joker killed Batman's parents, but really it was Joe chill. What's with that? But WAIT! there's more. He originally wanted Michael Jackson to perform some songs for 'Batman'. And Billy Dee williams was casted as Harvey Dent. That is an absolutely horrific casting choice.

And we shouldn't really blame Tim burton for the mistake that Michael keaton was casted as batman. We should blame Bob Kane, because he gave tim burton the OK to do so. But then again Burton is still partially responsible.

what do you expect from his casting, he would only cast people he was comfortable working with because you know...he's shy. Thats why he would usually work with Depp or Keaton.

Originally posted by Silverstein
what do you expect from his casting, he would only cast people he was comfortable working with because you know...he's shy. Thats why he would usually work with Depp or Keaton.

Shyness isn't exactly a great attribute in the film world.

hmm yea that was one thing that really bothered me about the batwing getting shot down like that, i mean all those gatling gun rounds n missles COMPLETELY missed jack nicholson, and then he reaches in his pants and pulls out a 10 foot 1/2 inch diameter barrel and shoots the batwing down in one shot....omg yes that was stupid, and another thing, i didnt like Keaton as Batman partly because he was out of shape, and half-bald....that does not portray bruce wayne at all, he is a good looking attractive, athletic man with a full head of hair....but still, IMO batman & robin and forever were much worse im not going as far as harvey dent and mr parker here, but yes 'Batman' was flawed and it was underlooked in many many ways....but then again, ur comparing it to what?, Batman Begins?, which was a flawless portrayal of what Batman's about...

Originally posted by Mando
I understand that. But Burton put down the milestone, movie wise.

If we would have adam west do all the movies, and then all of a sudden come out with Batman begins with bale, what the hell kind of feedback would they get from the audience?

Adam West was only cast in a comedy role for Batman. Plus West was like 50+ at the time so why are you even mentioning his name?!

Movie wise, Burton was the only one doing Batman movies at the time so I guess it is foolish to compare his work to anythign else.

Totally agree with Harvey. Normally, Tim Burton is a brillaint director, but he was a total moron in his batman movies. As Harvey said, he didnt invent anything, only he put on screen the dark tone of the 80s comics that Frank Miller and another artists did. And their movies not werent only unfaithful, also they were very bad movies, with bad scripts and bad casting choices. That scene of the batwing and the joker is a clear example of the burton madness in those movies. Surely, the Schumacher movies were crap, but the Burton ones werent less crap.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
OK, Burton is a moron when it comes to Batman...I just saw Batman (1989) for the first time since I was a kid and noticed that Batman has heavy artillery equipped in his Batmobile and Batwing (chainguns, explosives, etc.) and tried to gun down the Joker and blows up buildings.

The movies seemed really bad to me an I don't see why Batman fans like this movie. (Unlike the first Superman movie which seems to have represented him correctly.)

Batman doesn't use guns or gun people down. Thus, Burton is very foolish when he was representing this character.

Actually, the original Batman was killing off criminals left and right, some in a very f*cked up fashion.

Burton didn't do the best job, especially considering he didn't study up on the character more. But, it's not as horrible as you're making it out to be. Like WindDancer said, it was just another take on the Batman mythos. Sure you can thank The Dark Knight Returns for for making Batman dark, but you won't find very many people that know about it compared to those that know about the movie.

And you gotta give Burton credit for something, without him there wouldn't have been the inspiration for the animated series, or the Superman series, or Justice League, OR Justice League Unlimited. And, the mistakes him and Joel made helped make Batman Begins that much better.

Oh, and Keaton may not have been the best first choice, but he played the role well regardless.

Did burtons Batman inspire the Animated Series?

Originally posted by Silverstein
Did burtons Batman inspire the Animated Series?

The Batman comics inspired the Animated series.

Did you see The Penguin in that animated series??

http://heroicimages.net/toons/Resources/Images/Batman_BTAS/btas_penguin.jpg

Tell me DeVito's Penguin did not inspire that.

The animated series we got in the 90's was thanks to Burton and his Batman.
Looking back, it seems we were so glad his Batman was dark and not campy, that it was just good enough, we liked it too much. Looking at Burton's role in the failed Superman 5, I'm shocked at his lack of respect for comics; did he just do Batman because he loves German expressionism-style movies? The use of arms by Batman was different but not out of place; originally, the character was ruthless about fighting crime, and if he inadvertantly killed a hoodlum, oh well. Michael Keaton wasn't the best physical choice, but actualty convinced me. But its all water under the bridge now, because we have a great work in Batman Begins, which feels like the Batman I've truly waited for. Thanks to Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer and Christian Bale.

His cape sucks. It somehow 'magically' allows him to glide.

I don't understand the argument here. ALL of the Batman movies suck for one reason or another. The real problem is that Hollywood can't make a movie based on comic books without changing the character and/or their history. Name any movie based on a comic book that this hasn't been the case. At least give Burton credit for taking what was at the time a risk and making a movie about a character who everybody remembered from a corny television show.

Originally posted by Bushwacker
I don't understand the argument here. ALL of the Batman movies suck for one reason or another.

Just out of curiosity,why do you think Batman Begins sucks???

yeah have you even seen Batman Begins? when you say ALL the batman movies suck,you must mean the Burton/Schuamcher Batman movies right? Because you would be correct on that point.Begins is the ONLY one that wasnt crap though.Hollwood finally redeemed themselves with the nightmare burton/schumacher batman franchise with Begins.

Originally posted by Darth Zannah
His cape sucks. It somehow 'magically' allows him to glide.

The way his cape worked was explained the second time he went to see Lucious Fox. Just about everything in that movie had some kind of explaination in one form or another.

Originally posted by Bushwacker
I don't understand the argument here. ALL of the Batman movies suck for one reason or another. The real problem is that Hollywood can't make a movie based on comic books without changing the character and/or their history. Name any movie based on a comic book that this hasn't been the case. At least give Burton credit for taking what was at the time a risk and making a movie about a character who everybody remembered from a corny television show.

Sin City's the only one so far, but I think it might've been easier to do the way the stories were originally done.

I hated Burtons Batman, nothing matches the Schwartz/ Austin Batman of the seventies. The reprints are in black and white, simply stated they are awesome.

Originally posted by WindDancer
And you fail to give credit where is due. Burton may have committed some errors in the film. However, give credit to the man for transforming and re-introducing The Caped Crusader as a dark and terrifying heroic character that Bob Kane had originally intended. Watch the documentaries of the DVD. Batman had many changes over the course of many decades. Burton's illustration of Batman did justice for the character.

Remenber! prior to the release of the 1989 film. Many people regarded Batman as the colorful and corny hero of the 1960's TV series. Thanks to Burton the franchise was re-born only to be flatten out by Joel in the 1997 film. And Thank the heavens Nolan for rescuing the franchise from falling into oblivion.
Wrong. Frank Miller did more for Batman's "dark" image than the overrated "I don't read Batman comics" Burton.

And did you really find the Burton Batman so dark ?

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Just out of curiosity,why do you think Batman Begins sucks???

One of the reasons why I like Batman is that he was a self-motivated guy who dedicated himself to be the best crime-fighter he could be. From an early age he pushed himself physically and intellectually until he developed himself into an Olympic class athlete and the world's greatest detective.

In the movie, Bruce Wayne is basically just a moody street thug until Ras al Ghul takes him from the prison and trains him to be a ninja assassin. At no time in the movie do I get the impression that Bruce is smarter than the average guy. This isn't a guy who can take on the level of criminals we see in the comics. To me the guy in the movie is more like Marvel's Nomad than he is Batman. That ruined it for me.

A couple of minor issues I had were his being trained by Ras al Ghul, the whole Katie Holmes thing when they should have had Harvey Dent, and the ending with the teaser about the Joker. One of the reasons why the Joker is one of Batman's main adversaries is because Batman is responsible for Joker looking the way he does.

As I said in another thread I don't expect the movies to follow plotlines word for word, but at least have a script writer who has some respect for the character's background. Hollywood always changes something whenever they adapt something to a movie. This is just MY opinion.

Originally posted by Bushwacker
One of the reasons why I like Batman is that he was a self-motivated guy who dedicated himself to be the best crime-fighter he could be. From an early age he pushed himself physically and intellectually until he developed himself into an Olympic class athlete and the world's greatest detective.

In the movie, Bruce Wayne is basically just a moody street thug until Ras al Ghul takes him from the prison and trains him to be a ninja assassin. At no time in the movie do I get the impression that Bruce is smarter than the average guy. This isn't a guy who can take on the level of criminals we see in the comics. To me the guy in the movie is more like Marvel's Nomad than he is Batman. That ruined it for me.

A couple of minor issues I had were his being trained by Ras al Ghul, the whole Katie Holmes thing when they should have had Harvey Dent, and the ending with the teaser about the Joker. One of the reasons why the Joker is one of Batman's main adversaries is because Batman is responsible for Joker looking the way he does.

As I said in another thread I don't expect the movies to follow plotlines word for word, but at least have a script writer who has some respect for the character's background. Hollywood always changes something whenever they adapt something to a movie. This is just MY opinion.

Those are excellent points.

I agree on all.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Wrong. Frank Miller did more for Batman's "dark" image than the overrated "I don't read Batman comics" Burton.

And did you really find the Burton Batman so dark ?

You're right, but just how many people in the world are there that read Millar's work (or even know who he is), compared to those who saw the movie? Millar did good for the fans, but Burton did good for the mainstream.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Did you see The Penguin in that animated series??

http://heroicimages.net/toons/Resources/Images/Batman_BTAS/btas_penguin.jpg

Tell me DeVito's Penguin did not inspire that.


They obviously got the idea of the costume and the 3 fingers for the penguin from devitos's penguin.Thank god they didnt make him like like a ghost though and didnt put all the stupid makeup on him that devito had in the movie.This penguin still looks human at least,Burtons Penguin looked like a monster,which was the intention of that idiot burton,to make him into a sewer dwelling monster.I really hope the rumors are true that Penguin is going to be in the next batman begins film,because he will do penguins character justice.

heh, the Penguin hung out in the sewers with the Joker's old clown buddies and rode around in a rubber ducky boat LOL

Since people around here feel the need to resurrect old dead threads around here where the discussion ended ages ago,then I can play that game. at least the last post for this one wasnt over two months aog or even longer like some of them are that have been brought back.

more childish behaviour? lol...so funny actually but also annoying
you can't turn around what Burton did, you didn't like it...GET OVER IT!

The 1989 Batman movie wasn't that great, and probably should have been called "The Joker" because it's obvious that's who Burton was telling the story about, likewise Batman Returns was a movie led along by villains as well.

Overall the movie sucked, the images and stuff were badass, scenery and all... what it came down to, is that Jack Nicholson is the shiznit.

I don't know how I missed this one:

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
Um Hello?! have you heard of a man called Frank Miller and a graphic novel called the Dark Knight Returns?! Burton wasn't the first one to do this 'dark and terrifying theme' with the Batman character. I don't care what Burtons intensions were with this character on the DVD, Keaton didn't play Batman as dark as terrifying as you think he did.


Err..HELLO BACK! Have you heard of a man called Bob Kane? He created Batman! He made the original Batman a darker and more intense character. Frank Miller re-invented actually... NO re-introduce the original Batman Costume. Nothing more!




Look above will ya. In the comic book community Frank Miller gave us a re-introduction of a dark batman. He also gaves us an origin to the Batman. However, Burton made a dark Batman for the General Audience. You know the movie goers. The people that pay a ticket to go see a show. I'm sure you've heard of them. Tim Burton directed a movie NOT a comic book.

"One of the reasons the Joker is Batman's greatest enemy is that Batman is responsible for the way the Joker looks"
Wrong, Bushwacker, that's 1 possible origin of the Joker, iin his sick mind he probably invents multiple origins. I'm guessing your the kind of guy who reckons another reason they're enemies is that Joker killed batman's parents (well that is sodding Burton only! And he never even read a comic in his life.)

Originally posted by Cascador
more childish behaviour? lol...so funny actually but also annoying
you can't turn around what Burton did, you didn't like it...GET OVER IT!

just because I did something YOU did once,resurrect a thread that died a long time ago I am now childish but your not? you cripple your arguments as always.Lol.here you are telling me to ignore it when you and others bring back an old dead thread where the discussion ended MONTHS ago ,yet YOU cant take a thread being brought back that only ended weeks ago.what a hypocrite. At least I dont do what many other annoying people do around here in the batman section and bring back an old dead thread from MONTHS ago.Im done wasting my time with your insane posts,meet my ignore list kid.

Originally posted by Juntai
The 1989 Batman movie wasn't that great, and probably should have been called "The Joker" because it's obvious that's who Burton was telling the story about, likewise Batman Returns was a movie led along by villains as well.

Overall the movie sucked, the images and stuff were badass, scenery and all... what it came down to, is that Jack Nicholson is the shiznit.

yeah it sucked like all the burton/schumacher batman movies did.Thats just one example on why the burton batman movies are such crappy films is because like you said,they focused so much on the villians and very little focus and attention was paid to batman.He was just a supporting character.Thats exacly what the first film should have been called is THE JOKER.Many batman fans have said that over the year many times because its so true,I mean it would be one thing if it was a tv episode from a tv series to have the movie all about the joker,but not a movie,a movie is a special case.Yeah I remember when batman 89 came out,many of my coworkers at my job back then were saying-dont go see batman 89,that movie sucks big time.That movie should have been called The Joker,thats all that movie was all about,Batman was hardly in the film at all.Thats why I love the new batman begins film because Nolan shows what a liar and idiot Burton is when it comes to batman films.Now the whole world knows that Burton lied about the joker killing his parents.

Batman Begins is not so loyal to the comics either.Everyone knows Batman had a hand in creating the Joker.But that's clearly not the case in BB.

Damn shame IMO.It was one of the most unique things about their relationship.Batman inadvertantly created The Joker.

Also Ra's Al Ghul never trained Bruce Wayne,Lucius Fox never provided him with all his gadgets etc.

Need I go on?? So for all the B89 bashers,don't think BB is 100% loyal either.Because it's not.

BB wasnt 100% loyal, but the changes made it better rather than worse i guess. There will always be changes in comic-movie films but i say 'either change it for the better or dont change it at all' just my opinion

Yeah, BB's changes are genuine improvements. I mean, well, it isn't actually proven that Batman made the Joker as it were, it's just 1 possible origin. How can an event remembered in Joker's sick mind be taken as true? And the Ra's and Lucius things tied the film together better. That's why movies are tougher... so you go and think: what's better... a non- explained film or a slightly altered but vastly improved film? BB rules OK

Actually Nightfall Ock agrees with us that BB is the best Batman adaptation ever and better than the burton batfilms,he just doesnt understand it that the burton batman movies were as much of a disgrace to the batman mythos as the schumacher films were.

Originally posted by Silverstein
BB wasnt 100% loyal, but the changes made it better rather than worse i guess. There will always be changes in comic-movie films but i say 'either change it for the better or dont change it at all' just my opinion

Yeah I've never said that BB was a 100% loyal to the comic but like you said,it made it better though instead of worse.Im all for changes just as long as they are reasonable,but things like Bats killing the joker or the joker killing his parents damaged the credibility of the film where the changes doc mentioned didnt damage the credibility of the film.theres a difference between minor and major changes,minor changes dont affect the credibility of the film where major changes do.All Bruce wanted to do to the joker when he found out he killed his parents was kill him-that goes against everything that the character of batman is.That would be like James Bond all of a sudden turning gay and not liking women anymore,no difference. I mean can you imiagine the green goblin being the villian who kills peter parkers parents? same thing,no difference,pointless and stupid.Batman got his revenge when he killed the joker,he might as well have hung up the cowl at that point and stopped fighting crime.horrible screenwriting.

resurrect...actually I found that thread by accident, I just posted on it with no thinking if it's old or not...I didn't care...I just cared what was said on that thread! A bunch of childish quotes especially from you Mr. Parker! A guy who doesn't respect another ones' opinion like I said on the other thread..Ignore me if you want...doesn't change a bit...You still stay a kid that whines too much about Burton's films...

Ha, and every1 loves Joel now, do they? Cos hardly anyone moans as much about him as Burtons orn Nolans...

Huh? you lost me there on that one nightfall? and cascader,im glad you like like talking to yourself.

talking to myself?...you responded to me...otherwise how could you know I was talking about you
Not that I care that you responded or read what I said, kiddo!
Go on and give mommy a hug before you go to sleep...

Tut tout, Parker, you should have been in bed an 2 hours ago!

It's my army of smilies! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Tut tout, Parker, you should have been in bed an 2 hours ago!

your posts are getting more and more confusing to me all the time Knightfall.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
OK, Burton is a moron when it comes to Batman...I just saw Batman (1989) for the first time since I was a kid and noticed that Batman has heavy artillery equipped in his Batmobile and Batwing (chainguns, explosives, etc.) and tried to gun down the Joker and blows up buildings.

The movies seemed really bad to me an I don't see why Batman fans like this movie. (Unlike the first Superman movie which seems to have represented him correctly.)

Batman doesn't use guns or gun people down. Thus, Burton is very foolish when he was representing this character.

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/8017/b9pd7al4ov.gif

you are the fool.

let's not call any names, shall we gentlemen...I'm sure we can debate on this in a more civilized way

(except for a few people of course huhum...)

Burton did something that alot of people thought wasnt possible............ He made Batman cool, cause alot of people were left with the scars of the Adam West days. He wasnt as faithful to the comics but thats not a bad thing.

Yes, it is! Batman left behind the days of murdering goons in the '40s! I hate Burton's soddin' mass murdering psychopath!

And Mr Parker is a dum @$$

First you go and insult doc ock knightfall Now you are insulting me,name calling around here will get you banned,doc already warned you about that,dont give him more ammunition to use to report you.I was just simply asking you what you meant in your last post,no need to act like that.

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Yes, it is! Batman left behind the days of murdering goons in the '40s! I hate Burton's soddin' mass murdering psychopath!

Yes it sure is.I would rather see the adam west 60's show anyday of the year over Burton's soddin mass murdering psychopath coward any day of the year as well.

OK, I thought you were taking the p*ss before, Mr Parker. At least we agree on something... sorry

Yes, Burtonn's soddin mass murdering psychopathic cowardly crapbag was a sin against Batman. I actually enjooy the classic 60s film though, geat comedy!
"Holy strawberries, Batman, we're in a jam!"

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Yes, Burtonn's soddin mass murdering psychopathic cowardly crapbag was a sin against Batman. I actually enjooy the classic 60s film though, geat comedy!
"Holy strawberries, Batman, we're in a jam!"

okay,apology accepted. It sure was,anybody who doesnt think so is just fooling themselves in living in denial.They dont get it that batman is not authorized to go out and kill criminals and take the law into his own hands,that he only kills mutants and vampires and things like that,he hates to take a life and even in the beginning whe he did carry a gun and kill people,it was only because he had no other way out,he was never the cowardly killer that burton made him into.This movie should have been called The Punisher because thats what batmans character acted much more like.Now the punisher DOES take the law into his own hands,but batman does not,he is not authorized by the police to go out and kill people as he sees fit.

at least in the batman 60's show,you had a lot of comedy to laugh about.It kept you awake because it wasnt constantly boring all the time and at least did not make you hate batman for killing people in cowardly ways.I wanted to see batman die in the first film.I knew it would not happen though.If there is a batman movie being made where people are disgusted with batman for killing people and want to see batman die himself for killing people in cowardly ways,then there is something for sure wrong with that movie.

Punisher Comes to Sin City and Punisher Returns to Sin City! Seriously, Gothams as dark as Sin...

yeah it is.

I prefer cheesy goofball comedy Batman66... like where they land on a pile of rubber! I mean, whatt other hero has bat- Shark Repellant? Or even Super- shark Repellant, or Martian or WEonder Shark Repellant...

yeah so do I.

Batman66 is AWESOME, I could watch that 6 times over in a day and still want more!!!!!!!!!

meh .... batman's alrite

its just the movie is too graphic and extremely fake ... they could have done without all that

ok keaton is probably one of the ugliest man that set foot on stage ... i mean it meh ... i triple-posted ... my bad

Burton's Batman is the best. Its dark its gritty its awesome

I've watched it countless times since my childhood and I still think itss a great film!

You say Batman doesn't use guns... you chat shit dude. Batman has a gun arsenal in the batcave! Batman has used guns in the past. Hes not afraid of using them, he just hates them.

Exactly... and "dude", how can you say a film with those ninja thugs who dance like disco dicks in fights is dark and gritty? Morion...

Originally posted by botcherby
Burton's Batman is the best. Its dark its gritty its awesome

I've watched it countless times since my childhood and I still think itss a great film!

You say Batman doesn't use guns... you chat shit dude. Batman has a gun arsenal in the batcave! Batman has used guns in the past. Hes not afraid of using them, he just hates them.

actually that would be batman begins thats the best.Burton should NEVER have been allowed near a batman franchise as this thread starter so brilliantly pointed out.

Originally posted by botcherby
Burton's Batman is the best. Its dark its gritty its awesome

Burton's version of Batman ain't dark. Dumb people think it is. It's goofy and it seems like the actors play cartoon characters instead of actually getting into character.

Well is is kinda dark - in a looney tunes type of way.


I've watched it countless times since my childhood and I still think its a great film!


Well you're in the minority. Plus I found the film to be very 'Kiddie' and this is why you watched it many times in your childhood.


You say Batman doesn't use guns... you chat shit dude. Batman has a gun arsenal in the batcave! Batman has used guns in the past. Hes not afraid of using them, he just hates them.

I think you're brain is shit. Batman has a gun arsenal? You are so confident in that bull crap that you actually think you stepped foot in the cave itself and saw it.

A few tidbits for the Burton fanboys,

1. Turned down business deals with anyone manufacturing devises for the army that are built with guns,

2. When he teamed up with Luthor to fight the armies of Darkside, Luthor offered him a gun and Batman turned him down saying 'not my style'.

3. He doesn't kill out of Revenge. When Batman finds out that the Joker kills his parents in Burton's pathetic version, he blows up a building out of anger and kills most of the Jokers gang.

Burton *$u#ed up man. And people like you are eating this crap up. I'm just glad I know the difference between how batman should be portrayed. Idiot.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent



Well you're in the minority.



No he's not.

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
Burton's version of Batman ain't dark. Dumb people think it is. It's goofy and it seems like the actors play cartoon characters instead of actually getting into character.

Well is is kinda dark - in a looney tunes type of way.




Well you're in the minority. Plus I found the film to be very 'Kiddie' and this is why you watched it many times in your childhood.



I think you're brain is shit. Batman has a gun arsenal? You are so confident in that bull crap that you actually think you stepped foot in the cave itself and saw it.

A few tidbits for the Burton fanboys,

1. Turned down business deals with anyone manufacturing devises for the army that are built with guns,

2. When he teamed up with Luthor to fight the armies of Darkside, Luthor offered him a gun and Batman turned him down saying 'not my style'.

3. He doesn't kill out of Revenge. When Batman finds out that the Joker kills his parents in Burton's pathetic version, he blows up a building out of anger and kills most of the Jokers gang.

Burton *$u#ed up man. And people like you are eating this crap up. I'm just glad I know the difference between how batman should be portrayed. Idiot.

Actually Harvey it IS dark except Burton went overboard and made it TOO dark to where you can hardly see whats going on half the time in the movie, He had the right idea about gothem being dark with the sets and everything but again he just went overboard and made it too dark to where you could not see what was going on half the time during the night scenes.which is why i prefer batman forever over burtons films because I like to be able to see what I am looking at.

actually he's not in the minority on thinking batman is a good film,if he thought it was better than Nolans,then he WOULD be in the minority then.however most movie goers have bad taste and enjoy watching crap though which is what burton and schumachers movies BOTH are.

Batman did carry guns in the beginning and shot and killed people but he only did so when had HAD to and there was no way out when his life was in danger.The thing I hate about burtons batman is that when Batman stopped carrying guns,he stopped killing people as well.Yet that idiot burton, like you said in his pathectic version he has him blowing that building up in anger.Yeah some people just dont know how batman should be portrayed and its really sad that so many people are eating up his pathetic version and swallowing that crap.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Originally posted by Doc Ock
No he's not.

He is if he thinks the film is better than Begins.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Actually Harvey it IS dark except Burton went overboard and made it TOO dark to where you can hardly see whats going on half the time in the movie, He had the right idea about gothem being dark with the sets and everything but again he just went overboard and made it too dark to where you could not see what was going on half the time during the night scenes.which is why i prefer batman forever over burtons films because I like to be able to see what I am looking at.




But I would still like to mention, what is dark about Burton's version? I see nothing dark other than what Parker mentioned.

Nolan's version is dark - the city is corrupt, the Judge and the police force are being payed off by Falconie so he can ship in drugs. That to me is dark.

For Burton? He makes a goofy clown gang and people think that is dark. This is nothing more than a kids movie to me. This movie was played on teletoon the other day - a kids tv station just to add insult to injury. You will never see Nolan's version on that station - ever.

Another little nugget I noticed on Burton's version when it was played on Saturday morning on teletoon:

why does Batman walk up a huge flight of stairs to chase down the joker?

this part in the movie is really lame - why doesn't Batman use his grapple-shot to get up to the top?

Burton made Batman look really lame in that scene.

Batman ues stairs at leastt twice to chase Jac/ joker...

Originally posted by Harvey Dent
Another little nugget I noticed on Burton's version when it was played on Saturday morning on teletoon:

why does Batman walk up a huge flight of stairs to chase down the joker?

this part in the movie is really lame - why doesn't Batman use his grapple-shot to get up to the top?

Burton made Batman look really lame in that scene.
he just crashed the bloody batplane!!!
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL!!!!

"hmmm, what to do *feels woozy* ..... bugger it, i'l use the STAIRS!!!!"

we're also speaking of of the year 1989...do you think it would be possible to do a stunt like that...that would look lame if they did it with a dummy of batman...there were no digital doubles back then to pull such a stunt off, cause yeah that tower was very high.

You guys really need to get a life and quit b*tching about Batman '89 so much... we get it, it was lame... it was after all the 80's!

How did you look in the 80's? I doubt it was anything cooler than a purple dress suit, LOL!

In fact the only really awesome movie I think to come out in '89 was Heathers... and even watching that now it has some semi-lame parts.

We all get it so just let it go...

Originally posted by Rafkins_Warning
You guys really need to get a life and quit b*tching about Batman '89 so much... we get it, it was lame... it was after all the 80's!

How did you look in the 80's? I doubt it was anything cooler than a purple dress suit, LOL!

In fact the only really awesome movie I think to come out in '89 was Heathers... and even watching that now it has some semi-lame parts.

We all get it so just let it go...

I agree with the first post. There is more to Batman than gunhs and explosives, Burton did not show this. There needs to be a lot more solving things and fighting in Burton's Batman.

I think B89 didnt really hype up the action to badly... it's an OK movie, never great though. BB is awesome...

Yes, yes... we already know, Batman Begins rocks everyone's socks clear out of this plane of existence....

*mumbles to self*

LMAO, it's better than B89

NOTHING IS BETTER THAN 89!!!!!!!

Just kidding.

Returns was better than all!

Ha... well, I haventseen it for 10 years but... BB owns all!

I've seen it recently and it will always be the best.... four words to explain why:

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman!

Rafkins and all others, in the comic forums people have made teams (Avengers, Authority and JLA) and named each member a charcter. I would be honoured if you would join me, scarecrow and samishe in starting the KMC Syndicate, made up of all villains

Originally posted by Rafkins_Warning
NOTHING IS BETTER THAN 89!!!!!!!

Just kidding.

Returns was better than all!



IMO Returns is nearly as good as Batman Begins, but BB is just slighty better then Batman Returns IMO.

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Rafkins and all others, in the comic forums people have made teams (Avengers, Authority and JLA) and named each member a charcter. I would be honoured if you would join me, scarecrow and samishe in starting the KMC Syndicate, made up of all villains

Doc Ock should be joing as well, if all goes well.

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Rafkins and all others, in the comic forums people have made teams (Avengers, Authority and JLA) and named each member a charcter. I would be honoured if you would join me, scarecrow and samishe in starting the KMC Syndicate, made up of all villains

Sure... I guess...

Cool another member.

Originally posted by Rafkins_Warning
Yes, yes... we already know, Batman Begins rocks everyone's socks clear out of this plane of existence....

*mumbles to self*


Yes it does. the ONE and ONLY "TRUE" Batman movie.

I think Burton's apaptation was great considering the cirumstances. He made it when most people thought of the Adam West Batman, not the comic book Batman. He was able to make it more like the Comicbook hero, but at the same time added some humor. It was able to target a wider audience that way, not just comic book dorks who still live with their parents. It has about a million good quotes, especially from the Joker.

And Mr Parker...Remember... you... are my number one... guy!

Originally posted by JackN
I think Burton's apaptation was great considering the cirumstances. He made it when most people thought of the Adam West Batman, not the comic book Batman. He was able to make it more like the Comicbook hero, but at the same time added some humor. It was able to target a wider audience that way, not just comic book dorks who still live with their parents. It has about a million good quotes, especially from the Joker.

And Mr Parker...Remember... you... are my number one... guy!

*gives standing ovation*

Very well said!

The no.1 guy thing is supposed to mean what? It currently makes m e think you need to explain because it's kinda... sexually suggestive?

he was rubbing Bob's shoulders and arms up and down when he said that

Originally posted by JackN
I think Burton's apaptation was great considering the cirumstances. He made it when most people thought of the Adam West Batman, not the comic book Batman. He was able to make it more like the Comicbook hero, but at the same time added some humor. It was able to target a wider audience that way, not just comic book dorks who still live with their parents. It has about a million good quotes, especially from the Joker.

And Mr Parker...Remember... you... are my number one... guy!

Burtons Batman 89 was a pathetic version of Batman.Mostly for batman fans.I mean if your going to make a serious adaptation of Batman you dont go and make a pathetic casting choice like Michael Keaton for Batman who was so physically wrong for the role. Because of that,people could not take his Batman seriously.keaton brought no credibility to the role to many batman fans .They found him a joke in that role because of what I i just mentioned.Nolan accomplished what Burton TRIED to do but failed. Batman was only a huge success at the box office because he the extreme popularity of the character.Batman 89 on the screen back then was new to movie goers.Not so with Batman Begins since they could view a batman movie on tape anytime they wanted to which is why it did not do nearly as well at the box office as Batman 89 did.

The quote "you... are my number one... guy!" is from Batman 89. Boss Grissom says it to Jack Napier and then the Joker says it to Bob. Grissom says it basically as a kiss of death. Right after he tells him it, he tries to have him killed. The Joker too kills Bob later in the movie. But I was saying it as a joke.

You guys really need to grow up and get over the homophobic thoughts.... gives your true sexual preferences away.

Strange thing is that if Tim Burton's Batman '89 failed so horribly as you claim, mr. Parker...why did people bother to go to see Batman Returns which happens to be a film of the "horrible" Tim Burton too...

oh me oh me! I'll answer that!

c'mon Cascador, you know it's "because the majority of moviegoers like watching CRAP!"

...as opposed to the minority who actually have good taste

jeez

Originally posted by SpyCspider
oh me oh me! I'll answer that!

c'mon Cascador, you know it's "because the majority of moviegoers like watching CRAP!"

...as opposed to the minority who actually have good taste

jeez

well same thing counts then for Batman Begins...interesting SpyCpider!

Tim Burton is a great director with a great vision and masterpieces movies like edward sissorhands, the night before christmas, the corpse bride, ed wood, bettlejuice, sleepy hollow or big fish. But he is terrible with his vision of batman. Batman and batman returns are not only bad films, they are unfaithful and unloyal with the source of origin. Batman is a supporting character, is a killer, is a bad fighter, and looks as michael keaton. What a joke. To cast Keaton as batman is as wrong as to cast dustin hoffman as superman or woody allen as green lantern. Not only he is the phsichally opossite of batman and bruce wayne, he was playing a goofy dumbass insecure with women and with memory problems, a clark kent bad copy that didnt work in any moment. And if i cant believe that keaton is batman , the movie doesnt work, because if you cant believe in the main character all the another things sucks.

Surely, the two movies has its good things, but the bad things are so superior that the movies sucked so bad. The schumacher movies are as bad as them and has a lot of mistakes too. The only good batman movie, not only more loyal to the character also with a good story and good performances and with the right actor in the main role. Chris bale is batman, keaton isnt.

Originally posted by Cascador
Strange thing is that if Tim Burton's Batman '89 failed so horribly as you claim, mr. Parker...why did people bother to go to see Batman Returns which happens to be a film of the "horrible" Tim Burton too...

you say why did PEOPLE bother to go see it? uh dude in case you weren't aware,there are millions of people in this country,of course there are going to be PEOPLE to go and see Batman Returns. Think before you post cascader,this sounds about as crazy as the logic batman returns has.Now HIM I would expect to say something absurd like that,but YOU?come on,you can do better than that. Also apparently your not aware that Batman Returns had a HUGE significant dropoff at the box office from Batman 89.Batman 89 grossed 250 million dollars.Not at all surprising since he is such an extremely popular icon figure and it was the FIRST Batman movie.Where Batman Returns only grossed a mere 160 million dollars.Thats quite a huge dropoff at the box office compared to Batman 89.The thing that I think is so hilarious from the burton apologists such as yourself that the first two batman movies were good but the last two sucked is if Batman Forever was so bad and worse than the first two films-no argument on Batman and Robin,I've NEVER argued that Batman and Robin was a horrible movie,but I would like to know from the burton apologists such as yourself and spycspider,why if the first two batman films were so great and batman forever was not near as good as those two,WHY Batman Forever did better at the box office than Returns did? IT grossed 180 million dollars where again Returns ONLY grossed 160 million.Pretty impressive considering that most movies by the time the timethe third film is made,it starts losing steam at the box office and usually does not do as well as the previous two films did.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Tim Burton is a great director with a great vision and masterpieces movies like edward sissorhands, the night before christmas, the corpse bride, ed wood, bettlejuice, sleepy hollow or big fish. But he is terrible with his vision of batman. Batman and batman returns are not only bad films, they are unfaithful and unloyal with the source of origin. Batman is a supporting character, is a killer, is a bad fighter, and looks as michael keaton. What a joke. To cast Keaton as batman is as wrong as to cast dustin hoffman as superman or woody allen as green lantern. Not only he is the phsichally opossite of batman and bruce wayne, he was playing a goofy dumbass insecure with women and with memory problems, a clark kent bad copy that didnt work in any moment. And if i cant believe that keaton is batman , the movie doesnt work, because if you cant believe in the main character all the another things sucks.

Surely, the two movies has its good things, but the bad things are so superior that the movies sucked so bad. The schumacher movies are as bad as them and has a lot of mistakes too. The only good batman movie, not only more loyal to the character also with a good story and good performances and with the right actor in the main role. Chris bale is batman, keaton isnt.

right on Bakerboy.well said. good to see you back posting again.

Originally posted by JackN
The quote "you... are my number one... guy!" is from Batman 89. Boss Grissom says it to Jack Napier and then the Joker says it to Bob. Grissom says it basically as a kiss of death. Right after he tells him it, he tries to have him killed. The Joker too kills Bob later in the movie. But I was saying it as a joke.

ohhhh so THATS what you meant by that.thanks for clarifying that.you had me scratching my head on that one.

No problem Mr. Parker. Some people are just not very smart and have trouble getting jokes.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
you say why did PEOPLE bother to go see it? uh dude in case you weren't aware,there are millions of people in this country,of course there are going to be PEOPLE to go and see Batman Returns. Think before you post cascader,this sounds about as crazy as the logic batman returns has.

ok obviously somebody is not comprehending the context in which the question had been asked.....

Cascador's asking why would people still flock to see Batman Returns given your assumption that Batman 1989 sucked. If the first movie left such a sour taste in people's mouths, then surely most of them wouldn't have gone to see the sequel, but history showed that it still made money despite your "significant" dropoff.

C'mon just say what you wanna say. It's because "the majority of moviegoers out there like watching CRAP!"

well frankly I don't give a shit about box office...cause like I said before...Empire posted Batman Returns as one of the best superhero films. And I think you'll like to hear this, mr. Parker...they listed Batman Begins as second best....first was X-Men 2. I don't remember where Batman Returns was listed but it didn't came close to Batman Begins and Batman '89 wasn't even in the list. So they absolutely didn't look what the box office said if what you say is true, cause like you said Batman '89 grossed more.

and SpyCspider I agree with you...the majority of people likes to watch crap! But like I said in my previous post....same counts for Batman Begins....and since the popularity increased of movies in these 14 years between Batman Returns and Batman Begins it's very likely that much more people who like crap went to see Batman Begins

and don't get me wrong I think Batman Begins is certainly one of the best superhero movies...and also one of the best Batman movies. I'm not in a position to decide which one is better, cause they are too different. All I can say is that I can certainly count out Schumacher's movies, cause those films were indeed crap...

Here are my ranking of the five most recent live-action Batman movies:
1. Batman 89
2. Batman Returns
3. Batman Begins
4. Batman Forever
5. Batman and Robin

Batman Begins did have some good stuff in it. It did try to be more like the comics, but it was still pretty boring.

Originally posted by Cascador
All I can say is that I can certainly count out Schumacher's movies, cause those films were indeed crap...

Well... I have to honestly say that Batman Forever was kinda okay... I mean it was amusing and all... had A LOT of inaccuracies but then again they all did... I mean look at Batman and Robin... if that wasn't the worst Batman movie ever I don't know what was!

I mean ya got Robin in a Nightwing-like getup... and Batgirl, what the hell were they thinking! Alicia Silverstone and Alfred niece??? SO very wrong!

And Arnold Shwarzenegger as Freeze, hell Arnold Shwarzenegger at all is just so awful! Ivy was kinda alright if ya never knew anything of her comic-wise.... and I heard on some Barbra Walters special that Clooney admits he played the part of Batman as gay... I found that greatly amusing... I mean if you watch that movie now it explains a lot!

Originally posted by Rafkins_Warning
And Arnold Shwarzenegger as Freeze, hell Arnold Shwarzenegger at all is just so awful! Ivy was kinda alright if ya never knew anything of her comic-wise.... and I heard on some Barbra Walters special that Clooney admits he played the part of Batman as gay... I found that greatly amusing... I mean if you watch that movie now it explains a lot!

Arnie and Uma Thurman COULD have been great in their roles, they are both half decent actors, it was just Clooney and the script that was god-awful... compared to Batman and Robin, Forever was a masterpiece, compared to all the other films it was ok.

The script was AWFUL! And Clooney certainly did not do his best... Uma was great though... Arnold just wasn't right for the role, I mean I just couldn't see him as a genius scientist....

Originally posted by SpyCspider
Originally posted by Mr Parker
you say why did PEOPLE bother to go see it? uh dude in case you weren't aware,there are millions of people in this country,of course there are going to be PEOPLE to go and see Batman Returns. Think before you post cascader,this sounds about as crazy as the logic batman returns has.

ok obviously somebody is not comprehending the context in which the question had been asked.....

Cascador's asking why would people still flock to see Batman Returns given your assumption that Batman 1989 sucked. If the first movie left such a sour taste in people's mouths, then surely most of them wouldn't have gone to see the sequel, but history showed that it still made money despite your "significant" dropoff.

C'mon just say what you wanna say. It's because "the majority of moviegoers out there like watching CRAP!"

wow is that the BEST answer you can come up with? yes it made money but your ignoring my point that if it was so good it never would have had such a huge significant dropoff at the box office for the sequel.I mean look at xmen.the falloff from the box office from the first film to the second film was not that huge.why? because the first film was pretty good and the second one was even better.

Originally posted by Cascador
. All I can say is that I can certainly count out Schumacher's movies, cause those films were indeed crap...

yep.just like the burton batman films. as I said,the ONE and ONLY Good Batman film is Begins.Schumacher screwed up in casting every bit as much as Burton did in casting an important character.Just like Burton screwed up casting Keaton for batman,Schumacher screwed up casting O'donnel as Robin.The guy was wayyyy too old to be adopted.He looked about the same age as Kilmer did for crying out loud.

actually X-Men 2 did much better at the box office than the first film did.I just checked at IMDB and while the first film grossed a little over 150 million,x-2 did a lot better at 217 million.Usually sequels dont do as well as the original film and I would have no case that Batman 89 wasnt a good movie if the dropoff had only been just a little like 30 or 40 million,but 100 million? please give me a break,That speaks volumes that there were millions that left the theaters back then such as myself disgusted with the first film enough not to venture back to see the second film. Movie goers for the first x-men film obviously loved it enough to come back in droves to see the second film.Thats why Terminater two did so great and surpassed the original terminater at the box office because like the first film,it was a well made movie.Not so with the third film and thats why it bombed at the box office.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I mean look at xmen.the falloff from the box office from the first film to the second film was not that huge.why? because the first film was pretty good and the second one was even better.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
,That speaks volumes that there were millions that left the theaters back then such as myself disgusted with the first film enough not to venture back to see the second film.

wait so you're saying Batman Returns did not do as well since many people hated the first one like you did, but Xmen 2 did really well since the first one was GOOD. oh then same with Spider-man...people loved the first one so much they came back in drones for the second. But I thought you hate Spider-man and thought X-men betrayed the characters...now you're saying they're good???

Oh nm, I got it--OTHER people thought it was good, but WHY?

Wait for it...

It's cuz "most moviegoers enjoy watching Crap!"

sheesh, giving me all those Box office results is making me think that's what you're basing how good a movie is, and I KNOW YOU would NEVER do such a thing....

Batman 1989 did well simply because it was a great film. The fact that the sequel didn't do as well has little to do with its predecessor--it simply wasn't that good of a film compared to the first one. That I can agree with you on.

Saying "majority of moviegoers enjoy watching crap" is pretty much the way to end this argument.

Originally posted by SpyCspider
wait so you're saying Batman Returns did not do as well since many people hated the first one like you did, but Xmen 2 did really well since the first one was GOOD. oh then same with Spider-man...people loved the first one so much they came back in drones for the second. But I thought you hate Spider-man and thought X-men betrayed the characters...now you're saying they're good???

Oh nm, I got it--OTHER people thought it was good, but WHY?

Wait for it...

It's cuz "most moviegoers enjoy watching Crap!"

sheesh, giving me all those Box office results is making me think that's what you're basing how good a movie is, and I KNOW YOU would NEVER do such a thing....

Batman 1989 did well simply because it was a great film. The fact that the sequel didn't do as well has little to do with its predecessor--it simply wasn't that good of a film compared to the first one. That I can agree with you on.

Saying "majority of moviegoers enjoy watching crap" is pretty much the way to end this argument.

errrr no,Batman 89 did so well because of the name-Batman alone. thats the same case of spider-man as well of course.Without the well built in audiences they have always had over the years and the extreme popularity of the characters,no way are they the blockbusters at the movies they are. movies like daredevil or elecktra dont have anywhere near the popularity as characters as they do so they are not going to do anywhere near as well at the box office.same with x-men.

Sm 2 didnt have the dramatic dropoff at the box office like Batman Returns did because unlike Batman Returns, even though its not a very good movie,it wasnt near as horrible as the first film was so thats why that film unlike Batman Returns, did not have a huge significant dropoff at the box office like Batman Returns did. Sure Batman Returns didnt do near as well at the box office as the first film because it wasnt as good as the first one as you agree,but it ALSO had to do with how it pissed off the fans.Have you seen the people that have come on this thread and voiced their disgust for the burton movies? this is just the NET we are talking about.That doesnt count the thousands of others out there who dont get on the net to discuss their disgust over them.

Yes I thought the x-men costumes betrayed the characters and the movie doesnt deserve to be called x-men because of that.But unlike the batman or man-spider movies,they had what those movies lack.A good storyline which is the most important thing for a movie.As a comicbook adaptation,unlike Batman Begins or Superman one and two,it sucks.But as a movie on its own merits, its a pretty good movie because it has what the batman and spider-man films DONT have.A good story behind them.

Spider-man 2 didn't make as much money as the first Spider-man, but the second movie was the better film. What happened?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Have you seen the people that have come on this thread and voiced their disgust for the burton movies? this is just the NET we are talking about.That doesnt count the thousands of others out there who dont get on the net to discuss their disgust over them.

Well, there are probably just as many people who loved the burton movies who don't get on the NET to voice their enjoyment of the burton movies. it works both ways. same with Begins, some people enjoyed it while others didn't. People have different opinions!!!

Has anyone noticed any thread that even slightly mentions the Burtons ends up with Mr Parker VS everyone slse? Parker, just let the discssion of the thread take place, we get the idea that you're a whiny little **************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
***

Originally posted by Mr Parker
errrr no,Batman 89 did so well because of the name-Batman alone. thats the same case of spider-man as well of course.Without the well built in audiences they have always had over the years and the extreme popularity of the characters,no way are they the blockbusters at the movies they are. movies like daredevil or elecktra dont have anywhere near the popularity as characters as they do so they are not going to do anywhere near as well at the box office.same with x-men.

Sm 2 didnt have the dramatic dropoff at the box office like Batman Returns did because unlike Batman Returns, even though its not a very good movie,it wasnt near as horrible as the first film was so thats why that film unlike Batman Returns, did not have a huge significant dropoff at the box office like Batman Returns did. Sure Batman Returns didnt do near as well at the box office as the first film because it wasnt as good as the first one as you agree,but it ALSO had to do with how it pissed off the fans.Have you seen the people that have come on this thread and voiced their disgust for the burton movies? this is just the NET we are talking about.That doesnt count the thousands of others out there who dont get on the net to discuss their disgust over them.

Yes I thought the x-men costumes betrayed the characters and the movie doesnt deserve to be called x-men because of that.But unlike the batman or man-spider movies,they had what those movies lack.A good storyline which is the most important thing for a movie.As a comicbook adaptation,unlike Batman Begins or Superman one and two,it sucks.But as a movie on its own merits, its a pretty good movie because it has what the batman and spider-man films DONT have.A good story behind them.
great paragraph good ... always voice your opinions ... i agree totally despite what people will say otherwise. i'm not much of a batman fan, but i agree that you can have your say and that what you said is completely valid

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Has anyone noticed any thread that even slightly mentions the Burtons ends up with Mr Parker VS everyone slse? Parker, just let the discssion of the thread take place, we get the idea that you're a whiny little **************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
***
a discussion involves many people and if everyone always agrees with each other, then it cant be called a discussion anymore. just read the title of this thread and look back at what you just wrote ... stupid huh? Mr Parker was not whining but merely having his say in a perfectly debatable topic. what's this supposed to mean: **************************************************
****************************? no bashing okay? you have your say, he has his. if you dont like it, then please leave, alright?