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

1.) They didn't explain Two-Face's origin.

2.) In the first and in Returns, Gotham had a 1950's look, then all of a sudden in had a very futuristic look.

3.) Bits that made no sense and had very little to do with the movie, e.g Batman meeting that chick on that roof.

4.) I constantly questioned Robin's sexuality.

5.) A BLUE suit, then in the next movie they had ANOTHER different suit. This is Batman for crying out loud, not Miss Suzie-Home maker Meets The Bat Team.

6.) They changed the awsome orginal theme music with some stupid piece of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7) two Face was a camp Joker
8) The Riddler was a moronic gay
9) neon lights
10) Crap rifddler rign (which shouldnt be relevant ANYWAY while no Two Face origin, which is PIVOTAL)
11) Joel Schumacher
12) a 28 year old man being adopted? Yeah... right...
13) robin... or Gaywing?

They explain Two-Faces origin in a news broadcast, yes?

Yeah, but it wasn't a PROPER origin... he was far more worthy of that half hour origin slot than Nigma... or rather, gay Carrey!

NIPPLES!!!

Originally posted by Knightfall93
7) two Face was a camp Joker
8) The Riddler was a moronic gay
9) neon lights
10) Crap rifddler rign (which shouldnt be relevant ANYWAY while no Two Face origin, which is PIVOTAL)
11) Joel Schumacher
12) a 28 year old man being adopted? Yeah... right...
13) robin... or Gaywing?

yeah I like Forever much better than the first two films but its not that good of a film either mostly because of these points.

Complete disrespect for...everything. That's how we got the Two-Face, Riddler, and Robin that we have to watch, and that's how we got scenes where for instance they're fighting next to the Statue of Liberty...when as far as I know, Gotham is supposed to be located in southern Jersey (where I live...cept I think its supposed to be Atlantic City, even though I saw a map once and it was basically right on Deptford lol)

Robin was too old.

Neon lights. Man, what the hell.

A silver Batman.

Two-Face and Riddler were Joker 2 and Joker 3, for some reason.

Glowing Batmobile.

Batman giving a "thumbs up".

Batman killing Two-Face after all the lecturring to Robin (yes Two Face fell, but Batman CAUSED IT! Should have at least attempted a save. Batman knew Two-Face would fall, that was his plan, and he did nothing to save him. That's murder.)

However, as a standalone film, its actually not bad. It just sucks next to Begins.

Dude, you gave loads of points about how CRAP it was then said you loved it really... Jesus, I keep forgetting most of those points... there's so many! how about...
14) Statue of Liberty
15) Batplane just for fun and ten he crashes it instantly
16) batboiat for above reasons
17) Commisioner Gordon or Peter Kay?
18) Val Kilmer
19) Chris O'Donnell
20) chris O'Donnell
21) chris O'Donnell
22) chris O'Donnell
23) Crap woman
24) batman was really un-Batman-ish when he starts shagging Chase... as batman!
25) What was that machine crap supposed to be about?
26) Jim Carrey
27) jim Carrey
28) Jim Carrey
29) tommy Lee jones
30) tommy Leen Jones
31) tommy Lee Jones
32) Tommy Lee Jones
33) Those weird gang people...
34) Batman wore glasses? yeah... right...
35) What was Jim wearing at the climax?
36) Imagine how many points we cpuld get against Batman and Robin if we have so many against Forever!

Mr. Parker, the fact that you think that Batman Forever was better than the first two movies proves you just have bad taste. And not just in Batman, but in general.

Interesting reply, there, Jack... did you get my PM?

Some day, there will be a Batman movie thread that doesn't degenerate into a slap-fight about the Keaton movies. After all of our current forum members have died from old age, probably.

Okay, so teh Schumacher movies really sucked.

But it really annoys me when people say the Burton movies rocked. That is untrue. The Burton movies had a long way to go before they got anywhere near as good as Begins. Or, even better, Mask Of The Phantasm.

It was terrible. The only good thing was casting val kilmer as batman and bruce wayne. He wasnt great, but decent at least. Was a good fighter, looked the part and did a very good bruce wayne. The rest was crap, stupid plot, o donnel cant act and is too old, two face was a joke and more a joker impersonator than two face, the riddler was gay and campy and not as the ridler is in anyway, nicole kidman character was stupid and nonsense, the neon ligths, the gay tone, the nipless, etc, etc. It was as bad as the other three in his own mistakes.

As bad as Batman Forever is, I think the only thing everyone on this board can agree on is that its outshined in terrible nature by Batman & Robin lol.

Hmm... yep. But only becuae of the Mr Snow sing-a-long! And Arnie... and Ivy (I mean, Uma Thurman ISN'T hot, looks 60 and has a crap name) and George Clooney.. and CAMPIER Chris O'Donnelll who was 30 by then at least, and Commisioner Gordon/ Peter Katy and...

Yes, Uma and Arnold where terrible. Arnorld was miss casting and Uma was terrible, weird in a good actress as she is. Clooney was a joke, he was playing himself as batman and bruce wayne. Only looks ar the ER tv show, he was playing the same damm thing. What a joke.

Gordon was a disgrace in all the four films before batman begins. He was a useless and fat cop with any development in the story.

xaclty... that's why I love BB Gordon, he's just like Yr1...

Originally posted by JackN
Mr. Parker, the fact that you think that Batman Forever was better than the first two movies proves you just have bad taste. And not just in Batman, but in general.

uh yeah whatever.at Least in Batman Forever, Val Kilmer looks the role.Yeah pudgy gut,receding hairline half bald,short runt, michael keaton was so terrific for tall,muscular,handsome,full set of hair bruce wayne. what a joke and insult to true batman fans
Schumacher at least got someone who had the right physical build and right look which is crucial for the main role.your obviously too new here to realise there have been many people come on here that have said the same thing about him.just take a look of that thread by Leafar you so much felt the need to resurrect that old dead thread of.He says that same exact same thing.Like me,he ranks Kilmer ahead of keaton because he at least had the right build and right look and also enjoyed forever better than the first two because of Kilmer.you also dont seem to be aware that there are thousands that have voiced their disgust over the choice of keaton over the years for that role like me and Leafar have. thats why Batman Begins was made because of how people have voiced their disgust over the burton batman movies over the years and the choice of keaton.

Also at least Batman forever wasnt ALL about the villains with batman having just a supporting role in it.it was a batman film that was FINALLY all about batman and we actually understood WHY he fought crime and dressed up like a bat.that SHOULD have been in the first film,that was inexcusable for it not to be.and at least kilmers batman wasnt a wuss in a fight and got the crap beat out of him by the jokers goon,and this is a guy who is suppose to be a martail arts expert. give me a break.LOL

and Batman Forever at least had action in it like a batman movie SHOULD have.the first hour and a half of batman 89 they just stood around talking the whole damn time with just a few brief action scenes here and there.thats absurd for a batman film. No, unlike you Burton apologists who refuse to take off the blinders to see how horrible and crappy the burton batman movies are,I at least know when a good batman movie has been made,and batman forever wasnt near as horrible as the first two. also this is coming from a guy who makes ludicrise comments like batman begins- a movie that had tons of action in it is boring,yet batman 89 was exciting obviously is the guy who lacks good taste in movies.touche.

Originally posted by Etrigan
Okay, so teh Schumacher movies really sucked.

But it really annoys me when people say the Burton movies rocked. That is untrue. The Burton movies had a long way to go before they got anywhere near as good as Begins. Or, even better, Mask Of The Phantasm.

Right on Etrigan,Right on. you are so right,its pretty saddening how the burton apologists such as jack refuse to take the blinders off to see how crappy they really are that the burton movies have a lonnnnnngggggggg way to go before they come ANYWHERE near as good as Batman Begins or the animated series.

The only thing I liked about it was the Riddle little bit. However I do know its not really like the true character that its suppose to be, but it was still little funny. That was the only cool part about it.


Although I must say its a lot better than Batman and Robin. Thats movie I will never watch again.


Hello Mr. Parker: I knew you would be in this thread *smiles*

Hi there Vaya."waves back."

Originally posted by Mr Parker
uh yeah whatever.at Least in Batman Forever, Val Kilmer looks the role.Yeah pudgy gut,receding hairline half bald,short runt, michael keaton was so terrific for tall,muscular,handsome,full set of hair bruce wayne. what a joke and insult to true batman fans
Schumacher at least got someone who had the right physical build and right look which is crucial for the main role.your obviously too new here to realise there have been many people come on here that have said the same thing about him.just take a look of that thread by Leafar you so much felt the need to resurrect that old dead thread of.He says that same exact same thing.Like me,he ranks Kilmer ahead of keaton because he at least had the right build and right look and also enjoyed forever better than the first two because of Kilmer.you also dont seem to be aware that there are thousands that have voiced their disgust over the choice of keaton over the years for that role like me and Leafar have. thats why Batman Begins was made because of how people have voiced their disgust over the burton batman movies over the years and the choice of keaton.

Also at least Batman forever wasnt ALL about the villains with batman having just a supporting role in it.it was a batman film that was FINALLY all about batman and we actually understood WHY he fought crime and dressed up like a bat.that SHOULD have been in the first film,that was inexcusable for it not to be.and at least kilmers batman wasnt a wuss in a fight and got the crap beat out of him by the jokers goon,and this is a guy who is suppose to be a martail arts expert. give me a break.LOL

and Batman Forever at least had action in it like a batman movie SHOULD have.the first hour and a half of batman 89 they just stood around talking the whole damn time with just a few brief action scenes here and there.thats absurd for a batman film. No, unlike you Burton apologists who refuse to take off the blinders to see how horrible and crappy the burton batman movies are,I at least know when a good batman movie has been made,and batman forever wasnt near as horrible as the first two. also this is coming from a guy who makes ludicrise comments like batman begins- a movie that had tons of action in it is boring,yet batman 89 was exciting obviously is the guy who lacks good taste in movies.touche. Havent I read this before...

Thats probably cos everytime Parker posts something on here its always the same rant!!!

Yep... and who's Leafar?

Originally posted by Knightfall93
Yep... and who's Leafar?

^obviously someone who gave up on this silly argument a long time ago, but you know how some people like to bring in names to help their arguments....

LOl... SpyCSpider, did you get the PM from me?