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

I actually liked Jim Carrey's performance as The Riddler he was cast brilliantly shame he couldn't have been cast as The Riddler in a better Batman film he is without a doubt the highlight of the film.

i agree. i even liked val kilmer's acting as batman. i thought he was pretty good...or atleast decent. Nicole kidman...never liked her but didn't mind her that much to be honest. the ony problem with Batman Forever was Tommy-dumbass-overrated-crapass-Jones as two-face. that was the only thing that left a bad taste in my mouth regarding the movie. other than that, even I liked Batman Forever............for the most part of it anyway.

The best batman movie was Batman Begins (of course). before that it was Batman Forever imo.

Thats true but it still sucked.

Batman Forever was great but Batman & Robin however was a bad and I do mean very bad flim.

Batman Forever was decent. Kilmer was a good Batman. Jim Carrey and Toomy Lee Jones were aweswome. Though they kinda made the Riddler a poor mans Joker.

I hate ALL the burton/schumacher batman movies.That was a nightmare for me that I finally woke up from with batman begins.the one and only true batman movie.but of those four batman movies made before batman begins,batman forever for me is the only one that i can sit through without getting disgusted with it.batman forever is really the only halfway decent batman movie made of those 4.

Having very recently watched all the Batman movies again here is my stance on Batman Forever. Now for me Batman Forever is pretty watchable compared to Batman and Robin and it is because of the following reasons.

1. Val Kilmer- Bruce Wayne/Batman- I thought that Val Kilmer was quite good as both Bruce and Batman. I felt that he was able to balance loads sides of Bruce Wayne like the business side of Bruce Wayne, the playboy Wayne and most importantly the Bruce Wayne still driven by the death of his parents to go out night after night fighting crime. His Batman was very good also especially his voice and he seemed to have the right physical built for Batman as well.

2. The introduction of Robin- I thought the intro to Robin in this movie was very good ripped straight from the comics and the costume was not bad apart from those "bloody nipples" as Christian Bale put it in his 2005 speech at the MTV movie awards for accepting an award for best hero.

3. The love story between Chase and Bruce Wayne- I did not mind this and was a damm lot better then the love story done in Batman Begins despite everything else it got right I felt this was one of the flaws in Batman Begins. Anyways the love story between and Bruce was very interesting and another thing I found interesting was that throughout the film Chase was going on a journey into the Psychology of Bruce Wayne and truly discovers that he is not what he is on the outside.

But overall I think the film did more wrong then right like the neon, costumes, Jim Carey as Ridder, Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face and the dumb plot about the flippen box. Plus it frustrates me why the cut scenes were cut because they just made the good bits of the film richer and a lot better.

So there you go people my stance on Joel Schumacher`s Batman Forever imo it is pretty watchable compared to the terrible B&R but still pretty bad as its bad moments outweigh its good moments as well as aspects.

I thought Batman forvever was a decent movie, Batman and Robin on the other hand was just awful.

Originally posted by DarthLazious
Batman Forever was great but Batman & Robin however was a bad and I do mean very bad flim.

Nah man it sucked.

I liked Batman Forever. Kilmer was good and the story was good. Batman and Robin was very bad. Even Uma Thurman could not save it.

i really liked val kilmer's portrayal of bruce wayne. especially when he tells the story about falling in the well, and all of that. forever has some pretty amazing rope scenes too. didn't like the over colourful batman or robin. i actually liked kidmans character as the doc. didn't like the villians though. overall, film was just ok.

oh and i love seals - kiss from a rose... love that song...

Jim Carrey's The Riddler stoled the show big time....from this role he could be the perfect Joker.

IMO I didn't really like Riddler...two face coulda been better

Originally posted by endrict
Jim Carrey's The Riddler stoled the show big time....from this role he could be the perfect Joker.

Ive read comics with the Riddler. The Riddler doesnt even act like that. The director just made him act like the joker.

Originally posted by steverules
IMO I didn't really like Riddler...two face coulda been better

They both sucked. None of them behaved like their comic counterparts, they just based it on Jack Nicholsons Joker.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ive read comics with the Riddler. The Riddler doesnt even act like that. The director just made him act like the joker.



They both sucked. None of them behaved like their comic counterparts, they just based it on Jack Nicholsons Joker.

Well, I felt Carrey's Joker was an attempt to re-make Frank Gorshin's Riddler... It didn't work too well, but it was ok...

Batman Forever is a guilty pleasure for me... When I was a wee little kid, it was my favorite movie... A few years ago, I despised it almost as much as Batman and Robin... But now, I think it's an ok movie... It isn't revolutionary like Batman 89, it isn't controversial like Batman Returns, it isn't horrible like Batman and Robin, and it isn't awesome like Batman Begins... It's just a big piece of mainstream fluff, forever tied to the summer of 95...

Lets just say they half assed the movie.

The Dark Knight will be better so all the old Batman Movies shouldn't matter.

Batman Begins was a great movie that really followed the comics and was true the character of Batman.

Batman Forever is when I realized something had gone horribly wrong with the Batman franchise and I was just a kid then. When I saw them showing me unnecessary shots of Batman's ass and Val Kilmer's crap acting, crap Batman suit and Nicole Kidman's completely over the top robe as Batman's lady of the movie I was like...OMG this can't get any worse. How do you go from Batman Returns to this crap?

But it did get worse. Batman and Robin.

Originally posted by DarthLazious
Lets just say they half assed the movie.

The Dark Knight will be better so all the old Batman Movies shouldn't matter.

Batman Begins was a great movie that really followed the comics and was true the character of Batman.
Batman Begins fudged some stuff too. I still don't think we've had the DEFINITIVE Batman movie yet...but it's the most accurate by far.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Well, I felt Carrey's Joker was an attempt to re-make Frank Gorshin's Riddler... It didn't work too well, but it was ok...

Batman Forever is a guilty pleasure for me... When I was a wee little kid, it was my favorite movie... A few years ago, I despised it almost as much as Batman and Robin... But now, I think it's an ok movie... It isn't revolutionary like Batman 89, it isn't controversial like Batman Returns, it isn't horrible like Batman and Robin, and it isn't awesome like Batman Begins... It's just a big piece of mainstream fluff, forever tied to the summer of 95...

Ha, I just realized that I typed ''Joker'' instead of ''Riddler''...

tommy lee jones is an idiot. the guy ruined two-face.......he was practically a hyperactive jackass shouting and screaming like a moron and kissing riddler's keister. i hated that.
it was two-face, people. THE two-face, one of the most pyschological and complex villains of batman series. they ruined him totaly. Jim Carrey as Riddler was pretty good though....but i think his backstory sucked.

~Sado

I hope the Dark Knight will be great.

Jim Carrey sucked as the Riddler too. Everything about Batman Forever sucked IMO.

Horrid Batman
Wooden Bruce Wayne
Bright Neon Gotham sucked
Stupid storyline
Riddler sucked
Two Face was raped
Dr. Chase Meridian needed a vibrator.
Robin's entrance sucked
The Batmobile sucked.
The nipples sucked.
The random shot of Batman's butt sucked.
The ending sucked.
That stupid ending shot with Batman and Robin running sucked.

you could see batman's ears bobbing when he ran

to make it worse they had that ending there in Batman and Robin as well

~Sado
P.S. did batgirl have nipples?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Nah man it sucked.

as i said.all the burton/schumacher batman movies sucked.The one and only true batman movie is Batman Begins.

Batman Returns and Batman is still noteworthy IMO. Not completely faithful to the comics but I think deserves credit for reviving Batman out of the pure camp form he was in.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Batman Returns and Batman is still noteworthy IMO. Not completely faithful to the comics but I think deserves credit for reviving Batman out of the pure camp form he was in.

Yeah, that's how I look at them, too... But they're still good movies in their own way...

However, MY cut of Batman and Batman Returns are possibly the greatest Batman movies ever conceived... lol (everyone check them out, btw)

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Yeah, that's how I look at them, too... But they're still good movies in their own way...

However, MY cut of Batman and Batman Returns are possibly the greatest Batman movies ever conceived... lol (everyone check them out, btw)
LOL where are they?

I'm really not that uptight about Batman. There's only been a few complaints I've had over the years. Just give me a good enjoyable film and I'll accept some liberties.

Batman (89) = good
Returns = decent
Forever = bad
& Robin = terrible
BB = awesome

That sums up my view.

I just watched Batman Begins again recently for the first time since it came out at the movies since it is being broadcast on cable now since the dark knight comes out and was just reminded how awesome this movie is.Man this movie is 10 times better than than those crapfest Burton/Schumacher Batman movies put together COMBINED! THAT was the kind of batman movie i was expecting to see back in 89 and the fans deserved to have.those other batman movies were a bad dream and a nightmare I have FINALLY woke up from thanks to Batman Begins.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I just watched Batman Begins again recently for the first time since it came out at the movies since it is being broadcast on cable now since the dark knight comes out and was just reminded how awesome this movie is.Man this movie is 10 times better than than those crapfest Burton/Schumacher Batman movies put together COMBINED! THAT was the kind of batman movie i was expecting to see back in 89 and the fans deserved to have.those other batman movies were a bad dream and a nightmare I have FINALLY woke up from thanks to Batman Begins.

You copy and pasted that, didn't you

nope just had to post it a few times on the other threads after being reminded what a kicak ass movie it is the other night.

I really think Batman Begins is kind of overrated. I like it and everything but to me it's still not the definitive Batman movie. It's closer to the comics than the other movies but I still think it missed a beat and it has an advantage having to follow the crap that is Batman and Robin, anything would look good by comparison.

But I still love it. I just think the fanboys overhype it. I personally don't find it very rewatchable though

Originally posted by Sado22
i agree. i even liked val kilmer's acting as batman. i thought he was pretty good...or atleast decent. Nicole kidman...never liked her but didn't mind her that much to be honest. the ony problem with Batman Forever was Tommy-dumbass-overrated-crapass-Jones as two-face. that was the only thing that left a bad taste in my mouth regarding the movie. other than that, even I liked Batman Forever............for the most part of it anyway.

The best batman movie was Batman Begins (of course). before that it was Batman Forever imo.

Are you kidding me ! hating on Tommy Lee Jones!!! he was excellent pic and hilarious as hell!....
all s*#t aside the only thing that started to throw me off about Batman Forever & Batman & Robin (if no one noticed) ... is that they started to make Gotham to look like somme giant outdoor night club!

i mean WTF is that about...there were more neon light outside than at a gay nightclub! oh and lets not forget the killer gang member that walk around in glow in the dark paint! ha...yea cuz a bunch of hard core killer B's paint themselves up b4 going out every night to walk around streets that are conveniently powered up with black lights!
GTF Outta here with that horse s*#t i guess since Tim Burton got a little to dark with the first 2, they decided to brighten it up a bit huh!
Oh & who can forget the "Bat American Express card" @ that rediculous auction!
LMFAO!!! 000OOooOOohhhhh The 90's !

Two face is not supposed to be funny. The problem is everyone saw Jack Nicholson's Joker and thought this was their chance to ham it up on camera. But at least Jack actually gave a solid performance overall. Tommy Lee Jones embarrassed himself big time.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Two face is not supposed to be funny. The problem is everyone saw Jack Nicholson's Joker and thought this was their chance to ham it up on camera. But at least Jack actually gave a solid performance overall. Tommy Lee Jones embarrassed himself big time.

True he's not typically a funny character but he does have his occasional make you chuckle outburst,...(the guy is a schizo!) *scit-so-frenic*

any way the reason i accept his performance, (which wasnt bad) is because remember that in Bats 3 & 4, they tried to make it all bubble gummy !!! campy if you will! at the time it was a modern version of the original series from the 1960's. sure there were no *BAMS & POWS* but take a look at its resemblance

...the Duo making public appearances to talk to reporters and @ public auctions-owning a Bat American Express card-making corny ass punch lines while fighting-corny villain portrayal-the Villains making even worse corny ass punch lines & trying to be funny! its all updated from the 60's version!

GTF Outta here! we all know this not to be the true B-Mans M.O!
but thats what they tried to play it off as. i mean me & my friends get a kick of watching that stupidity...the lines are so gay u just have to laugh! its like WTF he just actually said that s*#t! LOL!
So anyway IMO thats why i dont find his acting bad, it was just an all around corny writing scheme for the flicks!
Burton had it at a decent tone with the first 2,(just like B-Man Begins is dark toned) but then again all Burtons films are all pretty dark anyway!

I never liked Batman Forever. There was nothing funny about it. It was just embarrassing IMO and I felt that way as a kid when I saw it. The first Batman movie I remember seeing clearly was Batman Returns though I know I saw Batman 1989 too because I remembered being terrified of Nicholson's Joker as a child but I couldn't remember the movie as a whole since it did come out when I was 4, lol. So going from Batman Returns to Batman Forever was a mind freak and not a good one.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I never liked Batman Forever. There was nothing funny about it. It was just embarrassing IMO and I felt that way as a kid when I saw it. The first Batman movie I remember seeing clearly was Batman Returns though I know I saw Batman 1989 too because I remembered being terrified of Nicholson's Joker as a child but I couldn't remember the movie as a whole since it did come out when I was 4, lol. So going from Batman Returns to Batman Forever was a mind freak and not a good one.

i know what you mean! to me it was like oh cool!....wait WTF! LOL!
F'ing "Night Club Gotham" LMAO! HA HA!

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I really think Batman Begins is kind of overrated. I like it and everything but to me it's still not the definitive Batman movie. It's closer to the comics than the other movies but I still think it missed a beat and it has an advantage having to follow the crap that is Batman and Robin, anything would look good by comparison.

But I still love it. I just think the fanboys overhype it. I personally don't find it very rewatchable though

Batman Begins is the ONLY one I find rewatchable.well Batman 89 as well but thats only because I fastforward through the scenes that dont have kim basinger in them. I dont find it overhyped at all.as i said it was the kind of batman movie I was expecting to see back in 89 and felt I got screwed because I was robbed of having that experience I was expecting.Its not the perfect batman movie since they still are using that infernal tank for the batmobile. But other than that,thats really the only negative about the movie.The other four have countless ones that can go on forever.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Batman Begins is the ONLY one I find rewatchable.well Batman 89 as well but thats only because I fastforward through the scenes that dont have kim basinger in them. I dont find it overhyped at all.as i said it was the kind of batman movie I was expecting to see back in 89 and felt I got screwed because I was robbed of having that experience I was expecting.Its not the perfect batman movie since they still are using that infernal tank for the batmobile. But other than that,thats really the only negative about the movie.The other four have countless ones that can go on forever.

I don't want to start this old argument again, but Begins had a lot more wrong with it than just one thing...

1. Ras Al Ghul wasn't like the comics (this is just nitpicking, but if Burton bashers can say that about Penguin in Returns, I have every right to expose that flaw in Begins)

2. Batman didn't save Ras (the comics version would at least try) This one I could go on and on about... It's like, Bruce preaches about how "no one is beyond saving" all throughout the movie, and then he refuses to save Ras... That's one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard... I mean, he didn't "kill" him per se, but he DID go against his "code", which is something Batman NEVER does, no matter what...

3. Bruce deliberately destroyed the monastery, knowing that there were hundreds of ninja in there that would die (again, it's kinda just nitpicking, but if Burton bashers can say that about blowing up Axis Chemicals, I can say that about the monastery)

It's still an awesome movie, though (not as good as mine, though )

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't want to start this old argument again, but Begins had a lot more wrong with it than just one thing...

1. Ras Al Ghul wasn't like the comics (this is just nitpicking, but if Burton bashers can say that about Penguin in Returns, I have every right to expose that flaw in Begins)

2. Batman didn't save Ras (the comics version would at least try) This one I could go on and on about... It's like, Bruce preaches about how "no one is beyond saving" all throughout the movie, and then he refuses to save Ras... That's one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard... I mean, he didn't "kill" him per se, but he DID go against his "code", which is something Batman NEVER does, no matter what...

3. Bruce deliberately destroyed the monastery, knowing that there were hundreds of ninja in there that would die (again, it's kinda just nitpicking, but if Burton bashers can say that about blowing up Axis Chemicals, I can say that about the monastery)

It's still an awesome movie, though (not as good as mine, though )
ICAM.

I think Nolan has done countless things I didn't approve of as a Batman fan but I am not as anal as some are. If it's a good watchable movie I go with it. I am also a big reader and many of the movies I see aren't faithful adaptions of the books I've read but I deal if it's a good movie.

All the bitching about Burton's movies is pretty funny considering what Nolan gets away with just because he got to reboot a franchise that became a huge joke. To me they both took pretty unnecessary liberties but I enjoyed both movies so I'm pretty good with it. I just laugh at the idea that Nolan's is the definitive Batman. My definitive Batman movie doesn't have a nobody character like Rachel Dawes stinking up the screen and Ras Al Ghul training Bruce Wayne

And my definitive Joker isn't just some freak who puts on clown make up either. But if the movie is good, again I'll deal and just look at it as a specific interpretation of Batman on its own and a movie that is either good or bad.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
ICAM.

I think Nolan has done countless things I didn't approve of as a Batman fan but I am not as anal as some are. If it's a good watchable movie I go with it. I am also a big reader and many of the movies I see aren't faithful adaptions of the books I've read but I deal if it's a good movie.

All the bitching about Burton's movies is pretty funny considering what Nolan gets away with just because he got to reboot a franchise that became a huge joke. To me they both took pretty unnecessary liberties but I enjoyed both movies so I'm pretty good with it. I just laugh at the idea that Nolan's is the definitive Batman. My definitive Batman movie doesn't have a nobody character like Rachel Dawes stinking up the screen and Ras Al Ghul training Bruce Wayne

And my definitive Joker isn't just some freak who puts on clown make up either. But if the movie is good, again I'll deal and just look at it as a specific interpretation of Batman on its own and a movie that is either good or bad.

QTF

It is better compered to B&R and Val does a good job presenting different aspects of Bruce Wayne, Robin had a great introduction, the fact that they took two very good villains one of which is a member of Batman's big three and screwed him up annoyed me greatly, don't get me wrong I liked some of the Riddlers humor, fact is Riddler is not a Joker clone; he certainly does not make jokes every 3 seconds in a comic panel like he does on screen; someone please tell me what was with that box?

The fact that both villains are unlike there comic selves is very annoying, and a shame for the villains, since they are confined to being goofy tricksters, instead of being allowed the freedom of developing into the dark persona's of the comic, instead they cut all of that development in favor of big battles and some strange palace on a rock in the sea.

Still not as bad as pun king Freeze......but not far off.

I found Val's Batman and Bruce very wooden.

Wooden?

What the hell does that mean?

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
It is better compered to B&R and Val does a good job presenting different aspects of Bruce Wayne, Robin had a great introduction, the fact that they took two very good villains one of which is a member of Batman's big three and screwed him up annoyed me greatly, don't get me wrong I liked some of the Riddlers humor, fact is Riddler is not a Joker clone; he certainly does not make jokes every 3 seconds in a comic panel like he does on screen; someone please tell me what was with that box?

The fact that both villains are unlike there comic selves is very annoying, and a shame for the villains, since they are confined to being goofy tricksters, instead of being allowed the freedom of developing into the dark persona's of the comic, instead they cut all of that development in favor of big battles and some strange palace on a rock in the sea.

Still not as bad as pun king Freeze......but not far off.


I feel you, & i state again..."remember that in Bats 3 & 4, they tried to make it all bubble gummy !!! campy if you will! at the time it was a modern version of the original series from the 1960's. sure there were no *BAMS & POWS* but take a look at its resemblance

...the Duo making public appearances to talk to reporters and @ public auctions-owning a Bat American Express card-making corny ass punch lines while fighting-corny villain portrayal-the Villains making even worse corny ass punch lines & trying to be funny! its all updated from the 60's version!

GTF Outta here! we all know this not to be the true B-Mans M.O!
but thats what they tried to play it off as. i mean me & my friends get a kick of watching that stupidity...the lines are so gay u just have to laugh! its like WTF he just actually said that s*#t! LOL!
So anyway IMO thats why i dont find his acting bad, it was just an all around corny writing scheme for the flicks!
Burton had it at a decent tone with the first 2,(just like B-Man Begins is dark toned) but then again all Burtons films are all pretty dark anyway!"

I have some friends I have talked with who they never saw batman Forever because they were so disgusted with the first two batman movies that they couldnt bring themselves to go see batman forever at the theaters to see another batman movie.But since I benefitted from a guy who loaned me batman forever to watch once then dissapeared without any contact number to give me,I loaned them batman forever to watch and they think the same thing I did,that it was much better than the first two batman movies so theres no question whatsoever its much better than batman and robin.Batman and Robin went way overboard and clooney was MUCH worse than Kilmer was.of the 3 actors that played Batman before batman begins,Kilmer is my favorite.

You've got to be kidding me? Batman Forever better than 1989 and Returns? Batman Forever was a joke. Not as big as joke as Batman and Robin but a pretty lame one. Any Batman movie that has Batman duking it out with Bruce Wayne over getting a girl into bed has serious problems not to even mention the other crappy stuff that was going on in that film such as the Batmobile having neon lights and driving up a damn wall, people's brainwaves getting sucked through a TV tapping device and Jim Carey uttering the words "SPANK ME!"

And Val Kilmer was awful. He was sleep walking through that entire role. No subtext, no nothing. The only thing he had going for himself is he looked like a rich play boy more so I think than people thought Keaton did but other than that he was awful, and his batsuit was ugly. But his acting couldn't have been more uninspired. Several scenes his line delivery was way off not that he didn't have some of the more ridiculous dialogue in the Batman franchise ("it's the car. Chicks dig the car!" but still he failed to even make anything worthwhile out of what they gave him.

Originally posted by DarthLazious
Wooden?

What the hell does that mean?
Stiff. Lacking a personality. Failing to leave an impact.

I think that Forever could have been salvaged had the actors delivered their lines correctly... Like for instance:

Two-Face: Had he been more subtle and toned down the way he delivered his lines, almost growled them, he could have been the Two-Face we know, even WITH the stupid dialog...

Batman: With retarded lines like "Chicks dig the car", he could have taken a page from Keaton and tried to be more intimidating while he spoke. Tried to say it with a little more "I'll kick your ass without a second thought" and a little less "I'm a guy in a suit with nipples... Are they supposed to take me seriously?"

Robin: Chris O' Donnell would have had good delivery... if he were a 16 year old... I mean, it seems the whole thing was written as if Grayson WAS a 16 year old, from stealing the Batmobile, the retarded "laundry martial arts", and the whole "dreams of one day being..." etc. etc. etc. But then they get an actor who looks like, 27... WTF?

Riddler: He was ok... A decent Gorshin rip-off... I just wish some of his more corny lines were cut...

I confess to liking Forever.

I saw it when I was 13, so that's part of it.

Don't kid yourselves, whether or not you like it over Returns or 89 or not , the film is leaps and bounds better than Batman and Robin. Not just "slightly" better.

I also liked Kilmer the best, after Bale.

He was the first one who I bought as bruce wayne in the mask, not as two seperate people. Like the corny bit where he smiles when Chase rejects Batman, that was cheezy but I liked that it was showing he's all the same person, just with different personas.

Yes, it was flashy and a little camp, but it was not bad. It was fun. Carey was fine. O'Donnell was fine. Kilmer was great. (Jones and Kidman stunk though, whoever posted that was right on.)

I rank it as even or right below Batman 89. It's definately better than Returns which flat-out sucks, in my opinion. The only thing that film has going for it was Catwoman, played well by Michelle Pfeiffer.

My rank:

1.) Batman Begins
2.) Batman (89)/Batman Forever (edge: Batman 89)
3.) Batman Returns
4.) Batman and Robin

I'm expecting TDK to take the top slot after I've seen it though.


Oh, if we include Batman:Mask of the Phantasm and Batman: The movie (66), then they go in above Batman Returns.

No way Batman Forever is on the same level as Batman 1989. No way a movie with:
-an unnecessary shot of Batman's ass and crotch
-Effing neon lighted Gotham
-Grown arse should be in college Robin
-Two Face who laughs, jokes and doesn't even pay attention to his coin and has gak for his face
-Riddler who wears outfits that are painted on so tight the real Riddle is what on his body can't you see through the outfits
-Riddle and a Two Face who were all over each other so much you wonder what was really going on between them
-Skankiest Bat girlfriend ever with the worst acting ever pre Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes
- the lines "chicks dig the car", "holy rusted metal Batman!" "Spank Me!" "YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!"
-Batman vs Bruce Wayne...who can get in her panties first cock fight between two personalities.
-Neon Batmobile that drives up the wall
- A Batcave that Robin can break into by leaping around like a damn monkey

No way is a movie with crap in it like that even on par with Batman 1989 IMO. That movie was like Batman at a Rave.

Everything Schumacher touched in the Batman franchise stank to the high heavens IMO. Of course Batman Forever is not as bad as Batman and Robin there are few things in the world that are as bad as Batman and Robin but Forever was a joke through and through as well. But it's people validating the large amount of camp and BS that Shumacher put into this film that lead to the disgustingly over the top Batman and Robin. This was the beginning of the end.

And Val Kilmer IMO was the worst Batman right behind George Clooney...but sadly at least George Clooney was trying.

so did batgirl have nipples?

No she didn't she had something resembling cup cake molds over her breasts.

Schumacher was only interested in men's nipples.

well.....there is the LAST possible thing that could've given me and incentive to watch this movie. and i'm thankful.

~Sado

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I found Val's Batman and Bruce very wooden.

Val was wooden as Batman.He didnt have any good serious material to work with though.He had great material to work with as bruce wayne though and he was great. Val was wooden as Batman.Keaton was wooden as Bruce Wayne,Clooney? he just plain sucked.Lets not even go into him. Bale? was awesome in BOTH roles as Bruce Wayne AND BATMAN. That being said,Bale is easily by far the best Bruce Wayne/Batman to have played the role and the one and ONLY true Batman.That may change in the future.They may restart it AGAIN.Look at KING KONG. it may change in the future if they do that.someone else may come along and excell in BOTH roles like Bale did but as of NOW.BALE is the one and ONLY true Batman.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
No way Batman Forever is on the same level as Batman 1989. No way a movie with:
-an unnecessary shot of Batman's ass and crotch
-Effing neon lighted Gotham
-Grown arse should be in college Robin
-Two Face who laughs, jokes and doesn't even pay attention to his coin and has gak for his face
-Riddler who wears outfits that are painted on so tight the real Riddle is what on his body can't you see through the outfits
-Riddle and a Two Face who were all over each other so much you wonder what was really going on between them
-Skankiest Bat girlfriend ever with the worst acting ever pre Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes
- the lines "chicks dig the car", "holy rusted metal Batman!" "Spank Me!" "YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!"
-Batman vs Bruce Wayne...who can get in her panties first cock fight between two personalities.
-Neon Batmobile that drives up the wall
- A Batcave that Robin can break into by leaping around like a damn monkey

No way is a movie with crap in it like that even on par with Batman 1989 IMO. That movie was like Batman at a Rave.

Everything Schumacher touched in the Batman franchise stank to the high heavens IMO. Of course Batman Forever is not as bad as Batman and Robin there are few things in the world that are as bad as Batman and Robin but Forever was a joke through and through as well. But it's people validating the large amount of camp and BS that Shumacher put into this film that lead to the disgustingly over the top Batman and Robin. This was the beginning of the end.

And Val Kilmer IMO was the worst Batman right behind George Clooney...but sadly at least George Clooney was trying.

sure it is.I already took you to school on this earlier.you just dont want to listen.

What I like about the Orginal 4 movies and what I didn't like-


Like:

1. Burton's batmobile
2. Bat suit in 'returns'
3. JN's joker
4. MP's catwoman
5. VK's black batsuit in forever
6. JC's riddler
7. Robin suit in both Forever and B & R
8. Danny elfman's score
9. Batman 89 batwing

Didn't like:

1. Forever and B and R music scores
2. Bane
3. Forever and B & R don't seem like actual movies to me
4. Shumacher's batmobiles


a lot of the stuff hate is the stuf you guys hate as well, or at least cut and dry everybody can agree on like "yeah I think that sucked too" kind of things.

Mostly what I liked were a lot of production design things.
\

Mostly what I hate about batman and robin and batman forever is that if you to put both of those movies into two seperate dvd players connected to two seperate tv's and played the movies at the same time.....they're going to probably run sequentially.

Like when dick grayson gets into a fight with black light neon gang in Forever, happens at the same time poison evy gets into a fight black light neon gang in B & R

Originally posted by Mr Parker
sure it is.I already took you to school on this earlier.you just dont want to listen.
No way Forever is better than Returns. I think Returns even has a higher score on Rottent Tomatoes.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
No way Forever is better than Returns. I think Returns even has a higher score on Rottent Tomatoes.

Doesnt really matter.As i said before,ALL the Burton/Scumacher Batman movies are shit and need to be burned.They were all a bad dream and nightmare I finally was able to wake up from after the one and ONLY true Batman movie Batman Begins was made. as i said before,Begins is ten times better than all four of those crapfest Burton/Scumacher batman movies.end of story.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
You've got to be kidding me? Batman Forever better than 1989 and Returns? Batman Forever was a joke. Not as big as joke as Batman and Robin but a pretty lame one. Any Batman movie that has Batman duking it out with Bruce Wayne over getting a girl into bed has serious problems not to even mention the other crappy stuff that was going on in that film such as the Batmobile having neon lights and driving up a damn wall, people's brainwaves getting sucked through a TV tapping device and Jim Carey uttering the words "SPANK ME!"

And Val Kilmer was awful. He was sleep walking through that entire role. No subtext, no nothing. The only thing he had going for himself is he looked like a rich play boy more so I think than people thought Keaton did but other than that he was awful, and his batsuit was ugly. But his acting couldn't have been more uninspired. Several scenes his line delivery was way off not that he didn't have some of the more ridiculous dialogue in the Batman franchise ("it's the car. Chicks dig the car!" but still he failed to even make anything worthwhile out of what they gave him.

Im just telling you what several people I know told me who were so disgusted with the first two batman movies they could not bring themselves to go see another batman movie by the time Forever came out and when I loaned them Forever a few years back, they regretted not seeing it because they liked kilmer much better as bruce wayne/batman and forever better than keaton and the first two films.I'm just the messenger telling you what they told me,dont shoot the messenger.want me to give you their phone numbers to call them up and debate about it with you? I doubt they would like that so i couldnt.LOL. like i said,im just going by what some people told me that agreed with me on it.dont shoot the messenger.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't want to start this old argument again, but Begins had a lot more wrong with it than just one thing...

1. Ras Al Ghul wasn't like the comics (this is just nitpicking, but if Burton bashers can say that about Penguin in Returns, I have every right to expose that flaw in Begins)

2. Batman didn't save Ras (the comics version would at least try) This one I could go on and on about... It's like, Bruce preaches about how "no one is beyond saving" all throughout the movie, and then he refuses to save Ras... That's one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard... I mean, he didn't "kill" him per se, but he DID go against his "code", which is something Batman NEVER does, no matter what...

3. Bruce deliberately destroyed the monastery, knowing that there were hundreds of ninja in there that would die (again, it's kinda just nitpicking, but if Burton bashers can say that about blowing up Axis Chemicals, I can say that about the monastery)

It's still an awesome movie, though (not as good as mine, though )

1.well I can tolerate Ras not being faithful to the comics unlike peguin cause he's not one of bats MAIN villians and like you said,thats really a minor thing.

2.True that The batman from the comics would have saved him but at that point and Im sure most audiences agree,it would have been stupid to save him again because look at the gratitude he showed him when he saved him before.the bastard.world of difference between murdering someone and not saving somebody.not saving someone isnt murder.so that was no biggie.

3.I think its pretty evident nobody died in the monastary.I mean all those ninjas had MUCH more time to get out of there than bruce did by far.If bruce got out and lived, then its pretty safe to say everybody else did.There was no evidence he killed anybody.where with batman 89,it would be absurd to say he didnt murder people.dropping a bomb directly right in front of those goons,it would be absurd to say they didnt die.

yeah probably not as good as yours.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Im just telling you what several people I know told me who were so disgusted with the first two batman movies they could not bring themselves to go see another batman movie by the time Forever came out and when I loaned them Forever a few years back, they regretted not seeing it because they liked kilmer much better as bruce wayne/batman and forever better than keaton and the first two films.I'm just the messenger telling you what they told me,dont shoot the messenger.want me to give you their phone numbers to call them up and debate about it with you? I doubt they would like that so i couldnt.LOL. like i said,im just going by what some people told me that agreed with me on it.dont shoot the messenger.
Well a couple of people's opinions don't change the fact that the critical consensus is that both Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are crap and that Batman 1989 and Batman Returns were superior films to both in almost every aspect.

Batman Begins is a better movie than the others ones but it is certainly not more exciting I think than some of the other Batman films. Overall Begins was so straightforward and serious it bordered on being dry at times. There was an epic excitement missing from it that I hope is present in the next film. But even Batman Begins only scores a few percentage points higher on the Rotten Tomatometer than Batman Returns.

Originally posted by Mr Parker

busy tr
3.I think its pretty evident nobody died in the monastary.I mean all those ninjas had MUCH more time to get out of there than bruce did by far.If bruce got out and lived, then its pretty safe to say everybody else did.There was no evidence he killed anybody.where with batman 89,it would be absurd to say he didnt murder people.dropping a bomb directly right in front of those goons,it would be absurd to say they didnt die.

yeah probably not as good as yours.
Bruce more than likely killed at least one person and he didn't even check to see if the murderer he claimed was o so worthy of living got out of there alive because he was too busy trying to save Ras. Furthermore if the murderer did get out of there alive he essentially freed a killer a didn't even care about it. That completely contradicts what the Bruce Wayne character would do IMO. He'd at least make sure the kiler was apprehended and sent to jail to get a fair trial. But he couldn't be bothered.

At the end of the day when Nolan does it it's creative license and okay but when Tim Burton and Sam Hamm or Daniel Waters do it it's the highest order of blasphemy there ever was.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
At the end of the day when Nolan does it it's creative license and okay but when Tim Burton and Sam Hamm or Daniel Waters do it it's the highest order of blasphemy there ever was.

That's always bothered me...

It's the same way at BOF... Anything Nolan does is instantly either "the greatest thing to happen to Batman films ever", or "He's just using his creative license"... Yet no one dares defend Burton's creative ideas for Batman, though...

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Nolan's version of the character, same with Burton's, but I just think that there is a huge amount of bias that really shouldn't be there...

Meh. The temple thing is when Bruce is still young. He's essentially still in training (though nearing the end) and hasn't quite "found" himself yet.

The point you all are missing: it's different than him not shooting Falcone at the resteraunt. That wouldn't have been justice, but rather revenge.

In the temple, he's trying for justice, as he clearly DOESN'T want to execute that farmer.

Young, and inexperienced, he tries his best to escape and change the situation. It doesn't go as planned, but even then he's trying to save lives. (Ra's, in particular)

Your guys argument is a pathetic strawman, where you assume that the character was on some mass vengence spree, or even trying to say:"Well, I'll just blow 'em all up and be gone." He wasn't. I don't think he even meant to start the fire..he was trying to make a diversion so he could fight his way out.

It's not out of character at all.

It is out of character IMO because as I said he didn't even demonstrate any caring for the murder after starting the fire. That was his whole point for causing the diversion was to get out of having killing him and he may have ended up doing it anyway by accident and he didn't even care to find out if the man got out alive.

It isn't anymore a strawman than some of the things brought up from the Burton films IMO. In Batman 1989 Batman had just really gotten started in his crime fighting spree the rumors about him were pretty fresh and all he cared about was saving the people of Gotham from having to experience more poisoning from Axis chemicals when he blew it up. I don't think he'd have purposely blown up some thugs though in reality but I think that Batman 1989 was set back in the late 30s Batman era where he would kill people.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Well a couple of people's opinions don't change the fact that the critical consensus is that both Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are crap and that Batman 1989 and Batman Returns were superior films to both in almost every aspect.

Batman Begins is a better movie than the others ones but it is certainly not more exciting I think than some of the other Batman films. Overall Begins was so straightforward and serious it bordered on being dry at times. There was an epic excitement missing from it that I hope is present in the next film. But even Batman Begins only scores a few percentage points higher on the Rotten Tomatometer than Batman Returns.

except thats not at all the case.while most usually say batman 89 is the best of the four,most the critics I have seen, say batman forever was better than batman returns.the critics dished batman returns big time when it came out, much more so than they did with batman 89.Forever didnt get near the same kind of backlash by critics that returns did and hate to break the news but rotten tomatoes isnt god. Lol.Oh and as far as a couple peoples opinions goes,very rarely do I ever run into anybody in real life that tells me they liked the first two batman movies when I ask them.just about everywhere I went in high school when batman 89 came out,pratically all the dozens and dozens of people I bitched with about that movie back then,they all felt the same way and had the same agreements.once in a great while, I'll find people that think the same as you in real life,but VERY seldom.usually they say they hated all the previous batman films as well.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
except thats not at all the case.while most usually say batman 89 is the best of the four,most the critics I have seen, say batman forever was better than batman returns.the critics dished batman returns big time when it came out, much more so than they did with batman 89.Forever didnt get near the same kind of backlash by critics that returns did and hate to break the news but rotten tomatoes isnt god. Lol.Oh and as far as a couple peoples opinions goes,very rarely do I ever run into anybody in real life that tells me they liked the first two batman movies when I ask them.just about everywhere I went in high school when batman 89 came out,pratically all the dozens and dozens of people I bitched with about that movie back then,they all felt the same way and had the same agreements.once in a great while, I'll find people that think the same as you in real life,but VERY seldom.usually they say they hated all the previous batman films as well.
The people you know are not a reflection of the general population. Batman 1989 didn't make millions and millions of dollars and become one of the biggest box office successes of all time because people hated it

Furthermore Rottentomatoes is not god but it like Metacritic compiles critical reviews from all over and gives you a general consensus of what critics thought and the general consensus if you look up the movies is that these are the best Batman movies ranked in order of their critical response:

1) Batman Begins
2) Batman Returns
3) Batman 1989
4) Batman Forever
5) Batman and Robin.

Now whether you and your elite posse of friends agree with that is another matter but that is a critical consensus some with over 200 reviews counted and as I said Batman Returns didn't score that much lower than Batman Begins did.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Bruce more than likely killed at least one person and he didn't even check to see if the murderer he claimed was o so worthy of living got out of there alive because he was too busy trying to save Ras. Furthermore if the murderer did get out of there alive he essentially freed a killer a didn't even care about it. That completely contradicts what the Bruce Wayne character would do IMO. He'd at least make sure the kiler was apprehended and sent to jail to get a fair trial. But he couldn't be bothered.

At the end of the day when Nolan does it it's creative license and okay but when Tim Burton and Sam Hamm or Daniel Waters do it it's the highest order of blasphemy there ever was.

now THIS is hysterical.obviously you only read PARTS of my post and not the whole thing or you would see how its extremely unlikely he killed anyone.He couldnt carry Ras out when he was under the log AND get his mentor out at the same time,He had a choice to make and he made the right one i trying to save his friend.He probably didnt even know where the guy even went.this is serious nitpicking here.

its probably because its obvious to any real batman fan that schumacher AND Burton,Hamm and Waters committed blasphemy. they didnt give a rats ass about the fans.Nolan did.its kinda tiresome having to explain that to you over and over again though when you are just going to ignore the facts though. so I really dont want to have to keep repeating myself on that like i would have to.Thats why my friend bakerboy got wise cause of how you constanly ignore things we tell you.I dont know why I even bother with you anymore myself.I really should sto now,its tiring wasting my breath just to see it goe through one ear and out the other.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
The people you know are not a reflection of the general population. Batman 1989 didn't make millions and millions of dollars and become one of the biggest box office successes of all time because people hated it

Furthermore Rottentomatoes is not god but it like Metacritic compiles critical reviews from all over and gives you a general consensus of what critics thought and the general consensus if you look up the movies is that these are the best Batman movies ranked in order of their critical response:

1) Batman Begins
2) Batman Returns
3) Batman 1989
4) Batman Forever
5) Batman and Robin.

Now whether you and your elite posse of friends agree with that is another matter but that is a critical consensus some with over 200 reviews counted and as I said Batman Returns didn't score that much lower than Batman Begins did.

all you got to do is go back to when Batman Returns came out and read the reviews in the papers back then and youll see where the majority of reviewrs bashed it big time.go to the libray,do your research,its there.AGAIN rotten tomatoes isnt god,those papers reviews back then tell the story.Leonard malton for one liked Forever the best of the four and bashed returns equally as he did batman and robin.again,read the newspapers reviews from back then,go to the library and you'll see how they bashed it.please stop referring to rotten tomatoes as god for once.

well you obviously have horrible memorys problems because I constantly got to repeat myself to you on this since you never remember.Batman is extremely popular character around the world.Kids love him like crazy.at that time,people had been extremely anxious and crazy about seeing batman finally come to the movie screen,it didnt mnatter how awful the film was,you could have cast willie nelson in that role of bruce wayne and because of the name BATMAN alone,it would have been the huge money maker it was at the box office .it WAS brillantly marketed like crazy after all.seriously this is where you cripple your arguments all the time,if your going to talk about box office success,AGAIN as i have told you a hundred times in the past but you obviously dont want to remember,BATMAN was the FIRST batman movie brought to the screen,it was extremely overhyped liek crazy and because of how extremely popular he is as character,of course it was going to do great at the box office.to YOUR logic,as I have repeated to you a hundred times before in the past,if your going to go by box office success as people liking these movies,then to YOUR logic,Batman Returns was a worse movie than Batman Foreverwas because Batman Forever made more money at the boc office than Returns did. Really its tiresome having to repeat my points over and over to you just for them to go through one ear and out the other with you,obviously you never listen so I need to ake a cue from bakerboy.its tiring to have to repeat myself over and over just to have the word go through one ear and out the other.see you when THE DARK KNIGHT comes out.maybe you'll have decent points by then to talk about and be able to listen for a change.im done here.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Meh. The temple thing is when Bruce is still young. He's essentially still in training (though nearing the end) and hasn't quite "found" himself yet.

The point you all are missing: it's different than him not shooting Falcone at the resteraunt. That wouldn't have been justice, but rather revenge.

In the temple, he's trying for justice, as he clearly DOESN'T want to execute that farmer.

Young, and inexperienced, he tries his best to escape and change the situation. It doesn't go as planned, but even then he's trying to save lives. (Ra's, in particular)

Your guys argument is a pathetic strawman, where you assume that the character was on some mass vengence spree, or even trying to say:"Well, I'll just blow 'em all up and be gone." He wasn't. I don't think he even meant to start the fire..he was trying to make a diversion so he could fight his way out.

It's not out of character at all.

yep.as you see though.it just falls on death ears when you tell selina though.

I was not saying Batman's box office success is a sign of what a good movie it was I was using it as an example of how people didn't HATE it as much as you try to make it out like they did because it was a summer blockbuster and continued to turn huge profits. If the movie was not well liked and big JUST based on the popularity of the character it would have come out opening weekend and bad word of mouth about how much everyone hated the movie would have gotten around and it would have tanked after that. Instead it is the highest grossing of all the Batman flicks despite Batman Begins getting the hype from critics and hyper obsessed fanboys around the globe. So that argument to me is flawed. I never said the money made it a better movie I only said everyone didn't hate it like you seem to suggest.

And I know Batman Forever made more money than Batman Returns but again my argument was never that the money makes the movie better. Clearly Batman Forever was better received because it was dumbed down a great deal so kiddies could see it after Batman Returns scared them. But in time as people look back both Schumacher films are frowned upon because both of them sucked ass big time.

And just because I refuse to agree with your nonsensical fanatical hatred towards Tim Burton by making logical arguments doesn't mean I'm not listening. Just debating the points with you and if you can't handle that then I think you should excuse yourself from the conversation.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
now THIS is hysterical.obviously you only read PARTS of my post and not the whole thing or you would see how its extremely unlikely he killed anyone.He couldnt carry Ras out when he was under the log AND get his mentor out at the same time,He had a choice to make and he made the right one i trying to save his friend.He probably didnt even know where the guy even went.this is serious nitpicking here.

its probably because its obvious to any real batman fan that schumacher AND Burton,Hamm and Waters committed blasphemy. they didnt give a rats ass about the fans.Nolan did.its kinda tiresome having to explain that to you over and over again though when you are just going to ignore the facts though. so I really dont want to have to keep repeating myself on that like i would have to.Thats why my friend bakerboy got wise cause of how you constanly ignore things we tell you.I dont know why I even bother with you anymore myself.I really should sto now,its tiring wasting my breath just to see it goe through one ear and out the other.
You're loco.

It's obvious to any REAL Batman fan that Nolan is not perfect or the god of Batman movie making either. Both sets of films have their merits and flaws. Batman Begins is not the holy grail it doesn't have Batman's character down perfect either IMO and no matter how many times you act like that movie is the second coming of Christ you're right I won't agree with you so you are wasting your keystrokes.

Thank God I'm not so far gone I can enjoy both B1989 and BR and BB

Wow! ok that was fun to observe!

well i could care less about trying to debate this with anyone here...again! i've got nothing but love for all, but...
the truth still stands with the majority of us...

1. we loved B-Man 3 & 4 as children
2. we can view them now as adults & get a good kick from them
3. 99% of everyone enjoyed Begins (silly nit pick criticism aside)
4. debates suck when they're not in our favor...thats why they're called debates!
& finally as i bid you adue i'd like to leave you all with these kind words:.....

"Like my plastic surgeon always says: "If you gotta go... Go with a Smile!"

Originally posted by Mr Parker
1.well I can tolerate Ras not being faithful to the comics unlike peguin cause he's not one of bats MAIN villians and like you said,thats really a minor thing.

2.True that The batman from the comics would have saved him but at that point and Im sure most audiences agree,it would have been stupid to save him again because look at the gratitude he showed him when he saved him before.the bastard.world of difference between murdering someone and not saving somebody.not saving someone isnt murder.so that was no biggie.

3.I think its pretty evident nobody died in the monastary.I mean all those ninjas had MUCH more time to get out of there than bruce did by far.If bruce got out and lived, then its pretty safe to say everybody else did.There was no evidence he killed anybody.where with batman 89,it would be absurd to say he didnt murder people.dropping a bomb directly right in front of those goons,it would be absurd to say they didnt die.

yeah probably not as good as yours.

1. I always thought that Ras was one of Batman's greatest foes, but hey, whatever you guys think is alright with me...

2. But it's the fact that he went against what he had been saying the ENTIRE movie... AND the fact that the true Batman would have at least attempted to save him... I can understand Ras not deserving it, but what about all the complaints about Joker in B89? Everyone complained that Batman didn't try to save him, well, Joker didn't deserve it either... But again, the thing that I REALLY didn't like was that he was basically doing the EXACT opposite of what he was preaching the whole movie, that "No one is beyond saving..."

3. Fair enough, but I do agree with SelinaAndBruce that Bruce should have at LEAST checked to see if that guy he saved actually survived...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
1. I always thought that Ras was one of Batman's greatest foes, but hey, whatever you guys think is alright with me...

2. But it's the fact that he went against what he had been saying the ENTIRE movie... AND the fact that the true Batman would have at least attempted to save him... I can understand Ras not deserving it, but what about all the complaints about Joker in B89? Everyone complained that Batman didn't try to save him, well, Joker didn't deserve it either... But again, the thing that I REALLY didn't like was that he was basically doing the EXACT opposite of what he was preaching the whole movie, that "No one is beyond saving..."

3. Fair enough, but I do agree with SelinaAndBruce that Bruce should have at LEAST checked to see if that guy he saved actually survived...

2.I understand what your saying and thats a good point, the huge difference here which is what bothers batman fans about Batman 89 is that Batman didnt kill Ducard so its acceptable with Begins what happened, where with batman 89,Bruce did kill The Joker and he should have been prosecuted for it regardless of the jokers past actions instead of treating him like a damn hero.It wasnt believeble at all.Thats why I really loved Batman Begins is because of the believeablity in it that just wasnt there with the Burton films.Bruce went out and caught Falcone for the police,something THEY couldnt do, and regardless of that,That police commissioner STILL wanted Batman captured when he said-Nobody is going to take the law into their own hands.Not in my town.Nobody is above the law.Thats realistic.thats the kind of realisem I expected to see in Batman 89 but never got to see till Batman Begins. I sure am glad that with YOU in our debates,you dont ignore points and forget whats been told to you and have to have the same thing repeated to you over and over and over again because of horrible memory problems.

3.I assume your talking about Ducard his mentor? Thats the only one he pulled out and saved right?

IMO in Batman 1989 Batman didn't kill the Joker he tried to restrain the Joker by preventing him from getting away. The Joker just ended up dead because his constant trying to escape caused the gargoyle to come free and pull him down to his death. I don't think it was Batman's intention that the Joker fall to his death like that all just his intention that the Joker didn't escape.

That's my take on it and always has been I never thought he meant to kill the Joker more so that it happened and he didn't regret it. Now him not regretting it I think is definitely out of character in a way.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
IMO in Batman 1989 Batman didn't kill the Joker he tried to restrain the Joker by preventing him from getting away. The Joker just ended up dead because his constant trying to escape caused the gargoyle to come free and pull him down to his death. I don't think it was Batman's intention that the Joker fall to his death like that all just his intention that the Joker didn't escape.

That's my take on it and always has been I never thought he meant to kill the Joker more so that it happened and he didn't regret it. Now him not regretting it I think is definitely out of character in a way.

Too True! i gotta agree to that. it wasnt intentional.... that laughing bastard just wouldnt stop dancing! LOL! (trying to get away i mean!)

jim carry woulda made a great 2face. but val kiilmer was the best in that era. batman and robin sucked more than pamela anderson sucking off tommy lee and bret michaels

Val Kilmer was terrible. He just looked better than Keaton IMO but his acting as Batman was just flat. His line delivery was painful and awkward.

"I gotta get you out of those clothes".
"It's the car. Chicks dig the car".

Originally posted by P23
jim carry woulda made a great 2face. but val kiilmer was the best in that era. batman and robin sucked more than pamela anderson sucking off tommy lee and bret michaels

Which is why we, the hair rockers, are so awesome...

Anyway... Jim Carrey would have been horribly wrong for the role of Two-Face, and Val Kilmer played Batman, not Two-Face...

how did batgirl become paralyzed?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
how did batgirl become paralyzed?

Joker shot her through the spinal cord thus making her paralyzed, in Batman: The Killing Joke. (1988) if im not mistaken!

geez why cant people let this thread die? isnt it about time to stop discussing the burton/schmuacher films and talk about the batman begins sequal?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
geez why cant people let this thread die? isnt it about time to stop discussing the burton/schmuacher films and talk about the batman begins sequal?
This is the Batman forum not the Nolan's Bat only forum, lol

Originally posted by Mr Parker
geez why cant people let this thread die? isnt it about time to stop discussing the burton/schmuacher films and talk about the batman begins sequal?

People can talk about whatever they want...

Burton's films are enjoyable films in general, so they deserve to be talked about even during Nolan's run... But the schumacher films can die with this thread for all I care...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
People can talk about whatever they want...

Burton's films are enjoyable films in general, so they deserve to be talked about even during Nolan's run... But the schumacher films can die with this thread for all I care...

naw schumacher AND burtons films are crap films and they need to die during Nolans run along with this thread.I wish this thread would die because it just leads to discussing all those crapfest burton/schumacher batman movies.and thats the thing,those movies have been discussed to death here .I would think with the upcoming movie coming out this summer they would much rather want to talk about THAT film.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
naw schumacher AND burtons films are crap films and they need to die during Nolans run along with this thread.I wish this thread would die because it just leads to discussing all those crapfest burton/schumacher batman movies.and thats the thing,those movies have been discussed to death here .I would think with the upcoming movie coming out this summer they would much rather want to talk about THAT film.

1. people can discuss whatever they want!!!
2. people can talk about Nolans flicks & TDK on the other 5,000,000,000 threads about TDK ( im a Nolan fan so im not hating on either old or new films)
3. Who the F ' died & made you the opinion maker & setter of everyones opinions?!?
So like if i said i liked to watch the Smurfs, YOU shouldnt have s*it to say about it.
you can go and express that you dont like it. but who the hell are you to tell thousands that "yeah , naw theyre crap, & thats that cuz i said so!

i like to watch all the old B-Man Movies just to get a kick! i dont ONLY have eyes for Nolans work , just cuz its the closest thing to the realism of the comics & i concider it to be some sort of holy grail !!!

mind you, this is a Schumacher thread anyway, so if you keep returning to s*it on people for writing in here about those films, you must have nothing better to do than start s*it all day!

if you really dont like Burton/Schumacher flicks, thats cool, just stop posting, claiming to be the decider of peoples opinions, cuz no one gives a flying f*ck to be told what theyre own opinions are !!!
remember, opinions are like A Holes...everyone has one, & you posting up on this thread starting shit aint gonna rid the world of it!!!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
naw schumacher AND burtons films are crap films and they need to die during Nolans run along with this thread.I wish this thread would die because it just leads to discussing all those crapfest burton/schumacher batman movies.and thats the thing,those movies have been discussed to death here .I would think with the upcoming movie coming out this summer they would much rather want to talk about THAT film.

Like I said, people can talk about whatever they want...

And C2theR brings up a good point... If we wanted to talk about TDK, we'd go to the TDK threads all over this forum... I just kinda wanted to discuss what could have been better in the old series (things I address in my Recast/Rewrite thread) It just so happens that people like to talk about the old movies in between talking about the comics and the new movies...

And btw, everyone, check out my Song Lyrics at the Poetry Corner! (shameless self promotion )

Yeah I mean Mr. Parker if you don't want to discuss Burton/Schumacher films then I guess this is a bad thread to be in. It may surprise you but some Batman fans are not willing to just pretend they don't exist anymore just because Nolan came along

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Like I said, people can talk about whatever they want...

And C2theR brings up a good point... If we wanted to talk about TDK, we'd go to the TDK threads all over this forum... I just kinda wanted to discuss what could have been better in the old series (things I address in my Recast/Rewrite thread) It just so happens that people like to talk about the old movies in between talking about the comics and the new movies...

And btw, everyone, check out my Song Lyrics at the Poetry Corner! (shameless self promotion )

I didnt say they couldnt. its just since the discussion about those 4 movies has been done to death so much and was talked about recently as well,I wish people would just be focused on the new movie and make threads about it and talk MUCH more about it than they are.thats the ONLY reason I still come here to this section is to hear about THAT movie.If this thread was made like 6 months ago,I wouldnt be saying nothing because it was still a long way off from the movies release date but Now? like you said,they can talk about whatever they want,its just for the older posters like me -and i would think YOU as well,it would get tiresome hearing about it like it is for me.I had a thread about the NEW movie I wanted to make but since that thread just keeps getting brought back up to the top again,I think I'll wait till at least a couple more months from now when hopefully by THEN,that thread and other threads about those movies will have died down by then and more threads about the new movie have been created.

Originally posted by C2theR
Joker shot her through the spinal cord thus making her paralyzed, in Batman: The Killing Joke. (1988) if im not mistaken!

Thanks, i was very close to ordering that TPB. I think im going to go through with that now.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
It may surprise you but some Batman fans are not willing to just pretend they don't exist anymore just because Nolan came along

they should

I can understand why you would like batman and robin if you are gay. I mean, its the closest thing their community has to a gay super hero movie.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
they should

I can understand why you would like batman and robin if you are gay. I mean, its the closest thing their community has to a gay super hero movie.

I think she was talking about Batman/Batman Returns...

Those, imo, are enjoyable movies... Just because they aren't "Post Crisis Batman", doesn't mean they aren't Batman...

That's what makes Batman so awesome... You can have as many adaptations as possible, and all of them brings a different side of Batman to the table...

In fact, Batman 1989 is more in line with what Bob Kane/Bill Finger imagined Batman to be then Batman Begins...

Burton Bat = Batman 30s

Nolan Bat = Batman Now

Both are enjoyable, and both are valid...

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I didnt say they couldnt. its just since the discussion about those 4 movies has been done to death so much and was talked about recently as well,I wish people would just be focused on the new movie and make threads about it and talk MUCH more about it than they are.thats the ONLY reason I still come here to this section is to hear about THAT movie.If this thread was made like 6 months ago,I wouldnt be saying nothing because it was still a long way off from the movies release date but Now? like you said,they can talk about whatever they want,its just for the older posters like me -and i would think YOU as well,it would get tiresome hearing about it like it is for me.I had a thread about the NEW movie I wanted to make but since that thread just keeps getting brought back up to the top again,I think I'll wait till at least a couple more months from now when hopefully by THEN,that thread and other threads about those movies will have died down by then and more threads about the new movie have been created.

putting it like that, you have reasoning to your beliefs. but understand, the old movies get talked about because there are memories of them to discuss. we cant all talk about a movie, and make comparisons if there are none to be made! (i speak of TDK of course.) no doubt TDK will kick ass & when the time comes it will have its due respect on the forums! but for now theres not much to go on, no matter how sick the previews are!

I'm not sure why everyone just assumes The Dark Knight will kick ass. I hope it will but it annoys me whenever says it like it is a sure thing.

And again as someone else said there really is so much you can discuss about a film you haven't seen yet.

Where as there is an endless amount of things you can say about a film you have already seen several times.

Plus when you consider that Batman 1989 is still the biggest grossing Batflick...it actually makes sense that the films from that era are still discussed pretty frequently. Lots of people saw them and there's IMO a lot to be said about them still.