Both have Batman returning, returning to fight new major villains in Batman Returns and after a long absence in TDKR. Both have Catwoman, a ballroom scene with Bruce and Selina and a villain seeking to destroy Gotham City, and also another villain, as in Max Schreck and Talia.
Both are sequels to films featuring the Joker who were succesful and they (TDKR and BR) were released 20 years apart. They are also the last Batman films directed by Chris Nolan and Tim Burton respectively.
The ballroom scene was definitely an homage to Batman Returns. Not sure if it's been publicly commented on by Nolan but everyone can see that.
As for Batman returning, with BR you get the sense that the "returns" was more in reference to the movie theater than it is to Gotham. None of the residents seem that surprised when he shows up which means that he never really went away.
And the snow, don't forget the snow!
I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!" Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 06:06
And the snow, don't forget the snow!
I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!" Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.
It wasn't explicit so I don't think it's fair to suggest that TDK was emulating Batman Returns in this sense but I do agree that it is at least implied that Batman has been 'out of action' for a while by the time we find Bruce in Batman Returns. He seems to have lost any purpose to life and is literally waiting for the Batsignal to rouse him out of his stupor. I don't imagine it's been several years as is the case in TDK but I do get the impression he's not needed to don and cape and cowl for a good while. The implication of the mayor's speech "hopefully this will be the first merry Christmas Gotham has enjoyed for a long time" is that peace and order has been partially restored to Gotham and Gothamites are looking forward to continuing to enjoy a city that doesn't need Batman. Of course, the Red Triangle Gang spoils all that...
In general I don't care for nihilism but I do find 'Batman Returns' pessimistic and despairing POV quite refreshing and thematically fascinating for a comic-book movie. What I mean by that is the sense that Bruce is almost as much a 'bad guy' in the film as the Oswald, Selina and Max Shreck since he has a maladjusted need to thrive on the misery that afflicts Gotham's 'little people'. Without it he can not truly be 'whole' (i.e. Batman). He is like a colonial ruler who thrives off the sense of dependency he instils in the natives.
Quote from: phantom stranger on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 02:41
The ballroom scene was definitely an homage to Batman Returns. Not sure if it's been publicly commented on by Nolan but everyone can see that.
As for Batman returning, with BR you get the sense that the "returns" was more in reference to the movie theater than it is to Gotham. None of the residents seem that surprised when he shows up which means that he never really went away.
While I like the title it doesn't really make sense does it? What's Batman returning from? Burton was critical of the title for Batman Forever but y'know I have to respectfully disagree with him. While it may sound like the title of some romance comic it was stated in the film what it may refer to. Firstly Bruce's line to Chase that he "fell forever..." when falling into the Batcave as a child. Secondly the rather fantastic statement he gives at the end to the defeated Riddler that he chooses to remain both as Bruce Wayne and Batman always. In a film where he has a choice whether to continue as Batman or not I think the title is a misunderstood criticism by fans.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 06:06
And the snow, don't forget the snow!
I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!" Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.
Yes the snow. Unfortunately it wasn't as magical looking here as in Burton's. The realism content got in the way there. I'd really like to know if all these similarities were intentional given it was also the 20th anniversary of Batman Returns and Catwoman's (proper) return to Cinema screens therefore. I think in reality it's nothing but coincidence really. Either way a really nice "accident".
I always thought Batman coming to solve the attack on Gotham Plaza was the first situation he'd dealt with since the Joker incident. That's how I justified it as a kid. Maybe he'd been redesigning the Batcave and developing the new batsuit in the meantime. His split with Viki Vale may have put him out of action for a time too.
Trouble is we don't know how much time has passed as the movies were never designed this way. I personally go on the three year rule (the years since the release of the first movie). Gotham City looks like it's had some newly built structures. Some time to achieve that surely.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 11:00
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 06:06
And the snow, don't forget the snow!
I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!" Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.
It wasn't explicit so I don't think it's fair to suggest that TDK was emulating Batman Returns in this sense but I do agree that it is at least implied that Batman has been 'out of action' for a while by the time we find Bruce in Batman Returns. He seems to have lost any purpose to life and is literally waiting for the Batsignal to rouse him out of his stupor. I don't imagine it's been several years as is the case in TDK but I do get the impression he's not needed to don and cape and cowl for a good while. The implication of the mayor's speech "hopefully this will be the first merry Christmas Gotham has enjoyed for a long time" is that peace and order has been partially restored to Gotham and Gothamites are looking forward to continuing to enjoy a city that doesn't need Batman. Of course, the Red Triangle Gang spoils all that...
In general I don't care for nihilism but I do find 'Batman Returns' pessimistic and despairing POV quite refreshing and thematically fascinating for a comic-book movie. What I mean by that is the sense that Bruce is almost as much a 'bad guy' in the film as the Oswald, Selina and Max Shreck since he has a maladjusted need to thrive on the misery that afflicts Gotham's 'little people'. Without it he can not truly be 'whole' (i.e. Batman). He is like a colonial ruler who thrives off the sense of dependency he instils in the natives.
Batman Returns also shares similarities with another film made and released at the same time which is Alien3. Both have a bleak, depressing tone that took audiences totally by surprise and ultimately made them controversial. Today they are both regarded as being misunderstood and ahead of their time. I think it's interesting analysing them both.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 20:32
Trouble is we don't know how much time has passed as the movies were never designed this way. I personally go on the three year rule (the years since the release of the first movie). Gotham City looks like it's had some newly built structures. Some time to achieve that surely.
It's not a problem because it's fun to speculate. I do agree though that it was probably around three years since the events of 'Batman '89'. By that rationale I'm guessing Gotham had experienced a couple of violence-free Christmases before the events of 'Batman Returns' but maybe the mayor was just exaggerating and maybe he was also referring to the cash-injection Shreck had brought to the city over the recent period. One gets a sense that Gotham has been vastly revitalised commercially since the events of 'Batman '89'.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 20:39
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 20:32
Trouble is we don't know how much time has passed as the movies were never designed this way. I personally go on the three year rule (the years since the release of the first movie). Gotham City looks like it's had some newly built structures. Some time to achieve that surely.
It's not a problem because it's fun to speculate. I do agree though that it was probably around three years since the events of 'Batman '89'. By that rationale I'm guessing Gotham had experienced a couple of violence-free Christmases before the events of 'Batman Returns' but maybe the mayor was just exaggerating and maybe he was also referring to the cash-injection Shreck had brought to the city over the recent period. One gets a sense that Gotham has been vastly revitalised commercially since the events of 'Batman '89'.
And then you have the Mayor himself who is clearly not Mayor Borg anymore from the first film and Harvey Dent is not around. So something's happened there. An election perhaps. And this Mayor is quite unpopular it seems. Like he's been messing things up for some time. We don't really get his name but I like to think he's Mayor Hill (introduced in the animated series who was also quite foolish). Furthermore maybe that baby of his in his future animated series son, Jordan! (see "Be a Clown") lol
By the time of Batman Forever there is another new Mayor, a black guy. So another election there.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 20:48
And then you have the Mayor himself who is clearly not Mayor Borg anymore from the first film and Harvey Dent is not around. So something's happened there. An election perhaps. And this Mayor is quite unpopular it seems. Like he's been messing things up for some time. We don't really get his name but I like to think he's Mayor Hill (introduced in the animated series who was also quite foolish). Furthermore maybe that baby of his in his future animated series son, Jordan! (see "Be a Clown") lol
By the time of Batman Forever there is another new Mayor, a black guy. So another election there.
I don't know why people keep saying this mayor is called 'Mayor Hill'. In the novelisation he is referred to as Mayor Jensen. There is no reference in any other medium to this mayor being called 'Hill'.
However, I do agree that it's interesting that Mayor Borg has been booted out of office. I suspect the new mayor, who seems to be chums with Max Shreck at least until he rejects his powerplant proposal, is a Republican since Borg was clearly a Democrat, as seen by the Gotham Democrat Committee banners in the first film. I like it when Bruce Wayne says that he and the mayor see 'eye to eye on
this one' with respect to Max's power plant suggesting that they haven't always been in agreement (Bruce is clearly a noblesse oblige type rich Democrat like his father, a doctor). I also suspect that this mayor is a bit of a bumbler too and is therefore hypothetically quite easy to boot out even for a bile-spitting mutant sewer-dwelling midget. Perhaps that also explains why he is replaced by another mayor by 'Batman Forever' who I'm guessing is a Democrat (there being far more black Democrat politicians than GOP ones).
Time has passed since Batman 89, but I don't necessarily think Batman has been out of action, himself. Gordon's line "I'm afraid the Circus Gang is back," indicates that they've dealt with this gang before, of screen, between the two films. At least that's my reading of it, it could have been something Gordon dealt with without Batman.
I rather like Bruce sitting in his gloomy mansion. Though, according to Waters, Burton wanted to rid every nod to the first Batman film, and Waters had to fight to get at least one or two Vicki references in there---Bruce's solitude seems connected to Vicki's leaving. So Vicki split, the Joker is dead, both justice and vengeance served...where does he go from here? Intentional or not, it's a good starting point.
Quote from: greggbray on Tue, 2 Jul 2013, 20:04
Time has passed since Batman 89, but I don't necessarily think Batman has been out of action, himself. Gordon's line "I'm afraid the Circus Gang is back," indicates that they've dealt with this gang before, of screen, between the two films. At least that's my reading of it, it could have been something Gordon dealt with without Batman.
Was Gordon perhaps referring to the circus gang that had kidnapped children several years before according to the microfiche Bruce pulls out later in the film?
If the Circus Gang had been operating in the interim on what basis would they be acting? They seem to be completely aligned to the Penguin and there's nothing to indicate that they have any other motives beyond doing their leader's bidding.
The circus gang may have commited crimes to get money to build the rockets and the mind control helmets for the penguins. Or money to buy them. In Batman Forever Riddler and Two-Face committed crimes to fund the building and marketing of the mind reading machines.
The circus gang was probably thought to be linked to the missing children but I don't get the impression from that newspaper article Bruce reads that anything was proven.
Why would Burton want no references to Batman '89 in Batman Returns? Might he have wanted people to think it took place in a completely different universe from the first movie's universe?
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Wed, 3 Jul 2013, 04:32
Why would Burton want no references to Batman '89 in Batman Returns? Might he have wanted people to think it took place in a completely different universe from the first movie's universe?
Bearing in mind that he brought back Keaton, Gough and Pat Hingle and that there are a couple of references to Vicki Vale I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that 'Batman Returns' is not a sequel to 'Batman' however, I do believe Burton was relatively unsatisfied with his first go at 'Batman' (the fool... ;) ) and that he probably viewed it as a studio-mandated picture rather than a passion-project, although to be fair I think his first 'Batman' clearly is a 'Tim Burton picture' even though it's certainly nowhere near as idiosyncratic and determinedly 'Burtonesque' as 'Batman Returns' and most of his other films (the 'Planet of the Apes' remake excepted).
Anyway, the point is Burton I believe wanted to make another Batman film that could exist as a 'stand-alone' movie rather than an explicit continuation of a saga. The great thing is that 'Batman Returns' can be viewed either way and although I like to think of it as a sequel which ever way you look at it one doesn't need to have seen 'Batman' to fully enjoy 'Returns' (in some way the situation is comparable to the 'Indiana Jones' films - there is no necessary order for watching the films, and if there was surely 'Temple of Doom' would ideally be watched
before 'Raiders' since 'ToD' is a prequel).
What about Batman '89 do you think makes it distinctive as a Tim Burton movie? Other than the fact the credits say he directed it.
There are a lot of reasons why I feel that Batman Returns doesn't feel like it takes place in the same world as Batman '89. It seems even more otherworldly with the even more 1930's look. Max Shreck's clothes and hair also don't seem to fit in the world of Batman '89. The Penguin and his circus friends don't really feel like they belong in Batman '89's world either. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense though.
Not that I don't think it's a sequel. I just don't think it feels like one but I don't care. I prefer Batman Returns' more surreal, otherworldly look.
QuoteWhat about Batman '89 do you think makes it distinctive as a Tim Burton movie? Other than the fact the credits say he directed it.
The subversive humour, the art direction clearly, the focus on the disaffected outsider status of the main characters, Danny Elfman's score (again clearly), the period look and feel and otherworldly quality to this Gotham (none of Burton's films feel like they are set in the 'real world' and IMHO are all the more enjoyable for that).
Do I take it from your question that you don't really consider 'Batman '89' to be a particularly 'Burtoneque' movie?
QuoteThere are a lot of reasons why I feel that Batman Returns doesn't feel like it takes place in the same world as Batman '89. It seems even more otherworldly with the even more 1930's look. Max Shreck's clothes and hair also don't seem to fit in the world of Batman '89. The Penguin and his circus friends don't really feel like they belong in Batman '89's world either. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense though.
I think the minor stylistic differences don't destroy my suspension of disbelief. I enjoy each film's distinctive look and feel whilst still appreciating 'Batman Returns' as a direct sequel to Burton's first Batman film. Also, I always felt that 'Batman '89' with its gangster-orientated storyline and motifs was a blend of the 1930s/80s and that 'Batman Returns' was a blend of the post-war 1940s/early 90s aesthetic. In that sense, 'Batman Returns' feels like a natural continuation of the first film and that Gotham has changed so radically in the space of a few years makes as much sense to me as a Gotham which apparently undergoes no discernible change between the events of 'Batman Begins' and 'TDKR' which, including flashbacks to Bruce's childhood, would appear to take place over a the best part of a thirty-year timeframe in total.
I think Batman '89 is like a Tim Burton movie. I was just curious what you thought. :)
As for Batman Begins, I think the clothes young Bruce and his parents wear look like pre-2005 styles. If those flashbacks were in the early 1970's I think the clothes still look old-fashioned but I've always thought Gotham looks best as a 1930's or 1940's city.
QuoteI think Batman '89 is like a Tim Burton movie. I was just curious what you thought.
No problem. I hope you didn't think my comments were rude. I can see why some people (not you though) might consider 'Batman '89' to be one of Burton's less 'Burtonesque' films if that makes any sense.
QuoteAs for Batman Begins, I think the clothes young Bruce and his parents wear look like pre-2005 styles. If those flashbacks were in the early 1970's I think the clothes still look old-fashioned but I've always thought Gotham looks best as a 1930's or 1940's city.
If Bruce is meant to be around the same age as Christian Bale then I'd say those flashbacks take place in the 80s. On the other hand, if I'm right about that surely that means 'TDKR' takes place in the future since it is set eight years after the events of 'TDK' (so 2016 perhaps), although to be fair there probably wasn't a three year gap between the events of 'Begins' and 'TDK' regardless of the three year gap between the release of those respective movies.
Anyway, my point with the Nolan films is that there is no discernible change in the way Gotham looks from the flashback scenes in 'Begins' to the present/future-day scenes in 'TDKR'. Fashions haven't changes and neither has the architecture and general appearance of the city. I suppose Nolan wanted his films to be timeless but instead it seems that 'TDK' series is permanently stuck in the mid to late 00s. I think a sense of timelessness is far better achieved by setting a film in a specific period or a clearly fantastical 'elsewhere' world like the Gotham City of 'Batman '89' and 'Batman Returns' which are like a fusion of the 30/40s and the 80/90s.
I didn't think your comments were rude. :)
I don't think Batman '89 looks as much like a Burton movie as others do including Batman Returns but I see a little of Burton's ideas in it. In spite of the old-fashioned look of Gotham and the clothes people wear I think the movie does look and feel a lot like our world, at least in the 80's. Batman Returns on the other hand feels like another world completely. I can't see things like Penguin, the Red Triangle Circus Gang and their ability to get the blueprints to the Batmobile, kidnap millions of children in one night with circus trains and arm intelligent penguins with candy cane striped rockets and put mind control helmets on their heads in the universe of Batman '89. And let's not forget about the maybe magical cats and Catwoman. In Batman Returns Gotham also looks more like a cartoon and idealistic than in Batman '89 as well, in my opinion. The sabotage of the Batmobile with that little ball, the rubber duck boat/car, the Batmobile ride, the clothes people wear, especially Max, don't seem to fit in with Batman '89's more realistic world I think.
Also there's how different Wayne Manor looks. Did Bruce Wayne have the exterior redesigned? He is rich and weird so maybe he did. ;D It looks to me like he redesigned the Batcave too.
And this isn't a criticism. I'm just saying what I think.
Batman and Batman Returns vs The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, who would win?
And call me bats**t insane, but Batman Forever wins against Batman Begins for me. Watch the deleted scenes of BF and you'll see what I mean.
QuoteBatman and Batman Returns vs The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, who would win?
Tough one. Would probably be a draw for me. If you'd said BB and TDK it would have been a marginal win for B'89 and BR. If you'd said BB and TDKR it would have been a clear victory for B'89 and BR.
no-brainer, both sides of the fence
I like Batman Forever better than Batman Begins too.
Joker check this out, awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HwRnU4ryM
I think BF could have benefitted from more sombre, low-key scenes like this although I have mixed feelings about the goofy giant bat. Who's that meant to be? Man-Bat? And why does Bruce suddenly switch from feeling guilty about his supposed part in his parents' death to emerging from the bat cave with a goofy grin and a new-found spring-in-his-step about being Batman? What was it about the giant bat encounter that made him undergo such a sudden switch of emotion?
Anyway, cool find Edd. Was this scenes in the BF DVD deleted scenes? I don't remember it.
The uploader mentioned that he put that scene together from raw footage.
I have no idea what the giant bat is supposed to mean or where it came from...
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:42
The uploader mentioned that he put that scene together from raw footage.
I have no idea what the giant bat is supposed to mean or where it came from...
It's very professionally put together and despite my misgivings regarding the logic of the scene it's no more incoherent than the rest of the film. ;)
I agree the film was pretty incoherent. And some scenes didn't make much sense or were not true to the characters. Two-Face is a prme example.
Also, what was Bruce trying to do by saying out loud: "Harvey! I'm Batman!" at the circus? The Bruce Wayne I know would never do that.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:54
I agree the film was pretty incoherent. And some scenes didn't make much sense or were not true to the characters. Two-Face is a prme example.
Also, what was Bruce trying to do by saying out loud: "Harvey! I'm Batman!" at the circus? The Bruce Wayne I know would never do that.
He was trying to save people's lives. Surely that's what Batman is all about. Otherwise he's just some rich thug with a fetish for dressing up and beating people down regardless of the consequences.
If he can save more people by giving up his identity than that's surely what he must do. Screw all this 'you must endure' sh*t. ;)
Ok but you do know that Harvey would've still killed him and probably everyone else ? I mean, that character flipped the coin until he got the result he wanted, it's not like he could be trusted.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:26
Ok but you do know that Harvey would've still killed him and probably everyone else ? I mean, that character flipped the coin until he got the result he wanted, it's not like he could be trusted.
Good point. Harvey wasn't to be trusted but it might have stolen some time for people to get away. After all, Batman was the one he wanted.
But then there would be no one to stop Harvey and Nygma...
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 03:27
But then there would be no one to stop Harvey and Nygma...
Batman created Harvey and Bruce Wayne created Nygma. With Bruce out of the way Nygma wouldn't need to take his revenge, would he?
Okay, I agree with that. But more criminals would arise and who would protect Gotham?
I still have a problem that Harvey wanted to get Batman and not Sal Maroni. Going way off topic, but it's the same as the Scorpion in Spidey TAS, in one of his appearances, instead of going after JJ Jameson, the man who created him in this continuity, went after dr Stillwell, who was just the one who pulled the trigger.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 04:14
Okay, I agree with that. But more criminals would arise and who would protect Gotham?
I still have a problem that Harvey wanted to get Batman and not Sal Maroni. Going way off topic, but it's the same as the Scorpion in Spidey TAS, in one of his appearances, instead of going after JJ Jameson, the man who created him in this continuity, went after dr Stillwell, who was just the one who pulled the trigger.
Like Two-Face killing everyone but the Joker in TDK... ::) I didn't entirely buy Two-Face's descent into madness and obsession with random justice as much as I love TDK particularly Aaron Eckhart's performance so when he chose to let the Joker go and instead kill the other minor players in Rachel's death and his transformation it didn't entirely ring true.
I also never understood why he pointed the gun and flipped the coin for whether he'd live or die before he 'tried' Gordon. What if the coin had landed on the scarred side?
Anyway, didn't Batman partly create most of his enemies in Gotham?
Two-face would've shot himself? But then how he could "judge" Batman and Gordon? It was just a show-off move from the filmmakers.
Yes, Batman did create most of enemies and most of them are like him in a way. German expressionism...
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 04:48
Two-face would've shot himself? But then how he could "judge" Batman and Gordon? It was just a show-off move from the filmmakers.
I don't know about that...but I guess it must have given Gordon a chance to be 'let off' if Two-Face shot himself before he could 'judge' them. But surely if everyone 'deserved to be judged' he should have left himself to the end.
My main problem is this: Harvey IS NOT "chosen" by anyone to become Two-Face, because it contradicts the very idea of chance that Harvey Dent stands for.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 13:47
Joker check this out, awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HwRnU4ryM
Very cool. I've seen the scene before, but the use of Goldenthal's score is a nice addition.
I like the scene, and would one day like to see all those deleted scenes included like Spider-Man 2.1, etc.
I agree it comes off a little goofy, but the giant bat is no doubt expressionism on Bruce's part. Exaggerated reality.
That's a great scene with the giant bat. I thought the book said that Bruce wanted to see a movie but Thomas and Martha wanted to do something else so Bruce would have to see his cartoon another time. Is that correct? If that's the case then what does this have to do with the night of the Wayne murders? It happened another night then didn't it?
And what does Bruce say? "It was my fault" or "it wasn't my fault".
As for the giant bat, that is one of the scariest things I've ever seen in a movie, especially once we see that it's bigger than Bruce is. In reality there was probably just a normal sized bat and what we see is symbolic or in Bruce's imagination. The giant bat and him standing up to it and making it stop probably symbolizes Bruce overcoming his guilt or remembering that he is Batman. What do other people think?
I think you've nailed it with the giant bat. It all makes sense now.
Yes, maybe I'd need to see the film in context to fully understand it. It doesn't make sense as a standalone scene because I don't get a sense of Bruce's angst regarding his change of mind about being Batman.
Does this scene take place after the scene at Wayne Manor where Dr Meridian is kidnapped?
As I interpreted the scene Bruce lost his memory and Alfred helped him recover it. Probably after he was knocked unconscious when Chase was kidnapped.
Chase kidnapped.
Deleted scene of Bruce entering the cave and encountering the 'giant bat'.
Bruce and Alfred solve the riddles.
Well that scene really fits.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 13:47
Joker check this out, awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HwRnU4ryM
The giant bat effects hold up very well, excepting the close-ups of its head. Leave those out and it's a really powerful image.
I never like Kilmer's performance as Batman, and he doesn't do well here either IMO, but the scene is conceptually brilliant and effectively executed. However, I still think that, if the entire "red book" subplot were restored to the film, it wouldn't be enough to make up for
Forever's many faults.