Im curious, I know this topic has been brought up several times elsewhere, but if the deleted "red book" scenes would have been put back into Forever, would it REALLY made a difference?
Story elements aside, we still would have had the same score, same direction and visual style. To me, it just would have given it a couple more brief "serious" moments, but wouldnt have nearly enough to change the overall feel of this movie. Even with the inclusion of the opening Two Face scene, I think it would have just come across as corny with the look and feel.
What do you think?
I found the scenes with the red-book to be ok, but the giant bat stuff was just rediculus - "I'm Batman Alfred!"
I'm not sure that they would have saved the movie. The dumbing down of the Riddler and making Two-Face a grunting copy of the Joker can't be redemed in my opinion.
I did watch a fan-edit that included two-faces escape and mixed elfmans music into the score - it was a slight improvement in places.
It couldn't have saved the movie from being too flawed. I've never been too interested in Batman Forever anyway... the last time I watched it was a few years ago. When it comes to Schumacher, I'm willing to watch Batman & Robin anytime, though.
I doubt it would have made a difference. like the 4 versions of Highlander two. Sometimes a movie is just bad.
I actually liked Batman Forever I can't understand for the life of me why some people didn't like it. Although some people didn't like Batman Returns like Jett who runs the Batman on film website states that in his opinion Batman Forever was much better than Batman Returns, I don't agree on that I think that Batman Returns was better than Batman Forever but we all have are choices. But anyways I don't care what anyone says Batman Forever was a great Batman film it is one of the best comic book films ever made so is the first 2 Burton directed films.
Here is some more info from Jett: FOREVER is a stronger character study of Bruce Wayne than any of the Burton/Schumacher films. For the first time, the audience is shown the inner demons inside of Bruce Wayne. He became Batman because his parents were murdered in front of him. But we also find out that Bruce feels that it was his fault for some reason ? he is a man haunted by anger, guilt, and revenge. Chase Meridian says it best I think, ?What kind of crime could this man have committed to subject himself to this type of punishment night after night??
Here is some stuff that Jett said about Batman is this film, BATMAN FOREVER portrays Batman as a true hero ? even more than he was in BATMAN ?89 in my opinion. From the very beginning of the film, The Batman is in action ? He suits up and heads out of the Batcave to confront Two Face. He is locked in a safe and escapes - while saving the security guard. He makes his way to Two Face?s helicopter in a failed attempt at capturing the maniac. The entire opening sequence is a statement that in this film, Batman will be portrayed as a heroic, man of action. According to jett there are many good things about this film. While not as dark as many Batman fans would have liked, and prone to a few moments of camp, FOREVER is fun and still the second best of the Burton/Schumacher Bat-films. In fact, it may the best at staying true to the comic book spirit of Batman than any of the Burton/Schumacher films. ALso Jett states that this film moved Batman away from the macabre weirdness of the bizarre RETURNS, and gave audiences a heroic, action-packed Batman that all could watch. While it is certainly not the ?definitive? Batman film, it may have offered a Batman that was closer to the comic books than any of the Burton/Schumacher films. In jett's opinion he says that out of the Burton/Schumacher films Val Kilmer was the best Batman. I loved Batman Forever and maybe Jett is right I will say that I do like this film better than Batman Returns.
Yes folks in the last post that I put up at first I stated that RETURNS was better than FOREVER and then in my conclusion I stated that FOREVER was better than RETURNS. And it is Jett is right Batman Forever is way better than Batman Returns.
We were given a Batman who was a true hero in the third film. I loved this film so much more than its prequel.
i prefer to go with my own instincts and tastes, not someone elses. If I feel that I can watch Returns more than Forever nothing i read will make me change.
Whatever Jett says means nothing to me.
Jett has like... 0 followers now. He was ruined by being unreliable during the TDK pre-production.
I tried having a discussion with good ol Jett concerning his views towards Batman Returns on mySpace. I was always civil, but when it came down to actually discussing the reasons why he deslikes it so much and presenting me with pros and cons and continuing our friendly debate, he suddenly broke off communication with me. I dont know why. He just decided to stop discussing the film without really starting it. I hate this word, but Jett is a "Nolanite", hes one of the ones who think that his vision is the end all of Batman movies. Batman-on-Film should be changed to Nolan-on-Film. He doesnt want to discuss any of the previous movies or their content unless it is to just state how bad it all was compared to the Nolan films. Hell, he even has Ledgers Joker above Nicholsons and we havent even seen the performance yet. Jett is just another fan boy who feels his personal liking is what everyones liking should be.
Sorry for the rant, but the dude really irritates me and I hate when poeple think of him as a bat guru and place his site and opinions on a pedistol.
But actually Jett is right Batman Forever was a better film than its prequel Batman Returns, Forever was more loyal to Batman.
Also Bob Kane stated in "Cinescape" magazine that of all the actors who played Batman, he felt that Val Kilmer did it the best.
But don't get me wrong I liked Batman Returns I thought it was ok but I find Batman Forever more enjoyable also Batman Forever has more action scenes than Batman Returns had.
As for BATMAN RETURNS....
Coming from a pure Bat-fan standpoint, there's simply too much I don't like about that movie, starting with the weak "Penguin for Mayor" storyline. i just dont buy the fact that everyone accepts this obviously crazy guy as a mayoral candidate. and speaking of the penguin, the fact that he's depicted as a deformed freak doesnt work for me at all. the dude actually acts like a penguin, which is really stupid, and I mean, penguins with rockets on their backs? really dumb. And you also have to take into account how just plain dark and weird the whole film is...it's TOO dark and weird. It got too Goth for me. Plus, the villains get more attention than Batman does. The action scenes suck. Batman is not very heroic in that film. He seems to be too easily overcome by Penguin and Catwoman, plus he kills people, and is depicted as enjoying it. That's a huge no-no in my book. What else? Christopher Walken is a huge distraction, and an unecessary character to boot. The storyline as a whole is weak and unexciting. The only real saving graces are the music (Elfman is a god), the production design (i love the snowy Gotham sets) and the Batman/Catwoman relationship, that was wr
The third film Batman Forever was a much better film in my book it had more action a better story than Batman Returns had also Batman was heroic in the 3rd film, also the action scenes are much better and like I said the action scenes in Batman Returns sucks. So there is just too many bad things about Batman Returns the story was really weak and it sucks. Anyways I just don't like Batman Returns it had too many flaws.
Batman Returns sucks plain and simple
Jetts not right. In his mind he is right. Its all opinion. If you think he's right, then thats your opinion.
I think Forevers story is a bit rediculous. Sucking brain waves? C'mon. What was Two Faces point in the movie? Just to have 2 villains? He simply became Riddlers cronie. Two Face was nothing more than some freak out to get Batman, he had no real purpose In Forever.
The action scenes being better had alot to do with the refinement of the batsuit for this film. They were able to make it lighter and make adjustments for more freedom of movement. The heriocs of Batman in Forever were more grans because they were portraying a different interpretation of Batman than what we had in Batman and Returns.
The story for Returns had alot of deeper psycholgical themes in them than Forever did. It addressed alot of the duality of each character. From Batman/Bruce to Catwoman/Selina and even Penguin/Oswald. Theres alot of inner turmoil and conflict.
The whole too dark or weird thing I just dont get. What was "too dark" about Returns? Penguin was portrayed as a "monster"? Arent all the villains monsters in some way? Was it the plot to kill all of Gothams first born children? To me, that was the most threatening plot of all the movies.
Forever may have been more enoybale for some people because it was meant to be. That was its purpose, to be a summer popcorn movie, and it did that perfectly.
To say that one movie was more "batman" than the other or "more true" than another is just a wasted argument. With so many different interpretations of Batman thru the many years of his history, there is no one defintive Batman. One may prefer a certain characterization over another, but again, its all opinion and personal prefernce. I never say that this movie was better than that movie. I have my personal favorites over the others, but I acknowledge the fact that the other movies are just as valid in their presentation of the characters and their world.
As far as Kane, with each of the 4 movies he says it was his favorite or the actor was the best. He said the same for Clooney. Its all "professional".
Dont take my post the wrong way, Im not arguing with you or saying you are wrong, I am just giving my view, as you did, but I do wonder how much of it was influenced by another persons opinion.
Quote from: shadowbat69 on Sat, 19 Jan 2008, 22:28
Jetts not right. In his mind he is right. Its all opinion. If you think he's right, then thats your opinion.
I think Forevers story is a bit rediculous. Sucking brain waves? C'mon. What was Two Faces point in the movie? Just to have 2 villains? He simply became Riddlers cronie. Two Face was nothing more than some freak out to get Batman, he had no real purpose In Forever.
The action scenes being better had alot to do with the refinement of the batsuit for this film. They were able to make it lighter and make adjustments for more freedom of movement. The heriocs of Batman in Forever were more grans because they were portraying a different interpretation of Batman than what we had in Batman and Returns.
The story for Returns had alot of deeper psycholgical themes in them than Forever did. It addressed alot of the duality of each character. From Batman/Bruce to Catwoman/Selina and even Penguin/Oswald. Theres alot of inner turmoil and conflict.
The whole too dark or weird thing I just dont get. What was "too dark" about Returns? Penguin was portrayed as a "monster"? Arent all the villains monsters in some way? Was it the plot to kill all of Gothams first born children? To me, that was the most threatening plot of all the movies.
Forever may have been more enoybale for some people because it was meant to be. That was its purpose, to be a summer popcorn movie, and it did that perfectly.
To say that one movie was more "batman" than the other or "more true" than another is just a wasted argument. With so many different interpretations of Batman thru the many years of his history, there is no one defintive Batman. One may prefer a certain characterization over another, but again, its all opinion and personal prefernce. I never say that this movie was better than that movie. I have my personal favorites over the others, but I acknowledge the fact that the other movies are just as valid in their presentation of the characters and their world.
As far as Kane, with each of the 4 movies he says it was his favorite or the actor was the best. He said the same for Clooney. Its all "professional".
Dont take my post the wrong way, Im not arguing with you or saying you are wrong, I am just giving my view, as you did, but I do wonder how much of it was influenced by another persons opinion.
I have to admit I dislike Jett?s website a bit because it seems to be to very heavy on going to the altar of the Nolan films. To me, the BOF site IS a nolanite site. Rather than have each film represented by a party that favors each one so that the Bat films can be ALL appreciated individually (Even the Schumacher ones) and as one epic franchise, it worships the Nolan films as the quintessential Batman movies, and TDK even before its hit theaters, calling TDK the best super hero film ever made.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Jan 2008, 21:52
and speaking of the penguin, the fact that he's depicted as a deformed freak doesnt work for me at all. the dude actually acts like a penguin, which is really stupid
acting like a penguin? this is highly accurate. let me tell you a story. it is a true one that happened in ireland, not far from where i live. about 50 years ago a boy was born to a young woman out of wed-lock. This was highly frowned upon at the time. the woman lived with her parents on a farm. to hide the baby boy, he was kept in a chicken hut with chickens until he was a few years old - when he was found by passers-by one day. The boy was taken into care. He acted like a chicken and had mental issues. He is still alive and to this day will occasionally display chicken like behaviour.
so if oswald was kept in a circus cage as the "penguin boy" with penguins, i believe he would act like a penguin.
the fact he looks penguin like because he is deformed is a brilliant touch.
I think Burton added some depth to the Penguin. It also raised the question of choice and how much it is your decision to be who you are. I think that mainstream audiences couldn't handle that. By nature the mainstream viewer can handle a villain who is evil but not evil and repulsive because what it says is sometimes it matters not what decisions you make, people will still hate you based on what you are rather than who you are and that might affect who you become.
i also like how the penguin was bitter about his identity. he wants to be called oswald and be seen as human when he is liked by everyone - when he is accepted by gotham, but when gotham turns against him, he turns his back on his real identity and says he is called penguin, that he is an animal.
ULtamtely a very average villain character was expanded upon masterfully fitting into the themes of Returns. God, if I keep talking like this, I'm going to have to watch it.
Its calling to you.
Watch me.
Watch me.
:D
That chicken boy story is funny. That's enough to validate the psychological implications of what happened with the Penguin for sure.
Well we all have are opinions and if we all liked the same things this would be a very boring world. I really only liked 2 films of the Burton/Schumacher era Batman & Batman Forever.
BATMAN RETURNS is actually a Tim Burton film, with Tim Burton characters, and "Batman" in name only. It is a dark, macabre, morose, overly bizarre, plotless "art film," that tries passing for a Batman movie.
BATMAN RETURNS Sucks!
Yes, a Batman fan can hate this film it is a very pointless film, yes I know that there are many of you here that love this film and my take should not be regarded as an insult. I understand all of the ?artistic? things that Burton was doing in RETURNS - but that doesn?t mean one has to like it. I can even accept that Burton may have produced an edgy, cinematically clever ?art film.? However, one can be a Batman fan and dislike RETURNS - just because it was ?dark,? doesn?t make it Batman.
One of the first thoughts that crossed my mind as I began watching BATMAN RETURNS was what the hell is this. This looked and felt totally different than BATMAN ?89. The whole ?Penguin origin? which opened the film just sort of lost me. I felt a glimmer of hope when I saw Keaton as Bruce Wayne on screen for the first time, but this diminished quickly with The Batman fighting the idiotic ?Red Circus Gang.? The movie then went straight downhill from there. BATMAN RETURNS was nothing like I expected. Being the Batman fan that I am, I pretended to like the film. But eventually, I gave in to the fact that this film plain sucked. This macabre, morose, dark abomination was a Batman film in name only. I was very disappointed in Burton's follow up to his 1989 blockbuster, regarding Tim Burton?s take on Batman himself in RETURNS, the director took several missteps with the character. One of the major problems with this Batman is that he is portrayed as a murderer. He kills a member of the Red Circus Gang by setting him afire with the Batmobile?s exhaust flame. This was not done by accident ? it was done on purpose. He later stuffs some sort of bomb down another?s pants and pushes him into a sewer hole - obviously blowing him to bits. And he smiles about it! This totally violates the long time Batman creed of not taking a life.
Another troubling aspect with this Batman is the fact that he is a secondary character in a so-called BATMAN film. Clearly, Mr. Burton was more interested in the villains ? Catwoman, The Penguin, Max Shreck ? than he was in the character the film is named after. The major fault of BATMAN RETURNS is that all the characters are so far removed from their comic book incarnations, that one can hardly even recognize them. Other than the original, 1939 Batman (?ELSEWORLD? tales excluded), when has The Dark Knight been portrayed as a cold-blooded killer? In fact, for 99.9% of the character?s history, one of the centerpieces to his mythos was NOT to kill? When in the comic books has Bruce Wayne ? not Batman ? been depicted as elusive, brooding, indecisive, and bumbling in public? When in the comic books has there been a Penguin character that was raised by actual penguins, lives in the sewer, eats raw fish, and spews black mucus out of his mouth? When did Selina Kyle become Catwoman by being murdered, then magically resurrected by cats? Just how pray tell, does that allow you to become an expert at gymnastics and martial arts?! Yes, this is a film adaptation of Batman and filmmakers must take certain liberties, but WHY stray so far from the established Batman characters of the comics?
I?ll tell you why. In my opinion, Mr. Burton had no intention of delivering the BATMAN sequel that Warner Brothers, and many fans, wanted. He, just like Joel Schumacher after him, was allowed too much control during his second go-around with BATMAN. Mr. Burton was so intent on doing his ?own thing? in BATMAN RETURNS, it was as if he forced his artistic tastes onto Batman and his world. No matter who helms a BATMAN film ? Mr. Burton, Mr. Schumacher, or Mr. Nolan ? there are certain things that need no ?creative license? applied. A homicidal Batman, a black-mucus spewing Oswald Cobblepot, and a Catwoman who returns from the grave via cat-licks are prime examples. This was a ?Burton? film, which just happened to have ?Batman? characters. Mr. Burton had his own agenda, his own story to tell, the fact this was supposed to be Batman was secondary - perhaps even beside the point.
Finally, just when did The Batman do anything ?heroic? in BATMAN RETURNS? I wanted to see Batman do some classic ?Batman stuff? like chase down and dispense justice to street thugs, crime kingpins, and the like. How about some iconic, Batman-like poses once in a while? When, at anytime in this film, did you feel like Batman was saving the day? When he?s taking on the Red Circus Gang? When he?s foiling the Penguin?s kidnapping plans? When he?s saving Gotham from a mass of missile-equipped Penguins? Puh-leez!
The question begs, ?Is BATMAN RETURNS a good Batman film?? Maybe the question should two-fold to include ?Is it a good film?? To the latter I say, meh, perhaps. To the former, I say absolutely not. While it wasn?t my cup of tea, I?m not one to argue that Tim Burton may have concocted a clever ?art? film that gives a nod to German Expressionism and provides satire on urban society. If you find brilliance in BATMAN RETURNS due to Burton?s filmmaking, more power to you, as it boils down to a matter of taste.
But I will argue that BATMAN RETURNS is not a good Batman film. It is just as bad in that regard as BATMAN AND ROBIN. Blasphemy, you say? Because RETURNS is a ?dark? film, makes it a superior Bat-flick? Rubbish. In both cases, you have directors who strayed too far from the current comic book mythos of Batman to do it ?their way? ? Burton with the morose and macabre; Schumacher with the camp and neon. The bomb-in-pants-stuffing Batman in RETURNS is just as appalling as the Bat-card wielding Batman in B&R. I rolled my eyes to ?Eat floor, more fiber,? just the same as to ?Hi Freeze. I?m Batman!? I was put-off equally by the raw-fish eating, sexually repressed Penguin and the campy Mr. Freeze with his terrible puns and one-liners.
Yet, the most compelling argument that this is a bad Batman film is provided by Mr. Burton himself. Ironically, a film he directed titled BATMAN RETURNS isn?t even about Batman. It is a social commentary based on Burton?s own personal ideals about the despair and hopelessness in life.
Batman is a superhero, yet there is nothing heroic about BATMAN RETURNS. There isn?t one moment in this depressing film where we are given the iconic, heroic Batman. Never does this film offer anything a Batman fan can feel good or proud about. There is nothing about this Batman that makes you want to cheer. Not once does this director offer something onscreen that says, ?This is for you, Bat-fans.?
Also this film didn't even seem like a follow up to the original Batman at all, the third film Batman Forever felt more like a followup to the original more than Batman Returns did.
BATMAN RETURNS is the darkest of all the live-action BATMAN films to date. It is a depressing, un-heroic, macabre movie that is a ?Burton Film? first and foremost. Bad film? There's an argument there that it is a good piece of filmmaking. Bad ?Batman? film? Yes.
There were really only 2 films out of the Burton/Schumacher era that were loyal to The Batman, BATMAN and BATMAN FOREVER.
So to conclude my opinion on Batman Returns it sucks, it sucks just as bad as Batman & Robin.
Also in my opinion Val Kilmer was the best Batman in the Burton/Schumacher era, I am glad that Warner Bros. went the way they did with the third film. Batman Forever was Batman and Batman Returns was not Batman.
BATMAN ?89 and BATMAN FOREVER are great batman films BATMAN RETURNS is just a really bad film. Also Warner Bros. were wise not to let Tim Burton direct the 3rd film I believe that he would have went even darker than he did in the 2nd film. I loved Joel Schumacher's vision in BATMAN FOREVER but of couse Joel screwed up in the 4th film but in the 3rd film he did a great job. He got back to The Batman the way he was in BATMAN ?89 Joel's first take on Batman was to me perfect BATMAN FOREVER was more for the fans just like BATMAN ?89 was. BATMAN RETURNS was a screw up, Batman Returns just did not sit well with me at all and I appsolutely loved Batman Forever which was a much better film than that 1992 screw up.
I do not like BATMAN RETURNS it did not sit well with me at all it sucks plain and simple I never said I liked it if I did I was joking.
Hey mykbyk I was joking on all of those topics Val Kilmer is the best Batman of the Burton/Schumacher films he was more suited for the role.
Oh and BATMAN RETURNS is a pointless film basically it is just as bad as Batman & Robin. Just because Returns was a dark film does not make it a Batman film.
Well, I for one, am a big Tim Burton fan. I think he's a great visual storyteller, and I've enjoyed most of his movies, specifically Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, and Batman. But I did not like Batman Returns like I said before it just did not sit well with me at all.
hey raleagh you don't know what the hell you are talking about
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Jan 2008, 04:48
I rolled my eyes to ?Eat floor, more fiber,?
Oh yeah, nothing trumps awsome stuff like, "I'll get drive thru."
That is GOLD, man, GOLD.
KeatonFan#1, going by your profile you are 19 years old.
You were born around 1989 and Batman was released in 1989.
It's a pity you haven't stood the test of time as well as Batman has.
Re Editing Forever would be better.
they could of replaced the opening scene with a more decent one
You could reinsert some deleted scenes, make the original opening as it should've been and even throw in a brand new Danny Elfman score... but at the end of the day, you're still going to be left with a goofy Two Face, a spastic Riddler, tons of neon and Chris O'Donnell as Robin.
You can't polish a turd.
QuoteYou can't polish a turd.
;D
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 24 Jul 2008, 18:19
You could reinsert some deleted scenes, make the original opening as it should've been and even throw in a brand new Danny Elfman score... but at the end of the day, you're still going to be left with a goofy Two Face, a spastic Riddler, tons of neon and Chris O'Donnell as Robin.
You can't polish a turd.
Damn right.
I, too, like Batman Forever. It was the first Batman movie I got to experience as it was being released. Great memories. An entertaining movie.
I agree. I'm totally against the harsh rating it was given on imdb.com I find it to be a very entertaining movie, and it's also timeless whenever you watch it. Batman & Robin is different story though.
True Forever is no where as great as the Burton movies but it can atleast be enjoyed as a turn of your brain type movie. Yes it was abit stupid and childish but its no where near as bad as the movie that followed it.
Elfmans score just does not fit in well with Schumachers films.....AT ALL!