Batman-Online.com

I gonnasta go with Returns. It's a masterpiece, and it's an unique film, and I think films of this kind aren't just made anymore. It's a homage to the older-films of the  40s. This is what makes Returns so special.

Forever, on the other hand, is more of a comic-bookish film. It's prone to a couple  moments of camp, and the film suffers because of it. Had the film had been a bit darker, the film would of been better for the good. As it stands, it's a good, but not great film about Batman.

I can see why some people don't like Returns, and I can see why some people don't like Forever. They are very much"Love It-or Hate It" films.

Quote from: Shan45 on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 21:36
I gonnasta go with Returns. It's a masterpiece, and it's an unique film, and I think films of this kind aren't just made anymore. It's a homage to the older-films of the  40s. This is what makes Returns so special.

Forever, on the other hand, is more of a comic-bookish film. It's prone to a couple  moments of camp, and the film suffers because of it. Had the film had been a bit darker, the film would of been better for the good. As it stands, it's a good, but not great film about Batman.

I can see why some people don't like Returns, and I can see why some people don't like Forever. They are very much"Love It-or Hate It" films.

Need you even ask this question?  I realise that some poor, misguided people on other sites foolishly rate Forever over Returns, but I'd hope this question would be a no-brainer for most all of the people on this site.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 17 Jul  2009, 23:05
Need you even ask this question?  I realise that some poor, misguided people on other sites foolishly rate Forever over Returns, but I'd hope this question would be a no-brainer for most all of the people on this site.

On the one hand, I want to say there's room for everybody on this forum... but on the other hand... anything other than Batman Returns is wrong.  Period.

BR has that Old Hollywood flavor to the sets/models, the lighting, the camera moves, many of the costumes, etc.  It felt classic to me even when it was brand new.

BF?  Hasn't aged as well.  I liked it back in 1995 when I was a 14 and didn't know my @$$hole from my elbow.  I dug the stunts and the action and such.  And those things hold up, don't get me wrong.  But the casting?  The script?  The neon?  The movie felt dated a year after it opened.  Jones is a joke.  Carrey only cemented the perception that he was a one-note performer.  Kilmer is nigh indistinguishable from a plank of wood in some scenes.  He went through a crapton of emotional upheaval and torment in the film but Kilmer betrays none of that in his voice, face, body language, etc.

To me, BR is an absolutely valid and legitimate way to make a sequel (ie, divorced from its illustrious predecessor).

By that same token, BF is absolutely how NOT to make a sequel.  Audiences maybe wanted something less dark (although I question that) but that doesn't mean they want a freaking CARTOON!

I saw Forever just as I was discovering the broader world of Batman. Up to that point I only had the movies to go by - it was a different time..no internet and no available comics.

in 1995 i loved forever, seriously. it was more batman to me and i watched it over and over again.

What kinda question is that, I don't think anyone in their right mind would take Forever over Returns. But saying that i still do like Forever i don't know why i just can't hate it, Call it Nostalgia or whatever but i just like it and thats somthing i can't say about Batman And Robin though.

Returns butchers Forever in every aspect. There is no comparison.

In 1995, I remember seeing Batman Forever in the theaters and thinking it was a fun movie overall. However, I never really considered it at any point in time superior to Batman Returns, or Batman ... as they were much more to my liking. But even at a young age, I understood why there was a desire to 'lighten' up the franchise, and at that point in time, Schumacher's first entry into the series was a success.

Returns is the clear winner, there is no contest.

Yeah, there's been a somewhat misguided opinion about Batman Forever regaining some of the momentum "lost" with Batman Returns, but this has more to do with Forever's better commercial reception than with its quality as a film or its faithfulness to the Batman concept.

There's no comparison between the two, BR is an actual film and BF a product.

Who voted for Forever?

I did.

I would like reasons please.  ;D

Returns. I like Forever, but what kills the movie, IMO, are the horrible Two-Face, the lack of the detective Bats and the nipples... oh, I hate them >:(

Returns. It actually takes the characters seriously enough while still having some fun with them. Every time I watch Forever I explode with rage over how much they disrespected Two-Face as a character (as well as every other character in the film). I wish Warners had let Sam Raimi take over when he campaigned for the assignment. Darkman, to me is what Two-Face could have been(just not as hyper). Oh well, the road not travelled and all...


By the way, did I mention that Two-Face is my favorite Batman villain? ;D

i voted for returns even though i call forever my fave. i call forever my fave cause i can always enjoy it but if i'm depressed or slaphappy i have a hard time getting into returns or it only depresses me more which is bad lol.

Quote from: gordonblu on Wed, 29 Jul  2009, 04:21
By the way, did I mention that Two-Face is my favorite Batman villain? ;D

He's a great character, when handled correctly. He was well and truly BUTCHERED in Forever. Tommy Lee Jones had no idea about the character, he was basically playing the Joker. Not to mention re-flipping his coin... >:(

I seen Returns in the cinema. I enjoyed it enough though it didn't capture my imagination like the first one did. But I stll liked it. I was only 9, a good sequel to Batman. Didnt have much of an opinion then only that it wasnt as good as Batman to me.

The hype surrounding Forever was huge and I seen that in the cinema too. I came away disappointed. Disappointed at certain story plots, the tone of the film was a bit more immature than Returns. Tommy Lee Jones was trying to act like the Joker. His make-up (scar) was too perfect! And to top it off, he was white!! I knew Harvey Dent was black in the first one. This disappointed me. Carrey was perfect as the Riddler. Am only sorry Forever wasn't darker and we could have seen a scarier Carrey. Plus the climax was terrible......Overall I wasnt crazy about Forever, or Kilmer. Keaton was Batman in my eyes.

I watched Batman on VHS until it near wore out! lol I liked watching Returns now and again and only picked up Forever because it was going for cheap! (tho I did have the Forever poster in my bedroom for years!) lol

However! A couple of years ago I bought the special edition DVD of Forever. i think mainly for the special features. But I watched it on autum night as the sun was setting and I really enjoyed it! For the first time ever.

Now I can appreciate Forever as a different entry into the bat-film-family. Just like Begins and TDK.

iI will watch it now and again. i admit Two-Face in it still annoys me, as does Carrey at times. But I think Kilmer was a decent Bruce Wayne, and isnt Chase so sexy in this movie!!

I do agree Returns goes back to the older movies of the 40's and 50's with the sets and stuff. Other things annoy me about Returns. Such as the lack of motivation for the Peguin. Sometimes I wonder where is the story really going!? I feel the plot in Returns is very weak, as much as I like the characters sets and costumes.

But overall I prefer Returns and think its a better film!

So four people have given Forever as their favourite between the two... >:(

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jul  2009, 19:41
So four people have given Forever as their favourite between the two... >:(

uh yeah its called a right to an opinion. want me to kick you in the nuts?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 29 Jul  2009, 19:41So four people have given Forever as their favourite between the two... >:(

Some people think Van Halen was better with Hagar.  New Coke probably had some fans.  Some people favor Gobots over Transformers.  George Lazenby always gets 10 or 20 votes in any "Best Bond" poll.

Let's face it, some people just have stupid opinions.

 ::)

wasn't there another site you guys talked sh*t about b/c they gave people grief for having a different opinion?

hypocrites.

I think the main difference is that you won't get banned for not falling into line with The Management 'round these parts.  Unless, that is, I become a mod... but nobody's dumb enough to let that happen so you've got nothing to worry about.

no, but you can be banned for insulting someone's opinion  ;)

To be honest, i would prefer it if this thread were called "Which do you prefer: Forever or Returns"

i feel insulted. can i ban them?  ;D

lol. just kidding boys....maybe. ;)

We can't insult their opinion, but we can debate their opinion. And possibly their sanity for choosing such a stance.  :)

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Jul  2009, 02:13We can't insult their opinion, but we can debate their opinion. And possibly their sanity for choosing such a stance.  :)

You speak words of truth, kemo sab

i take that as insulting

Quote from: catwoman on Thu, 30 Jul  2009, 02:19
i take that as insulting

I take that as inpeppering. No idea what that is, but I thought it would be funny.

i have no idea where this thread is going

i'm posting in it so it can't be good.

Hopefully it's going to a Mexican food restaurant cuz I could really go for some burritos right about now...

I have no idea where this thread is going either.  Therefore, here is my opinion.  Not fact, but opinion.

Simply put, I don't hold Returns as a masterpiece as some of you do.

We can all blame Schumacher for ruining the Batman franchise, but I feel that is too simple.  If you really want to point the finger and get at it from the view point of ground zero then one really has to blame Tim Burton.  Yep I said it.  Tim Burton ruined the Batman Franchise.  

I have no idea what possessed Burton to put in three major villains in one two hour movie along side an iconic hero such as Batman.  It just doesn't make sense from a storytelling stand point, a screen time stand point or a future film stand point.  You have three major players that you have to take the time, give them proper introductions and have their stories played out to the end.  And somehow manage to squeeze in the main character along with his story and how his life interacts with all three villains.  Tim Burton did not pull this off one bit.

I could point out all of the problems that Returns has from a story point of a view, and most of them have been discussed over the years, so I see no point in going into that again.  What I want to discuss is the over-load of villains.  Ever since Returns (not including the 1966 Batman movie), the Batman movies have suffered from over-load of villains.  In BATMAN you get The Joker, that is it (Carl Grissom wasn't in the picture long enough to cause damage in my opinion, so no, I do not count him.).  There is no one else to fight and to save the city from.  In BATMAN Returns we get The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Schreck.  In BATMAN FOREVER we get The Riddler and Two-Face.  In BATMAN & ROBIN we get Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane.  In BATMAN BEGINS we get The Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul.   And of course, coming to their senses, and using the only real character they could, we get The Joker once again in THE DARK KNIGHT. That is just way too many villains in only four movies.  What is the reasoning of passing on this many characters that couldn't possibly be fully developed to us, the viewers?

Could it be shotty story telling?  Yes.  Could it be, possibly, Warners wanted something more so they could put just that many more faces on toys and beach towels?  I could buy that.  In fact, I did!  Could it be that Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker was so great that no one had any idea on how to even come to par with such a performance, so they had to over-compensate with villains?  Absolutely.  However, with all of that going on, what gets the short end of the stick is the story, the script and we are left with only mediocre movies.  Yes, Returns had a decent production design (I still prefer Anton Furst's vision to Bo Welch's) and it may have fit into more of the Tim Burton universe, and hell it had penguin pallbearers, but it opened up the hole of cramming in too much to do in too little time.  Is there any reason The Penguin's and Max Schrex's characters could not have been combined into one?  No.  It would have made for a better story and I still wouldn't be asking, "What about the power plant?  I thought this thing was all about a power plant Schreck wanted to build so he could steal the energy from Gotham so he could re-sell it back to the city for a hefty profit."

Does Schumacher handle the overload any better than Burton does with BATMAN FOREVER?  Nope.  Not one bit.  See, I don't think Joel Schumacher is the devil.   In fact I happen to like a lot of his films.  The Lost Boys anyone?  What about Flatliners?  8MM?  Phone Booth?  And what about Tigerland, a personal favorite?  Despite what you may feel for the crime of BATMAN & ROBIN (that is a totally different topic anyway) Schumacher is indeed a talented film maker.  Yes he has some films that didn't work as did Tim Burton.  Planet of the Apes anyone?!  If you have not seen anything other than his Batman films or have totally boycotted his other works, than I suggest you stop being a one sided individual and expand your horizons and experience his other works.  And to those who already have and hated his other works, well then, that is your problem.  Could better screen writers and producers have been brought in to given us a better and fresher approach with BATMAN FOREVER?  Sure,  but by that time, greed had encased the executives on the Warners lot and all they wanted to do was sell as many crystal McDonald's glasses as they could.  I think Schumacher was never given a real chance to execute his vision for a Batman movie but merely carried out the marching orders for a studio that only saw dollar signs and didn't give two hoots about story.  Come on, it was the 1990's.  If you wanted story you had to go so see a Miramax film.  Not a film by a major studio.  So with that being said, are we really mad at Schumacher?  Or are we mad at Warners?  Do you blame the assassin for killing his target, or do you blame the person who hired the assassin in the first place and who's only desire is to move up the food chain and take as much money with him as he can?

Even with the rumors going around for the third installment of the Nolan franchise, there are reports going around that both Penguin and Riddler are going to make appearances.  Yes, I know these are only rumors, but still one can't help but ask yet again, "Why does there have to be so many damn villains in a Batman movie?"  Perhaps Tim Burton could enlighten us all.  And maybe he does, in the commentary for BATMAN RETURNS on the expanded 2-Disc version, I honestly don't know.  I haven't seen it.  But I'd be willing to wager a round or two with Joker's acid spitting orchid that the subject is never brought up.  Call it a hunch.

Tim Burton with BATMAN RETURNS opened up a can of sandworms that nobody knows how to close.  He had a shot at creating a masterpiece with either Catwoman or Penguin, but instead deiced to do something that nobody else has been able to pull off.  Mixing a cat and a bird.  And as we learned, they still don't mix.  In the end, BATMAN RETURNS is a good movie, not a great movie and far from a masterpiece.

Thanks Tarzan.  This is exactly the kind of response I was holding out for.  I know it's a bit rude of me, among others, to hold you Forever fans on the spot, but since you're in a minority around here I guess we were simply hoping you'd be able to give some reasons for your opinion.

I realise that it's still pretty unfair of me to hold 'minority opinions' to higher account, but since I don't often hear from people who prefer Forever, especially around these parts, I was curious to get an elaboration.  Thanks anyway.

I may not agree with you on this one, but I respect your opinion, especially now you've eleborated on your reasons.  By the way, I don't mind if any of you hold me to the same account as to why I prefer Returns to Forever, although I've got to dash soon so I don't have much time to do that right now.

QuoteSome people think Van Halen was better then Hagar

Ah hummm Eddie was the guitarist, The beef is between Hagar and Lee Roth.

Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 30 Jul  2009, 06:43

QuoteSome people think Van Halen was better with Hagar

Ah hummm Eddie was the guitarist, The beef is between Hagar and Lee Roth.

I'll just be honest and say that I have no idea what your point is.

No reason it just had to corrected.

I picked Returns, however I do really like Forever, I just like Returns better due to the darkness of it

Some fair points raised by Tarzan - however I think it should be noted that penguin was forced on Burton by WB

I voted for Returns but I do enjoy Forever. I remember the first time I saw Forever I really liked it. I knew from watching it that it strayed somewhat from what Burton had done and what became sort of what Batman should be, dark and mysterious, but I still enjoyed it, it was fun.

All fair points to some degree...even If I don't agree.

Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 30 Jul  2009, 07:32No reason it just had to corrected.

Correct what exactly?  The band is named after Eddie and Alex; everybody knows that.  Among fans of VH, there is sometimes debate over whether Roth or Hagar is the better frontman.  The majority seem to prefer Roth; everybody knows that too.

So again, I have no idea what your point is.

Lets take it easy, people.

I agree with Trazan with regard to Joel Schumacher.  IMO he has made some very good films (Flatliners; Tigerland; Phone Booth; St Elmo's Fire; The Lost Boys; A Time to Kill; Falling Down), so I am by no means a hater.  However, I don't think his respective Batman films can be added to the above list.

Batman Returns is highly imaginative - although the main characters are by Burton's own admission very exteme, it's possible to read so much into the story's themes.  The art direction, cinematography and costumes are beautiful in some cases.  The humour is very dark and twisted, and the film never feels like an overblown childrens pantomime.  Although I first saw and enjoyed the film as a child, this is most definittely not a childrens' film.

Tarzan, I think you went off the point in your post. i respect your views, and opinions. But some of it was off the point. All directors, even the great ones have flops, and misses. Being part of a Burton-Batman forum it is most likely most people are going to favour Returns over Forever. One definative reason being the tone.

The general opinion of the mass movie going public, in hindsight also prefer Returns over Forever. I agree that the studio had a lot to do with the lightening up of the franchise, merchandising is probably part of the reason for this and aiming at a younger audience. But like you say, Schmacher was a fairly successful director by the mid 90's, he didnt have to take the project. Also there was many important and good story driven movies made by the big studios in the 90's, just because Mirmax made Pulp Fiction doesnt make them the representatives of smart movies of the 90's! Difference is the big studios could afford to make blockbusters as well a smaller budget movies with some substance. The summer blockbuster is a business, but no summer film has ever matched up to the film that started it all in 1975 - Jaws.

Anyhow you asked about why Burton put the cat and the bird into Batman Returns. As a matter of fact it is mentioned on the DVD. Warners wanted Batman 2 to be about the Penguin. Burton wanted to do Catwoman. So they came to agreement that they would do both. Max Schrek I believe was originally supposed to be Harvey Dent and he evolved in to Schrek. At one stage he was Oswald Cobblepots long lost brother but that plot was soon dropped because of to much story. I for one like the character of Schrek. He brings some real human villainy to the Cat, Bat and Penguin scenario. And Christopher Walken is amazing in the role. An overlooked villian of the movie Batman world. To me Schrek is the real villian of Batman Returns. He makes Selina the Catwoman, minipulates the Penguin to get his own way for his power plant and bullies and kills anyone who tries to get in his way! Showing that the human villain is a lot worse than the animal ones. Just like in real life.

Quote from: Joker81 on Thu, 30 Jul  2009, 20:54
Tarzan, I think you went off the point in your post. i respect your views, and opinions. But some of it was off the point. All directors, even the great ones have flops, and misses. Being part of a Burton-Batman forum it is most likely most people are going to favour Returns over Forever. One definative reason being the tone.

The general opinion of the mass movie going public, in hindsight also prefer Returns over Forever. I agree that the studio had a lot to do with the lightening up of the franchise, merchandising is probably part of the reason for this and aiming at a younger audience. But like you say, Schmacher was a fairly successful director by the mid 90's, he didnt have to take the project. Also there was many important and good story driven movies made by the big studios in the 90's, just because Mirmax made Pulp Fiction doesnt make them the representatives of smart movies of the 90's! Difference is the big studios could afford to make blockbusters as well a smaller budget movies with some substance. The summer blockbuster is a business, but no summer film has ever matched up to the film that started it all in 1975 - Jaws.

Anyhow you asked about why Burton put the cat and the bird into Batman Returns. As a matter of fact it is mentioned on the DVD. Warners wanted Batman 2 to be about the Penguin. Burton wanted to do Catwoman. So they came to agreement that they would do both. Max Schrek I believe was originally supposed to be Harvey Dent and he evolved in to Schrek. At one stage he was Oswald Cobblepots long lost brother but that plot was soon dropped because of to much story. I for one like the character of Schrek. He brings some real human villainy to the Cat, Bat and Penguin scenario. And Christopher Walken is amazing in the role. An overlooked villian of the movie Batman world. To me Schrek is the real villian of Batman Returns. He makes Selina the Catwoman, minipulates the Penguin to get his own way for his power plant and bullies and kills anyone who tries to get in his way! Showing that the human villain is a lot worse than the animal ones. Just like in real life.

First off thank you all for letting me know that I was in error on the whole two villain situation concerning The Penguin and Catwoman.  When I get rich, I plan on buying the DVD and finally watching it.  I'll take that acid squirt in the face now.

However, I'll only take one, instead of two because I would like to think with Warners keeping the sets up at Pinewood Studios, knowing full well that they wanted Burton to come back for the second installment, you'd like to think that they wouldn't put too many demands on him.  However, I could see the suits agree to build Tim a whole new city in exchange for The Penguin being brought in.  Either way, it's still too many people on screen.  Once again, just my opinion.

As for a couple of other comments, yeah I re-read some of the other posts and my own post again, and yes I did indeed go "off-topic" but not too far.  Did I defend BATMAN FOREVER in my post?  No, not really.  And I have no plans to write up a post doing so.  I shouldn't have to defend a choice and opinion.  Much like everyone else defending RETURNS to anyone else.  You should not have to do it.  No one is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to do so.  Vote how ever you want and elobrate if you want to.  But because someone voted a certain way or holds a different opinion than you or the masses, don't hold it against them.  It's their right.

I voted FOREVER because I felt it was a good movie from another director with a different tone and a new direction.  I honestly believe that.  Sure with this being pointed out as Burton-Batman forum, I would suspect and expect nothing but most people liking RETURNS.  Hell, even with my little rant, I still like it, but as a sequel, it's only good.  And as far as the masses outside of the Batman movie universe and what they like.... I could not even begin to care what they like.  I seriously couldn't.  These are that same people that saw ARMAGEDDON and TRANSFORMERS and THE MATRIX and THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY.  I don't care for those movies.  Do those people who like those movies care that I don't care for their choices in movies.  I highly doubt it.  A good example of this would be WATERWORLD.  I happen to like the movie for several reasons, and through the ages I have found a few others that liked it as well.  It is true that most of the masses consider it a flop and a bad film.  So be it.  That is their opinion.  That doesn't take any enjoyment I have received from the movie.  Same goes for BATMAN RETURNS AND BATMAN FOREVER.  It's all about choice and free will.  Do with it what you will.

As for Schmacher taking the helm of the Batman Franchise, I am sure he had his reasons.  Whether they be financial reasons or creative reasons.  Maybe he was paid $7 million dollars plus part of the profits.  Sounds good to me, right?  Or perhaps he wanted to do another movie that Warnes owned the rights to or a movie that he wanted to produce and direct, so he told them that he would direct their Batman movie so he could get financing to do his own project.  A good example of this would be Bill Murray in GHOSTBUSTERS.  He told Columbia Pictures that he would be willing to do the film, only if the bank rolled his pet project, THE RAZOR'S EDGE. (Which by the way is not the horribile film that the critics make it out to be!)  They went for it and we got one of the greatest films in the last 30 years!

And who said anything about PULP FICTION? :-)  I personally could take or leave the movie and MIRAMAX was around long before that movie.  Just because Warners put out BATMAN, doesn't mean I think they are gods and that the movie business revolves around them.  I look at the whole picture and know what the studios were putting out in 1990s with a lot of it being garbage.  Why do you think a good portion of the actors began doing indy films?  Because they knew what the studios were putting out wasn't of quality and substance and wanted to be rewarded on the creative side of things.  As an actor and as an artist, that should be your only concern.  Not how many millions am I getting paid, but how will this story reward me creatively.  Oh and yeah STAR WARS (1977) blew that shark movie out of the water.  Spielberg even admits that.

I totally agree with you Joker that Schreck is indeed the real villain of RETRUNS.  No doubt about it.  What I would have liked to have seen though is more plot concerning the power plant that he was coning everyone into.  After the Bruce Wayne/Max Schreck meeting, it's never mentioned again.  Why not?  It's a decent idea.  Not a great idea, because the actual thought is never given time to breath and grow, but an interesting theme on manipulation as you pointed out.  I would have liked to have learn more about his motivation for building such a place, where it was located, how much he was expected to make off the scheme.  What if The Penguin had learned about this power plant and discovered that he was only a pawn in Schreck's wicked game?  That could be a lot of fun, especially if he decided to kill off Schreck and become the new CEO of this little power grab operation.  And what about Catwoman?  She's knows what's going on, but it's never mentioned again that she knows.  She could have easily went back as Catwoman and blackmailed Schreck or killed him off as well, but she never does.  Lots of what ifs and could have beens come to mind about what could have truly been a great, great villain that even Dr. Hannibal Lecter would think twice about double crossing.

I can't be bothered writing the third testament in response to Tarzan1941's vicious hate speech aimed at Returns, but I may later.

At the moment, all I can say is that I'm seething with coiled rage, and that will explosively erupt on this thread at some stage. I give you the option of either staying away, or ending up as collateral damage. Things will get ugly.

Quote from: Tarzan1941 on Thu, 30 Jul  2009, 22:56
I shouldn't have to defend a choice and opinion.  Much like everyone else defending RETURNS to anyone else.  You should not have to do it.  No one is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to do so.  Vote how ever you want and elobrate if you want to.  But because someone voted a certain way or holds a different opinion than you or the masses, don't hold it against them.  It's their right.

Yes, you're right.  You shouldn't have to be held to account over your opinion.  However, this is a forum and if someone votes a certain way on a poll (whether for Returns or Forever) we would usually expect them to give reasons for their choice, if only to stimulate discussion.  I have given some of my reasons for voting for Returns, and we all know The Dark Knight's appreciation of the film, so I was simply interested in reading what the Forever fans had to say, since there is very little discussion elsewhere on this site as to the relative 'merits' of this film.

Some people prefer 89 over returns and vice versa. Some people prefer Forver over Returns...and vice versa.

Tarzan made some good points and while I may not agree with all of them I do respect that is his view.  It certainly wasn't a hate speech.  Besides that, this forum would be a very boring place if we all agreed on every aspect of the movies.

I would not advise that things get ugly.

Of course no need to reiterate Ral's point of the right to an opinion, but I would like to add, lets not be like the fringe wing of the Nolan group. We must set an example and embrace differing perspectives.

Sorry Tarzan my friend. I am sorry you are allowd an opinion, but dont be forcing it down peoples throats.

I cant be bothered writing a long winded response. But first I am not a Star Wars fan. I dont understand the fascination with that movie (just like a Star Wars fan may not understand our fascination with Batman). But saying it blew Jaws out of the water just shows how little you knw about film. Star Wars copied a format that Jaws created for all the summer blockbusters you see today. I hate the credit Star Wars gets for something which Jaws created. I agree Star Wars took it to another level with OTT merchandising. But Jaws invented the summer blockbuster and the template for a wide release, marketing and merchandise.

As for artistic reasons Star Wars is too kiddie friendly to me. I think the film is boring, it is average and I feel it doesnt work as a stand alone. It only makes sense if you watch the trilogy - (Empire Strikes Back is a far superior film), it is dated. To me Jaws an adult movie and one of the most perfectly costructed and exciting films ever made, a masterpiece, a perfect example of film making (that every director, including George Lucas! could only dream of) right up there with Psycho. I dont care what Spielberg says or thinks, he snubbed Jaws for years after its success. So I have no time for his George Lucas 4ss licking.

Pulp Fiction? Well maybe you can tell us what you meant by your Miramax comment? What 90's films where your referring to? I for one believe that the 90's was a weak decade for movies. the 60's, 70's and 80's produced far better movies than the 90's. But I dont think Miramax produced the best. i dont think you can say any one studio did. So please elaborate.

I think your taking things a bit too personal concerning your choice of Forever over Returns. I want you to know I have no problem with that. I actually think it ois cool that people prefer Forever over Returns. I for one have problems with Returns just as I have problems with Forever.



As for the power plant. Thats a minor issue, something which Returns was not about or nor should it have been. That was just a small plot device for Schrek and his reason for wanting rid of the Mayor and minipulating the Penguin into running for office.

Not to add any "fuel to the fire", but I recently watched Jaws with some friends and boy howdy does that movie hold up 34 years later. As for the Original Star Wars,  It, in my opinion, is fairly dated as a 70's flick, with cheesy hair and dialogue. I am an obsessed Star Wars fan as much as I am a Burton Batman (and Batman in general) Fan so I still love it, but as far as craft, Jaws has it beat. WAAAY off topic!!!! :-[

Yeah well Jaws is an all time classic 8)

The opening scene of Jaws is still (for me) the most disturbing and frighting scene in any movie - the imagery and sounds  :o

It's interesting though - alot of the suspense in the movie came from the fact that the shark wouldn't work properly so they didn't show it!

Would it have been the same movie if it had worked? No way. Would it have been worse? Debatable I suppose!

This is great hearing this from you guys. I am a Batman fan, but thats is like my second passion.

Jaws is by far my favourite film of all time. Has been since I seen it when I was 4! So its great hearing from people who arent as obsessed with it as I am praising this film, which as gordanblu said is 34 years old! Its a timeless classic. I could bore you guys about it all night lol

Yes Ral that opening scene is amazing, Spielberg said even if the shark was working he was going to film that scene as it is in the film already!

My favourite attack scene is the Kintner boy killing!

I have the 30th aniversary dvd - great extras on it.

Not a big fan of Jaws. My terror of sharks came from the 1966 Batman film when the shark was attached to Batman's leg. TERRIFYING as a kid! I'm serious. Also note that the shark blew up, just like Jaws. Dare I say, RIP OFF!!!

i can just imagine Adam West saying "Smile you son of a..."

Lol, Spielberg ripped off Batman 1966!! :D

"Robin!.... That is compressed air...." lol Yeah Ral, the 30th anni DVD is very good! Theres a new documentary waiting to be released called 'The Shark Is Still Working'. It is supposed to be amazing!

Check out the trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CNvnCSQ_Y

Star Wars is the first summer blockbuster.  Jaws is just a scary shark movie.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Aug  2009, 00:32
Star Wars is the first summer blockbuster.  Jaws is just a scary shark movie.

Until Star Wars, Jaws was the biggest earning film of all time, and it was released in the summer.  Thus, it was a summer blockbuster.

 Jaws was undeniably a hit.

Star Wars is an institution and pretty much invented the merchandising tie-in (among other things).

Hands down, Star Wars is simply the bigger (and not just in box office dollars) of the two.

There is no comparison. Jaws was basically just a one film concept - shark near a beach, and it was milked for how many sequels after. Sure, same can be said of Star Wars, but at least the storylines can be more elaborate and varied. Jaws is really a one-trick pony that doesn't have the massive appeal Star Wars does.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  5 Aug  2009, 00:48
There is no comparison. Jaws was basically just a one film concept - shark near a beach, and it was milked for how many sequels after. Sure, same can be said of Star Wars, but at least the storylines can be more elaborate and varied. Jaws is really a one-trick pony that doesn't have the massive appeal Star Wars does.

Hey, on balance I probably prefer Star Wars over Jaws.  All I'm saying is Jaws must still count as the first big summer blockbuster.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed,  5 Aug  2009, 00:40

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Aug  2009, 00:32
Star Wars is the first summer blockbuster.  Jaws is just a scary shark movie.

Until Star Wars, Jaws was the biggest earning film of all time, and it was released in the summer.  Thus, it was a summer blockbuster.

AND BEFORE THAT The Godfather was the highest grossing film of all time.

Yeah, but The Godfather wasn't released in the Summer.   Plus, it was a drama for a primarily adult audience as opposed to a thriller/genre pic for a younger audience like Jaws and Star Wars.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed,  5 Aug  2009, 11:52
Yeah, but The Godfather wasn't released in the Summer.   Plus, it was a drama for a primarily adult audience as opposed to a thriller/genre pic for a younger audience like Jaws and Star Wars.

And I bet you fel the same about The Sting. That also made a sh*t LOAD of money!

Mmm, the Godfather duology.  I love those two movies.

mmmmmm Darrell. Jaws was the first summer blockbuster FACT!

Jaws made more money than The Sting and Godfather put together FACT!

And anyway, money or merchandise doesnt define the summer blockbuster. It is margeting and stratagey of selling the picture.

Jaws could have opened in over 1000 cinema's, but universal held it back and only opened to 900 - which was still more than any other picture up until then. Universal did do a lot of advertising once the picture had came out! Not before, like what they do now. Because they knew the impact it was having on the public. Jaws' first advertising was 'word of mouth', universal jumped on that! And because of this 'word of mouth' marketing campain Jaws only made more and more money as the months went by, wheres as Blockbusters these days make a sh1t load of money in the first weekend then die off and are replaced by something a week later.

Also, Jaws was No.1 in the cinema from its release until the end of september! How many pictures can boast that?

Jaws wasnt designed for sequels, unlike Star Wars. But you have to admit, Lucas has milked that movie dry! You wanna talk about lame sequels, lets talk about  The Phantom Menace,  or the Clone Wars!!

JAWS still sucks...
The story BEHIND the movie was much more interesting.

When did this thread degenerate from a Returns v Forever topic to one solely revolving around Jaws.  Can we stick to the topic guys?

Can anyone convince me why Forever is even remotely a patch on Returns?

Jaws discussion is here

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=945.20

I chose Batman Returns over Forever, but I'm not always in tune with Batman Returns to be honest. I love that Keaton is in it. And Catwoman is always great.  But sometimes I feel like I can't watch it for some reason, unlike the first Batman, which I can watch over and over again at any given time no matter what mood I'm in.
Batman Forever wasn't the worst bat film made in my opinion. I think Batman and Robin was, however.

Forever, drew a thin string connecting to Batman Returns in terms of its dying Burton style as Shoemacker (sp?) took over. You can see the transition before it went totally "gay" in B&R. And that's why I can watch it SOMETIMES. 

Batman Forever is a movie that struggled to be it's own new movie. And struggling it was. You have to clear your mind of the first movie as well as the second installment or you may have problems connecting its level of common sense. There's a lot of comic bookish qualities present in Forever. It was hard for me to follow when I first saw it.
Couldn't tell if the director was raping the series or what.

I hated Nicole Kidman's character in the movie. I didn't like the boy wonder as much either. And my goodness, what a horrendous looking Batmobile. It looked to me as if they removed the awesome beautiful shell of the original Batmobile and allowed it to be driven with its skeletal frame exposed. YUK. And all those neon lights completely made it campy for me. I knew then things were going downhill from there.

It's a wacky movie. Batman Returns was wacky too albeit dark, but Forever took it to the next level. If you enjoy wacky, then its a good fun film to watch for the whole family. Its not entirely stupid like B&R.

I dont like wacky much in a Batman movie though so I'll stick with BATMAN. lol.

While both Burton Batman films are very re-watchable, I find myself watching Returns a lot more. I don't find it wacky, to me that's normal. I realise the imagery and ideas in my mind isn't insanity. It's just a flick more in tune with me.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed,  5 Aug  2009, 23:13
When did this thread degenerate from a Returns v Forever topic to one solely revolving around Jaws.  Can we stick to the topic guys?

Can anyone convince me why Forever is even remotely a patch on Returns?

Johnny, its not! I think at the time Forever appealed more than Returns to the general  movie going public, kids and families on a Saturday afternoon matinee!

But on hindsight people can see that the earlier films were far superior. I agree that Returns still may not appeal to some people, but I think it?s a better all round film with more depth that people realise.

Forever for me works as a separate entity if you allow yourself to forget about the first two ? that?s how it works in my mind, just like Batman Begins or TDK.

Batnar, some good points there, that?s how I feel about Forever.