Which is why the first two had Burton's trademark darker tone. For some inexplicable reason, everything went Neon as soon as Schumacher came aboard.

The look of "Forever" wasn't a problem for me; I saw Schumacher going for a Tokyo-like atmosphere and that was fine. And with some of the deleted scenes that haven't been released, the movie was going to be a well-balanced mix of dark and camp. To me, the portrayals of the villains and Robin killed the movie.

Really it was said best earlier; the two franchises are different in nature and should be treated as such and not compared.

Burtons films were camp spectacles...both of them. And low wattage spectacles at that.
I can watch them for about 10 minutes and then I start to get extremely bored because the characters are wafer thin and the plots are asinine. I also think that he's a piss-poor storyteller whose stories always limp to a conclusion instead of escalating in intensity to a cathartic release.
That said, TDK doesn't trample in any way shape or form over any of them. It is fully it's own beast and the two series are as different as night and day.
I FINALLY have the Joker movie I've always known was out there waiting to be made, and now that I have it I can accept Burtons work for what it offers-which is a strong, unique visual style. The two approaches compliment each other. They don't invalidate each other.

Kinda funny to see people still insisting Burtons films were 'dark'. They were as campy as hell-both of them-all that was different was the color palatte and other superficial details. Few if any of the characters in his two films ever behaved or reacted to events like real people. The 'silly' quotient is off the charts...especially with Returns and Screcks dopey energy sucking plant, a deformed circus freak becoming a serious mayorial candidate overnight, and a dead woman recussitated by cats who imbue her extraorinary gymnastic prowess with their cat breath.
Of course you can still like/love them, but can we stop with the notion that 'dark' with these films somehow equates to them being more sophisticated than the Schumacher films?

I know no one will be able to outdo Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman just like I knew no one would be able to outdo Jack Nicholson's Joker.

*Please be sarcasm**Please be sarcasm**Please be sarcasm**Please be sarcasm*

Well, I've got to say that Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman made me want to go bad almost as much as Julie Newmar's did. Now if Darth Vader had either of those Catwomen on his side Luke would have made the move to the Dark Side faster than you can say, "Carbonite."

Well I guess I'm one person insisting that Returns was "dark" Was it campy? Sure it was, but it was also dark in subject matter and frankly Batman really doesn't do a lot of winning in the film and loses a shot at perhaps finding a soulmate of sorts.

All the problems you dredge up are allegedly story "problems" and really have nothing to do with it being "dark"

OK, sure Schumacher sunk the franchise with Batman & Robin, but not before reviving it with Batman Forever. Before that movie was made, most considered Batman Returns to have soured the franchise, and that hardly anyone would be interested in a new Batman movie - including the filmmakers. But what most seem to have forgotten, was that at the time of it's release Batman Forever ended up setting the record for Biggest film opening ever, and did much better business overall than Batman Returns did.

Would he be ashamed of what he created. Nope, I don't think he'd be bothered at all. Because in his own words, and those of the actors who he directed in his Batman films, he was always trying to make a very "Comic Book" version of a Batman movie (or at least, his idea of one). Given what he was trying to archive, he succeeded in doing it, at least with Forever. With Batman & Robin, however, he just went too far over the edge (which he admits) - much like Burton did with Batman Returns, albeit using different means and to a different extreme.



I don't see that at all, except as an example of what he didn't want to do. I see no resemblance in the Bat-suit from Burton's and Nolan's. Burton's films aren't so much dark to me as they are just weird and twisted. If they are dark, the difference would be that Burton's are "fairytale" dark, and Nolan's are very much "real world" dark. I'm having a hard time explaining it any better than that.

That said, I think most all of the Batman films - at least the first ones from each director of the 90's films - work well within their given context. It's just that Nolan comes out on top, because he's the first one to actually be able to improve everything with his second film, rather than screw it up somehow.

Although I agree with your premise of your argument for "Batman Forever," it's wrong to compare it's box-office to "Returns," which was a very successful film considering all the backlash. Jim Carrey was off of a string of hits and promotion of his role in the film was huge.

Really, I know it's simplistic, but the "fault" of "Returns" is the promotion from Warner Bros. In '89, the film wasn't marketed with Happy Meals like the second one was. In fact, it was tied-in with Taco Bell. The first one was geared towards adults and older teens, unlike the second.

You don't see a resemblance?

Here's '89


Here's Batman Begins:


Here's the pre-'89 batsuit:

The first two are both black and the third one houses raving egomania mixed with dementia?

What do I win?

K

Batman Forever was on the day the other day....Kilmer (I thought) was a good Batman, as well as Carrey a good riddler. TLJ as Two-Face was terrible. I mean, terrible. He just flailed his arms and cackled for two hours. It was bad. There is also a chase scene (where the Batmobile scales a building..?) that literally is between two scenes with absolutely NO transition or explanation of why there is even a chase scene at all.

The movie, even with its relatively, somewhat decent cast..is laughably bad. Batman and Robin is bad too, the only difference being I can't sit through it and laugh at it.


Batman Returns, as others have said, is a good movie. Watched it recently, it is a dark character study with some decent action. One thing I liked about Burton's movies, even today, were those set pieces and design. He actually had a very creative vision for Gotham, and it worked for his movies.

Schumachers movies, though? Just bad.

I can watch Batman Forever. There are definitely some aspects i thought worked pretty well. I personally didnt really mind the Robin storyline. My ultimate wish is to see Nolan make a total of 5 or 6 Batman movies, and see how he would handle bringing in Robin (i know Bale wants nothing to do with that, and i know Nolan will likely be out after a 3rd, if that even happens) But still, itd be interesting to see what Nolan did with Robin... he's an important part of Batman's timeline.

I read in Wizard that he didn't really want to see Begins, but if you really want to know about it, here's an old interview.

As far as Ward is concerned, it's ridiculous to think the story about how a boy sees his parents slaughtered before his eyes can become funny and campy is absolutely stupid.

I echo some of the issue with "Forever" that others have said; I think Carrey was a good Riddler but they had him go over-the-top on a lot of parts, things like the throwing of the Bat Bombs, the laughing at the Grayson Hostage Tv report, the ending sequence with him as a game show host, etc. Two-Face didn't need to be cackling all the time nor did he have to be neon. Robin had the problem of trying to make him too cool for school like laundry-fu... seriously Schumacher?

Best sequence in that film IMO which illustrates how they were in the right frame of mind for the Riddler is when he went home and that awesome song by the Flaming Lips played.

As far as the original series goes...

I will say that I didn't like Batman Returns, but I didn't mind Batman Forever and thought it was better, due in large part to Kidman and Kilmer. The Riddler was a wacky douche and Two-Face was laughable.

Batman and Robin sucked ass, and despite the vitriol lodged towards the new Star Wars movies, I didn't feel NEARLY as sick to my stomach with those as I did coming out of B&R. I never wanted to see another Batman movie again.

Thankfully, I did.

As unpopular as this is going to be, I prefer the Burton Batman to Nolan's. I haven't seen the Dark Knight but I was very bored by Batman Begins. There's Burton's vision, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, and the great music by Prince. What's to hate? I loved it so much I had to read the book. Now, that takes a lot!!

The love for Nolan's Batman may be in part due to it being current. Of course, the older ones are going to look a little cheesy when you compare. Burton's Batman was 20 years ago. And well, the Adam West Batman was a completely different era.

Why do superhero suits always need abs on them?

West didn't need the fake abs. He was the Man! But that huge-ass utility belt doubled as a girdle.

As much as I love Keaton - he just looks like a total dork in that picture. Honestly, he looks like someone you would see at Dragon Con just standing around. Bale on the other hand, looks like a friggin' animal in the suit.

Is the Batman suit so armored in the movie? I always pictured Batman as more flexible than that. That may be from growing up watching the animated series though. It just seems ridiculous how unflexible those things look, and I can't imagine they would be effective to fight with other than you won't feel anything wearing a Kevlar body condom.

The new Batman suit is probably the most flexible version yet - for what it should be. In fact, and even though I don't believe it needs it, I'm going to spoiler tag this, just in case...

Those full body suits must be kickass but couldn't be practical in real life. You'd roast like a pig in that thing after 30 minutes.

In fairness, I'm sure folks thought Keaton looked awesome in that day and time. Thinking of that Keaton suit, though, I'm not sure it would have held up so well against the flames and gasoline that Scarecrow used on Batman in "Begins". Peeling off melted rubber would have sucked.

Burton's vision is so different from Nolan's that I don't think it would be fair for anyone to fault you for this opinion. If they had very similar visions and one clearly executed that vision better than the other, then there might be a gripe, but that's not the case. for some to prefer Burton's well-executed vision over Nolan's is not that surprising.

for what it's worth though, on a more objective level, i'd say the Dark Knight is a much better sequel than Batman Returns (and I like Returns!).