Batman Forever vs. Batman and Robin - Page 9

It's telling that I get more enjoyment out of quoting lines involving Eckhardt than popping in the blu-ray for Batman '89.  Huge part of my childhood, but I really don't revisit it.

Think about the future, indeed.

 

Art--I love your description of '89 as "a daisy-chain of iconic moments," namely: 1) Batman's two intros (the thugs who hold up the tourists and Axis Chemicals); 2) the museum showdown; 3) the Batmobile reveal; and 4) the Batwing over the moon.  The fights are so clunky, but I do give Keaton credit for inventing a visual language for Batman.  As a kid, I used to love how Batman tilted his torso to look up.  I thought it looked pretty bad ass.

 

I'm also particularly partial to Joker's commercial.  NEW AND IMPROVED JOKER PRODUCTS!  OH NO... HE'S BEEN USING... BRAND X!

 

The last time I saw it (probably a couple of years ago) all I could do was distract myself with Angry Birds in between scenes.

HEY ECKHART!


...


THINK ABOUT THE-

It kills. every. single. time.

Batman Returns is better than Batman Begins. I ain't joking.

You ain't right either.

BR has more heart and soul in its little finger than BB has in its entire updated tank-like Tumblermobile. Sue me!

No. Just no. Just watch the scene where Christopher Walken in a ridiculous wig pushes Michelle Pfeiffer out of a window. It's campy and retarded for the most part, just not nearly on the level of bad in the next two films after that.

The one advantage I think the first four Batman movies have over the new ones is the female characters. Even with much less dialog and obviously much less effort put into developing them as well-rounded characters, Vicki Vale, Selina Kyle, and even Chase Meridian were way better than Rachel "Damsel in Distress/Exposition Machine" Dawes.

 

I seriously think Chase and Bruce Wayne/Batman had a pretty nice relationship with their flirtatious dialog exchanges and even some genuine empathy between them. I like how Bruce let down his guard with Chase a bit, confiding in her about some of his psychological issues.

 

And while it lead to some cringe-inducing moments (in particular fuck that moronic scene where he shows up in costume at her home and she's only wearing a sheet), it was kinda fun how she was intensely attracted to Batman in costume. It was almost like the classic Superman love triangle with Lois Lane being in love with Superman while having a friendly but more playful and less serious relationship with Clark Kent.

 

Obviously, this comes down to personal taste, but I think BB succeeds very well in making Bruce Wayne and interesting and sympathetic character in the context of a cohesive, engaging story. BR introduces us to some interestingly broken characters, but has no idea what to do with them and fails when it comes to connective tissue.

 

I'm with you, although I'm not really sure if it's "better" or not. Definitely 50 times as entertaining. I also prefer Returns to TDK, but it's really batoranges and batapples.

 

BATMAN 1989 and BATMAN RETURNS are weird, in that they feature inverted strengths and weaknesses. BATMAN features possibly the most linear and straightfoward storyline of any Burton film (SLEEPY HOLLOW excepted, perhaps), but is a really limp film, with no verve or energy. BR, on the other hand, is a total fuck-up WRT continuity and throughlines, but is way more energetic and engaged with the characters. All the main characters in BR are more interesting than the ones in BATMAN....but again, are basically on display, with nowhere to go and nothing to do. The main characters in BATMAN keep the story moving, but they're boring as hell and the performances are either weak or phoned in.

 

Again, I know this all boils down to personal preference, and so there isn't a right and wrong. But it's so hard for me to wrap my head anyone around preferring Burton's films to Nolan's, especially when you strip nostalgia out of the view. Burton's Batman films just aren't very good movies; they certainly have a lot of interesting elements in them, but as overall stories and depictions of characters - especially compared to Nolan's films - they don't work. IMNSHO, of course.

The Burton films are like really great junk food. The Schumacher films are bad junk food. The Nolan films are fine dining. I realize that we're nerds and it's just what we do, but trying to compare them is kind of retarded. I will say this: sometimes I'm more in the mood for Popeye's chicken than a fancy restaurant meal. BATMAN RETURNS is my Popeye's chicken.

 

Also, I'm totally with Michael as far as BATMAN goes, and I'm willing to bet it's because we are roughly the same age. I was 19 when the movie hit, and though I was thrilled to see a big screen Batman finally, I always found it to be severely flawed. I don't have childhood nostalgia for it. If anything, time has allowed me to tune out the truly crappy bits and enjoy it for what it is -- a nice piece of eye candy.

 

Yep. I was 21 when the '89 film hit; like you, I jazzed at getting a "serious" Batman treatment on screen (especially so recently after Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" set the comic world on fire). And while the initial viewing experience was great, even then, it was quite apparent the film missed the mark in a lot of ways. The years have not been kind to it - especially compared to how well, relatively, Donner's first SUPERMAN has aged.

I would actually argue Batman 89 aged better than the second half of Superman. At least it has a timeless look. That second half of Superman is 1970s to the max.

 

I'd argue that Batman 1989's "Hey, it's the future! No wait, it 's the 1930s! No wait, everyone's driving a car from the mid-1970s and has 80s hair!" mishmash is more off-putting than the 70s NYC vibe of Superman 1978 (which starts out with Clark in the 1950s, making the film feel consistently period from the get-go).

"Batman" is ahead, behind and a product of its time.

 

Agree to disagree. That look didn't hurt the animated series either.
 

 

Oh, no doubt that it worked like gangbusters in the animated series. I'd just found myself rolling my eyes at the whole Gotham future/past schtick during a recent viewing.

Returns has one fantastic scene: The fist Bat-signal of the movie, and the light is reflected through Wayne Manor until it reaches the cave (or Bruce's Study?), and illuminates Michael Keaton, deep in though.

 

Love that scene.  Love the look of Wayne manor.  Wish Keaton had more to do in the movie, because the rest is a tough sell.

 

 

 

 

 

The animated series knocked it out of the park.  But that's a massive nostalgia bomb for me, I can't comment objectively.

 

Compare and contrast with the blacklight gay disco of the Schumacher movies?  Burton's future/past (and twisted circus ticks) seems like the lesser of two evils.

Edited by MrBananaGrabber - 4/9/12 at 12:35pm

 

YES. That single moment was everything I ever wanted from a Batman movie. An equivalent scene from Batman 89  is the "Descent Into Mystery" Batmobile charge to the Batcave.

 

That piece of score....holy crap. Just so good.

 

MUSICBONER.

 

When Elfman is firing on all cylinders?  Man.  

 

The opening march from Mars Attacks is brilliant too.  Pity about the rest of the movie.

The thing is, how is is smart to protect an identity with placing your call signal around your house? Imagine if he had people over? That said, the music that goes with the scene is amazing.

You know, it reminds me of the last trailer WB released for Batman and Robin. Every other approach showed the camp, the last one? Peter Cullen + Elfman + dialed way down on the camp (well, at least to Forever levels) = a hoodwinked 18-year old Jim. I straight up refused to believe the film was worse than Forever, until seeing the last ten minutes at college three months after release. Never did see the whole thing until the 2005 Anthology set came out. 

 

The trailer in question:

 

 

Call me crazy, but seeing that trailer makes me want to see the movie...(which I've never seen)  Is that the great Peter Cullen doing the v.o for that trailer?

Peter Cullen should voice all the trailers.

Damn skippy. I should note that I hadn't seen the first trailer (advantage of not having cable in the spring of 1997, I suppose), so all of the campy elements people bitched about were lost on me.

 

I mean, whomever cut that thing in the WB marketing department should have lost their job. Gaze upon this monstrosity.

 

 

If nothing else, it shows the difference that music can make when it comes to advertising.

I don't really see any difference in cheese levels between those two trailers. The whole "Superman works alone" thing is just terrible, and no less Velveeta-y than Freeze's opening lines.

Nothing against Elliot Goldenthal (his Alien3 score is amazing), but he simply copied his Demolition Man score for these movies, and never could come close to Danny Elfman, which truly brought another layer to the scenes. It was really cruel of marketing to put the Elfman music in the trailers initially for Forever. The young me thought he would be back.


I'll give Batman & Robin a preference in that it doesn't kill the villains and it's a lot more committed to its zaniness. Batman Forever feels like it's trying to be a mature film with Bruce dealing again with his parents and the duality he has to embrace, then shoots itself with the camp. Even checking out the deleted scenes from Forever shows the film had a slightly different and possibly better vibe.

I thought Goldenthal did a decent job. I can't argue with the assertion that his work can't touch the immortal iconic Elfman score, but I still think his "Batman Forever" theme was pretty damn catchy.

Edited by Naisu Baddi - 4/10/12 at 11:13am

Oh he did have some good music, but as where Danny changed the music around for Returns, I didn't feel the same way about the difference in score in Elliot's.

BTW: My favorite scene in Batman & Robin* that isn't Alfred is above.

*every movie can have a best scene, but it's all relative on the quality of the movie.

I was scared at first, but only at first.

 

Dear Lord, that ridiculous thumbs up.

 

Actually, that montage is missing the actual best moment: when Riddler says to Two-Face, "If you don't stop picking at that, it's never gonna heal."

 

Second best moment*: Dick getting jiggy with the laundry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Joking, of course. It's no good at all.

While we're on the subject of Buttfuk Forever, can someone please explain to me what the deal is with Batman's riddle at the end?

 

Batman: Wait! I have a riddle for you!
The Riddler: For me? Really? Tell me.
Batman: I see without seeing. To me, darkness is as clear as daylight. What am I?
The Riddler: Please! You're as blind as a bat!
Batman: Exactly.
[throws a batarang at his throne]

 

The fu...? What's the deal with Batman's special "Bat-Vision" crap that comes down over his eyes? Does it give him better Batarang aim or something? Or, like the riddle, does he actually "blind" himself in order to throw the Batarang?

That's a great riddle. It stumps me every time. Then I'm like, "Well played, Batman. Well played."

I haven't seen the scene in question for a long time, but didn't the eyeshields protect him from the glare of all the exploding neon in Riddler's lair?

Yeah, but Schumacher's Gotham City was largely made up of garishly bright lights. All those spotlights swirling around all the time? [shudder]

 

Had it been established that Riddler's neon thing would let out an exceptionally bright light if ruptured? Why would Bats even need to stare at the thing after hitting his target?

I seem to remember Alfred saying that suit had sonar abilities. So when he flipped the eye thingies on, that's how he knew there was no floor in the Riddler's lair (except the area he was currently standing on). The real question is "why was his suit disco inferno silver? WHY??"

And damn you Art, for making me give Batman Forever this much thought!

Yeah, but Chase & Robin were gonna plunge through said hollow floor to their watery deaths at the bottom. The whole fortress was a giant, hollow cylinder with Riddler's base on top. Batman climbed up through the base of the fortress to get to Riddler, so he already knew full well that it was hollow under the floor.

Also, the Riddler just finished laying out how he was going to drop both of them to their deaths through the holes in the floor, so it really didn't take the World's Greatest Detective to figure that one out.  What always shat me about it is they set up the dilemma for Batman: girl or sidekick, don't have time to save both.  The he throws a batarang and saves them both.  What the shit is that?  Maybe something with the sonar and the neon machine was supposed to work out how he got around it, but it does not come across at all.

Watching that series of clips, I realized something. "Batman Forever" kinda works just as a movie for children. If you look at it that way instead of evaluating it as a legitimate movie that adults can enjoy without feeling like their intelligence is insulted, it's less offensive.

 

There were moments that I found too stupid even as a kid (i.e. the opening vault heist, Batman and Chase's bedroom scene), but I got a huge kick out of Jim Carrey hamming it up and I still like some of that stuff. Sure was more fun for kid-me to watch than The Penguin in "Batman Forever". I liked Catwoman a lot, but overall, of the three Batman movies I saw in theatres during childhood ("Batman Returns", "Batman Forever", and "Batman and Robin"), "Batman Forever" was the most satisfying.

 

All of them would be hard for me to watch now (and I didn't even like "Batman and Robin" as a kid...I think the only thing I enjoyed was Uma Thurman's hotness), but "Batman Forever" still has nostalgia value for me, as do Carrey's antics (well...some of 'em).

It just occurred to me that Robin is completely useless as a sidekick in the third act of "Batman Forever." He crashes the Bat-boat and has to be saved from a group of scuba divers, then he fails to successfully subdue Two-Face and has to be rescued from falling to certain death. If Batman hadn't brought Robin along, he'd only have had to worry about infiltrating Riddler Island, rescuing Chase, and capturing/killing the Riddler and Two-Face, all of which he seems to be more than capable of doing completely unaided.

 

I actually like Robin, too, so this realization totally ruins my afternoon. Thanks for that, Joel Schumacher!

I also love how their entire relationship is built around Batman teaching Robin that getting revenge by killing Two-Face isn't the answer.  And the kid eventually accepts this, because being a crimefighter means taking the high road.  Then Batman kills him.

 

Batman: "In my crusade against crime, I have one unbreakable rule: I never kill people"

 

Robin: "I fully intend on killing Two-Face"

 

Batman: "Okey-dokey"

A man's gotta go his own way.

 

Well, technically Batman just didn't save him.

 

It's worse than that!  Because Batman, doesn't say "okey-dokey," he lectures and browbeats Robin into giving up his (wholly justified) quest for revenge, then he kills Two-Face himself. 

Between the deaths of The Joker, Two-Face, & The Penguin in the early Bat-films, it would seem that "execution by gravity" is the one loophole in Batman's "Do not kill" playbook.

God, I remember seeing this for the first time.  It premiered on Entertainment Tonight when I was 11.  I liked Batman Forever a bunch, but I was also heavily into The Animated Series.  When Freeze walked down those stairs...

 

Gyah.  I think that was my first moment of total fanboy "what the hell is this?"