Why do people bash Batman Forever (1995)?

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by thedarkknight9283 (61 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't get it. Its because of Batman & Robin (1997) that Batman Forever gets lumped in with that travesty and assume Batman Forever was just as bad as Batman & Robin.

First of all, Val Kilmer was a good Batman/Bruce Wayne, and was more right for the role than Keaton. Not to mention that both his Batman and Bruce Wayne had far more depth and character development than Keaton did in either of Burton's films.

Batman Forever was much true to the Batman mythos than Burton's films, especially Batman Returns (1992). Joel Schumacher at least made an attempt to understand Batman and his world. Batman doesn't kill in his films, nor does anything ridiculous happen like the Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents.

I get Batman Forever was a little campy, and had bad executions in some parts of the film. Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face should have erased from the film completely. But its no worse than an army of rocket wielding penguins or having the Penguin eating raw fish.

#2 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@thedarkknight9283: Yeah, it really wasn't that bad. I like the first two more, despite the weird continuity changes but Forever does NOT deserve to be lumped with Batman and Robin.

#3 Posted by Emequious_Swerve (1268 posts) - - Show Bio

They were just as accurate as the Burton films. The Burton movies took a lot of ques from the Golden Age Batman stories.

I think it was because of the dramatic shift of the series. The first two Batman films were dark and gothic and more suited for Batmans world. Then Forever was more bright and neon. It also didn't help that Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones were overacting like nobody's business, Robin was like 30 and Batman was ultra high tech. It was just too over the top and crazy

#4 Edited by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio
  • Its boring
  • Jim Carrey is highly irritating
  • Val Kilmer is wooden
  • "Chicks dig the car"
  • All the bad guys are comic relief, including the main antagonists
  • Batman barely fights in the movie, Bruce Wayne does more fighting
  • Batman is incompetent in the movie
  • Art design is garish and looks cheap
  • It has just as many inaccuracies as all the other Batman films

Its my least favourite Batman movie, and by no small margin. I hated it in 1995 when I was a kid, and I still hated it when I re-watched it a couple of days ago, only thing that's good about it is the music as far as I'm concerned.

#5 Posted by Emequious_Swerve (1268 posts) - - Show Bio


Its my least favourite Batman movie, and by no small margin, I hated it in 1995, and I still hated it when I re-watched it a couple of days ago, only thing that's good about it is the music as far as I'm concerned.

It did have an amazing soundtrack. *hums Kiss from a rose*

#6 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

  • Its boring
  • Jim Carrey is highly irritating
  • Val Kilmer is wooden
  • "Chicks dig the car"
  • All the bad guys are comic relief, including the main antagonists
  • Batman barely fights in the movie, Bruce Wayne does more fighting
  • Batman is incompetent in the movie
  • Art design is garish and looks cheap
  • It has just as many inaccuracies as all the other Batman films

Its my least favourite Batman movie, and by no small margin. I hated it in 1995 when I was a kid, and I still hated it when I re-watched it a couple of days ago, only thing that's good about it is the music as far as I'm concerned.

Really? You think its worse than Batman and Robin?

#7 Edited by The Stegman (24388 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked it.

Online
#8 Posted by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363 said:

@silent_bomber said:
  • Its boring
  • Jim Carrey is highly irritating
  • Val Kilmer is wooden
  • "Chicks dig the car"
  • All the bad guys are comic relief, including the main antagonists
  • Batman barely fights in the movie, Bruce Wayne does more fighting
  • Batman is incompetent in the movie
  • Art design is garish and looks cheap
  • It has just as many inaccuracies as all the other Batman films

Its my least favourite Batman movie, and by no small margin. I hated it in 1995 when I was a kid, and I still hated it when I re-watched it a couple of days ago, only thing that's good about it is the music as far as I'm concerned.

Really? You think its worse than Batman and Robin?

Personally I find Batman and Robin is so bad its good, whilst Batman Forever is just meh.

To be honest I can watch Batman and Robin just for Arnie delivering streams of bad puns, but maybe that's just me :D

And yeah, all Batman films have some accuracies to certain era's of Batman, and all Batman films have their fare share of inaccuracies too, its been mentioned before by fans that Batman Forever has more in common with 70s era Batman, Burton with Golden Age era Batman, and Batman and Robin with 60s era Batman and the Adam West TV show.

#9 Posted by The_MVPs (84693 posts) - - Show Bio

Its not AS bad as Batman and Robin, but thats kinda like saying Terrance Howard's War Machine wasn't AS bad as Don Cheadle's.

Moderator
#10 Posted by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

I tell you what though, I'd actually be kind of interested in a director's cut of Batman Forever. Schumacher mentions in one interview that he was told to cut out all of the darkest scenes in the film, and that he had to re-arrange a lot of what was left to get it to make sense. I think a few more scenes in certain places could make a world of difference to the movie, but who knows?

#11 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@silent_bomber: Yeah, I have trouble sitting through the entire movie. I'll just skip to certain parts for a laugh, like "The Bat-Credit Card".

#12 Edited by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363 said:

@silent_bomber: Yeah, I have trouble sitting through the entire movie. I'll just skip to certain parts for a laugh, like "The Bat-Credit Card".

Batman and Robin is just so completely ludicrous at times that all you can do is laugh

To be honest back in the day I actually hated Batman and Robin too, because I felt that it had mistreated the character, undermined his film series etc, etc. But now, with all the Nolan films and everything it doesn't really seem to matter in the grand scheme of things anymore, the film is forgotten and had no real lasting detrimental impact on the character so I can look at it and laugh.

#13 Posted by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

If anyone's interested this actually details many of the last minute edits made to Batman Forever -

Link

Yeah... many of the scenes in the finished film have been shifted to a different order, it originally started with Two-Face breaking out of Arkham and establishing shots of Gotham, then the scene at Wayne Corp with Bruce and Nygma, the Bat signal at that point sends him to the bank Two-Face is robbing, not the rooftop scene which actually happens much later in the movie and has been dubbed.

There's 40 minutes missing from the release version! even the scene that the movie was named after was removed!

#15 Posted by batkevin74 (10793 posts) - - Show Bio

@thedarkknight9283: Batman Forever was merely okay! It suffered due to the "two many villains!" concept which seems to plague superhero movies. You can almost hear the studio go "we need another bad guy" and then hastily rewrite the script and viola Batman Forever!

Two Face was useless, way too much hyper colour, several extra Graysons, taking over Gotham with television...this would make a great comic but as a film it just didn't work, for me. I still watched it at the movies, I own it on DVD but it sits just above Batman & Robin on the bat flick totem pole.

#17 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6336 posts) - - Show Bio
#18 Posted by batkevin74 (10793 posts) - - Show Bio

@thorson said:

BECAUSE BATMAN SUCKS. AND BATMAN FANS ARE CHILDISH.

Well that's a well thought out argument, so eloquently put also....idiot!

#19 Edited by DecoyElite (4019 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by jumpstart55 (2278 posts) - - Show Bio

Simple Because it sucked big time. Though it wasn't as bad as Batman & Robin, it still sucked.

#21 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6336 posts) - - Show Bio

@decoyelite: I realized and flagged it. It's really pathetic to call Batman fans "CHILDISH" when it's coming from the user named THORSON with a profile pic of Thor who capitalizes every letter in Thor whenever he writes it (when he's not capitalizing everything, like in his Batman posts).

#22 Posted by DecoyElite (4019 posts) - - Show Bio

@rulerofthisuniverse: I don't know about the guy, I've just seen him spamming pointless hate on the activity feed.

Don't know if anything he's said is really flag worthy. Although I guess calling people childish might count as an insult.

#23 Edited by Joygirl (19968 posts) - - Show Bio

Because it wasn't very good.

Online
#24 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6336 posts) - - Show Bio

@decoyelite: He's obviously spamming (not to mention it's all trolling, too), which is flag worthy. And before he was spamming pointless hate, he wrote a lot of stuff in the Thor forums and always acted like an unreasonable fanboy (while always capitalizing each letter of Thor).

#25 Posted by noj (1084 posts) - - Show Bio

I hate all the hate this movie gets. Of the original 4 movies it was my favorite after Batman 89.

#26 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6291 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it had some good and bad points. I think it's O.K., but not my favourite.

@silent_bomber Have you seen that some of the cut footage is on Youtube?

#27 Posted by Pop123 (90 posts) - - Show Bio

I enjoyed batman 3.

#28 Posted by ccraft (5270 posts) - - Show Bio

The villains sucked

#29 Edited by Rafa Lee (38 posts) - - Show Bio

Directed by Joel Schumacher, That's why!

#30 Posted by Yakuna (12 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I like it, but perhaps I'm saying that because it has some nostalgic value...

#31 Edited by Bierschneeman (3982 posts) - - Show Bio

the only redeemable part of this movie is Jim carey plays The Riddler......but it is better than Batman 1966 and Batman and robin

so I fully believe it deserves the hate, but a lot less than it gets... really Batman 66 deserves more hate..

#32 Posted by Guardiandevil83 (5599 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought Val was a great Batman and Bruce Wayne. It was the plot that sucked. Val as Batman: Easily figured out every one of Nigma's riddles.

Escaped that safe he and the Night Watchmen were trapped in by thinking on his feet, using the guys hearing aid.

The "blind as a bat riddle" to distract Riddler is something comic bat would do.

Overall I thought he was one of the better Batmen

#33 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
#34 Posted by longbowhunter (7086 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked Forever more than Batman & Robin, but it still wasn't a good movie.

#35 Posted by RustyRoy (12718 posts) - - Show Bio
#36 Posted by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

Lets try this again (my original post this morning didn't take for some reason)

I think it had some good and bad points. I think it's O.K., but not my favourite.

@silent_bomber Have you seen that some of the cut footage is on Youtube?

That's cool, its hard to imagine what they'd be like with music and such, I think some of the scenes could have promise, there must also be quite a bit more than that if 40 minutes were cut from the movie.

There's a guy on Youtube who's edited the red book scenes as a dream sequence, I think that works pretty well, I'm not keen on the whole "Bruce Wayne is an amnesiac for 10 minutes" angle to be honest.

Watching this kind of makes me want to try to edit the film myself, but I don't think I have the knowledge to do a very good job, and what I produce would probably be unpopular anyway as the first thing I would do is cut all Jim Carrey humour from the movie :D

#37 Posted by gor724 (827 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought Val was a great Batman and Bruce Wayne. It was the plot that sucked. Val as Batman: Easily figured out every one of Nigma's riddles.

Escaped that safe he and the Night Watchmen were trapped in by thinking on his feet, using the guys hearing aid.

The "blind as a bat riddle" to distract Riddler is something comic bat would do.

Overall I thought he was one of the better Batmen

He easily figured out the riddles because they were like the ones you get on the back of a children's menu.

#38 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (10827 posts) - - Show Bio

Is not Tim Burton, people has a huge case of Nostalgia around him, even when he pretty much says his Batman wasnt as Batman as people use to remember

.http://www.batman-on-film.com/burton-talks-batman-in-amsterdam_4-13-08.html

I thought was actually really good. He really captured the ‘real’ spirit that these kind of movies are supposed to have nowadays. When I did BATMAN 20 years ago, in 1988 or something, it was a different time in comic book movies. You couldn't go into that ‘dark side’ of comics yet. The last couple of years that has become acceptable and Nolan certainly got more to the root of what the Batman comics are about.

Burton itself say this, people cant accpet Burton saying, ok people you just have a huge case of Nostalgia that not even i have.

Dont matter what you do, people is always going to have a strange case of nostalgia, some people miss Adam West Batman and hate he dont say Old Chum anymore.

Online
#39 Posted by Azrael_Online (186 posts) - - Show Bio

Wasn't really considered a bad movie when it came out. I remember really liking it when it came out, but I watched it a year ago with my gf and was like...wow, this is kind of cheesy. And than we watched Batman and Robin and said ok, it gets worse, hah

#40 Edited by MatteoPG (1927 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, the movie was really bad in terms of script, acting and photography. Not to mention the villains.

I will give you that people tend to lump it with B&R which is far far worse. A lot.

And I will give you that people try to separate it from the Tim Burton movies too much. While they were better written... or at least the first one was better written... they completely missed a lot of things of the character. But I don't think that that is as bad as writing a horrible script.

I do tend to associate the second tim burton movie to Batman Forever in terms of badness, though.

#41 Posted by SupBatz (1734 posts) - - Show Bio

  • Its boring
  • Jim Carrey is highly irritating
  • Val Kilmer is wooden
  • "Chicks dig the car"
  • All the bad guys are comic relief, including the main antagonists
  • Batman barely fights in the movie, Bruce Wayne does more fighting
  • Batman is incompetent in the movie
  • Art design is garish and looks cheap
  • It has just as many inaccuracies as all the other Batman films

Its my least favourite Batman movie, and by no small margin. I hated it in 1995 when I was a kid, and I still hated it when I re-watched it a couple of days ago, only thing that's good about it is the music as far as I'm concerned.

This. I can actually sit through Batman and Robin and laugh at it. Batman Forever...I can't even sit through the entirety anymore.

#42 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (10827 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#43 Posted by el_contrarian (32 posts) - - Show Bio

It's significantly weaker than the previous two films.

I agree that it shouldn't be roped in with Batman and Robin. No film deserves that. Still, it started the trend of ridiculousness that the subsequent film took to its logical extreme.

The first two movies had just the right balance of darkness, action, humor, and spectacle. Batman Forever tried to continue that, and was partially successful. I actually thought Jim Carey was pretty good, and Val Kilmer was a fine Bruce Wayne. Tommy Lee Jones I thought was horribly miscast, and Chris O'Donnel was so-so. It's just a very average movie.

#44 Posted by IrishX (2367 posts) - - Show Bio

You "don't get it" because you've shown us that you have terrible taste and for whatever reason you obsessively continue to make posts about the exact same topic over and over and over again.

#45 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (10827 posts) - - Show Bio

The only thing i notice is the Nostanglia of people around Burton movies and how they make them perfect and flawless.

The truth is Burton is not as good as people want him to be, is not as much as the comic book as they wanted to be and it had huge flaws.

Burton itself say his movies arent perfect:

The Christopher Nolan movie I thought was actually really good. He really captured the ‘real’ spirit that these kind of movies are supposed to have nowadays. When I did BATMAN 20 years ago, in 1988 or something, it was a different time in comic book movies. You couldn't go into that ‘dark side’ of comics yet. The last couple of years that has become acceptable and Nolan certainly got more to the root of what the Batman comics are about.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/burton-talks-batman-in-amsterdam_4-13-08.html

There are several aspect where Schumacher was superior that Burton.

Gordon and the Gotham Police had a role.

Alfred was a better father figure.

Batman was a full time Batman, in Returns they show us he only waits to the Batsignal to be Batman.

Bruce Wayne was a sociallite.

Dick Grayson was the best designed character of that period.

The end of Burtnization of Gotham, that cames from Goats Town that means Town of Simpletons, a name design because it sound like Goddamn, nothing about Gothic.

Batman shows real intelligence in this ones.

Depends less on gadgets.

Better fight scenes.

A more emotional Bruce Wayne and Batman.

Online
#46 Edited by sinestro_GL (3158 posts) - - Show Bio

Two Face the troll comes to mind. In fact, both Two Face and Riddler acted like the Joker...which was stupid.

The whole mind device thing was also dumb.

There were some positive points about the movie: introduced Robin, great musical score...but it didn't redeem the film

#47 Posted by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

The only thing i notice is the Nostalgia of people around Burton movies and how they make them perfect and flawless.

The truth is Burton is not as good as people want him to be, is not as much as the comic book as they wanted to be and it had huge flaws.

Burton itself say his movies arent perfect:

The Christopher Nolan movie I thought was actually really good. He really captured the ‘real’ spirit that these kind of movies are supposed to have nowadays. When I did BATMAN 20 years ago, in 1988 or something, it was a different time in comic book movies. You couldn't go into that ‘dark side’ of comics yet. The last couple of years that has become acceptable and Nolan certainly got more to the root of what the Batman comics are about.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/burton-talks-batman-in-amsterdam_4-13-08.html

There are several aspect where Schumacher was superior that Burton.

Gordon and the Gotham Police had a role.

Alfred was a better father figure.

Batman was a full time Batman, in Returns they show us he only waits to the Batsignal to be Batman.

Bruce Wayne was a sociallite.

Dick Grayson was the best designed character of that period.

The end of Burtnization of Gotham, that cames from Goats Town that means Town of Simpletons, a name design because it sound like Goddamn, nothing about Gothic.

Batman shows real intelligence in this ones.

Depends less on gadgets.

Better fight scenes.

A more emotional Bruce Wayne and Batman.

You're talking complete nonsense.

Apparently according to you I like Burton better due to nostalgia? I watched Returns and Forever within less than a year of each other, I hated Forever before I was even old enough to understand what a director did, or even know they'd been a change.

Batman Forever Batman shows intelligence?! the guy smashes his psychiatrist's door down for no damn reason just because he hears work-out grunts for gods sake. Dialogue like "I'll get drive through" and "chicks love the car" is supposed to show intelligence?! The guy knows Nigma is working on mind manipulation, knows Nigma is a little crazy, knows Nigma's boss died in suspicious circumstances, and yet he never puts two and two together?! He walks into Nigma's mind-reading machine because Nigma's own assistant says she's turning it off?! walks into the safe trap, jumps into the flame trap etc etc.

Kilmer Batman is a complete moron.

Burton Batman on the other hand analysed and found out how Joker venom worked when nobody else could, passing the information to the authorities, and hacked the speech podium the Penguin was using, setting him up with evidence he had the forethought to record previously on a separate occasion. Burton Batman also thinks under stress, when he can't beat Joker's bodyguard in h2h he tricks him into thinking he's fallen down a hole, lures him close to the edge, and then drags him off. Burton Batman does research on the red triangle gang, Burton Batman already knows of Vicki Vales work when he meets her, Burton Batman criticises Shreck for creating another power plant because he knows that Gotham already has a power surplus.

Better fight scenes?! have you watched this film recently?! Batman barely even fights in this film, there are more scenes with Bruce Wayne fighting, you know why that is? its because actor's could barely move in that version of the batsuit, the Kilmer Batsuit was the most restrictive of them all, it even pulled the actor's face in an odd manner, that's why Kilmer Batman has that odd pouty look to him. Virtually every other fight scene in this movie is comedic, with enemies running at Batman like bulls, electrocuting each other, falling into each other etc.

Burton Batman is a socialite, he holds a big party at the beginning of the first movie, and goes to Shreck's costume party in the 2nd.

Alfred sat down with Bruce and Vicki in the first movie telling childhood stories about Bruce.

Gotham had noticeable Gothic architecture and gargoyles waay before Burton turned up.

#48 Posted by Azrael_Online (186 posts) - - Show Bio

Two Face the troll comes to mind. In fact, both Two Face and Riddler acted like the Joker...which was stupid.

The whole mind device thing was also dumb.

There were some positive points about the movie: introduced Robin, great musical score...but it didn't redeem the film

The Soundtrack was pretty great. The songs that were wrote for the movie were actually good and didn't sound like B-Side filler they just donated to put out a track on a soundtrack to help sell records.

#49 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (10827 posts) - - Show Bio

@silent_bomber: Val Kilmer Batman knew how the Riddler machine worked and explain it to people, besides the fact he built a a sonar gadget and knew what to attack so The Riddler loses his powers.

That show more intelligence that Keaton who everything that requeries intelligence was Deus Ex Machina outside of the screen, The Joker venom we never saw it, we never saw how he got those records, he didnt even explain it, besides the point the person that hacked the Penguins army was Alfred not him.

Kilmer Batman is a Batman that blames himself for the death of his parents, he dont want Dick Grayson to became like him and feels guilty for the fact he killed in the past.

Yeah, did you remember the Dick Grayson vs Don The Dragon Wilson fight scene? that is by far better that all the fight scenes in Burton movies.

Burton Batman wasnt a sociallite, no one knew who Bruce Wayne was at the party in Batman 89, did you remember that Vicki Vale asked for Bruce Wayne and no one point who he was, he was also with that other reportes that was from Gotham and he didnt knw how Bruce Wayne looked like.

Nope it wasnt Punk Rock Gothic, it was Art Deco, Burton keeps Art Deco but put too much Punk Rock Gothic in it, many people often confuse Art Deco with Gothic for some reason, like confusing the Art Deco eagles with Gargoyles another weird thing people does, Batman TAS decide to go Art Deco all the way again, this based on the period Batman was created.

Online
#50 Posted by silent_bomber (1677 posts) - - Show Bio

I can't believe my original post disappeared and I had to re-write this

-_-'

@silent_bomber: Val Kilmer Batman knew how the Riddler machine worked and explain it to people, besides the fact he built a a sonar gadget and knew what to attack so The Riddler loses his powers.

That show more intelligence that Keaton who everything that requeries intelligence was Deus Ex Machina outside of the screen, The Joker venom we never saw it, we never saw how he got those records.

This is no different to Kilmer throwing together a sonar gadget.

Also none of these are Deus Ex Machina's. A Deus Ex Machina is when a writer solves a plot issue by using a unexpected, improbable event. A character portrayed as intelligent solving a problem off-screen is not a Deus Ex Machina.

Batman thinking on his feet, and showing resourcefulness by finding other ways to deal with enemies (such as Joker's bodyguard, and the strongman) who cause him problems in h2h are also not Deus Ex Machina's.

Batman being shown doing legwork, and researching the Red Triangle Gang is also not a Deus Ex Machina

I also don't think that destroying a massive, evil looking machine is a notable feat of intelligence on Kilmer's part tbh.

@silent_bomber: besides the point the person that hacked the Penguins army was Alfred not him.

I didn't mention this event, I was talking about him hacking the podium

@silent_bomber: Kilmer Batman is a Batman that blames himself for the death of his parents.

Burton Batman visits the site of his parent's death every year and places flowers.

@silent_bomber: Burton Batman wasnt a sociallite, no one knew who Bruce Wayne was at the party in Batman 89, did you remember that Vicki Vale asked for Bruce Wayne and no one point who he was, he was also with that other reportes that was from Gotham and he didnt knw how Bruce Wayne looked like.

Vicky only asked Bruce, and he trolled her.

Maybe this version stayed out of the papers more, and that's why Knox didn't recognise him, he's certainly not a playboy, like he is in the comics (nor is Kilmer), so maybe the tabloids take less interest in him. His parties are also supposedly quite exclusive.

I think they were going for more of a Great Gatsby feel with the party in the first movie to be fair.

@silent_bomber: many people often confuse Art Deco with Gothic for some reason, like confusing the Art Deco eagles with Gargoyles another weird thing people does.

No way is this an Eagle

@silent_bomber:Batman TAS decide to go Art Deco all the way again, this based on the period Batman was created.

No, the creators of BTAS have gone on the record multiple times in interviews as having based the entire look, and tone of their animated series primarily on Tim Burton's movies, which they love.

This comes from the Gotham Alleys website -

(Eric Radomski) The previous incarnations of Batman I'd seen growing up, the Filmation animated version, that series they did with Adam West, they were all just a bunch of goofs. They were dopey versions of a character that could be really strong and dramatic, and when I saw Tim Burton's movie, I thought that was a good way of looking at this character.(...) Literally the first piece that I did [on BTAS] was lights of a city reflected on a wet pavement, and that was also inspired by the drama of Burton's movie.

(Paul Dini)When Tim Burton's Batman came out, that was the way to go. Nicholson looks phenomenal and scary and the suit looks good and the darkness and the world I was thinking like wow, this rocks. Another thing that transitioned form the Tim Burton's movies was Batman's character - as in the movie, he's someone who stays in the shadows and keeps to himself.

(Bruce Timm) Everybody was very impressed with the music that Danny Elfman had done for the first Batman movie and we thought that was definitely the right direction to go, that kind of retro noir mysterioso kind of score.

On the audio commentary for the On Leather Wings episode, Bruce Timm and Eric Radomski said that they designed the series by closely emulating the Tim Burton films' "otherworldly timelessness,". They followed the same design of the city presented in Batman Returns, Art Deco, or as they renamed it, Dark Deco and expressionistic shadowing (often painting backgrounds on black cells in order to give the feeling of omnipresent night). As in Burton's movies, there's a feel of the 1930's Industrial America with people wearing hats and driving old cars, mixed with modern and futuristic technology like computers.

The cartoon series retains Burton's mixture of 30s fashion and style, and current day technology

The odd Batmobile turning grappling hook

Joker's Batman (1989) pre-acid persona

Catwoman went back to being Blonde

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.