Your honest opinion of Batman Forever

This can be looked at a couple of ways: O'Donnell was too old (at 25 when the movie was made but playing maybe an 18-year-old), but then the idea of Batman taking a 10-year-old out to fight armed criminals was always a bit of a sick concept (child endangerment laws and whatnot). So, a much older Robin would actually be a more realistic concept.

Like Stan Lee, I never really liked the teen side-kick concept, if for nothing more than it's lack of practicality. We all know Robin (and his copy cats) were created with this idea that a kid superhero side-kick would attract more kid comic book readers - but I never bought this concept as kids were already reading Batman to imagine being Batman. He didn't need a kid side-kick, but supposedly, that expanded the market to more kids and sold more books.

Well to take it as the film came in 1995 and i was 10 years old, i really liked odonnel s character and never looked at it as if he should be an 18 year turning into a sidekick, i just like the backstory of how he came to be robin

I presume that you are referring to me, since I am the creator of the topic.

There are several reasons why Batman is so fascinating.

1. His suit. No super-hero has a better suit than him. In BVS Dawn of Justice, and Justice League the suit was a work of art.

2. He is a normal man with an endless supply of gadgets and ingenuity to get out of tough situations. It is fun when he gets caught. You think how is he going to get out of it this time.

3. I like how it's a fictional city, and in the original four films. It didn't look real, which was awesome! It does something to the imagination to see things you wouldn't normally see in real life.

4. He is a good man on a noble conquest with gadgets, and a cool suit that does amazing things (as mentioned above). I mean would you rather him do all of his stuff in a wife beater t-shirt and penny loafers, or in a 100 lb suit that is amazing to look at? Batman is what we wish we could be (rich), and what we wish we could do (fight crime on rooftops).

In short super-heroes are fun and so are super-villains.

Drudgery is boring because you are doing the same thing everyday (get coffee, watch a movie blah blah), and wearing the same clothes as everyone else. Batman and his wonderful sidekicks and villains are not like that. They are not boring because you wouldn't see them in everyday life.

Hope that helps, if I was indeed the person you were talking to.

Stop motion animator Ray Harryhausen once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Would the film really be better if it were more realistic?" To him realism was overrated, and it is to me as well.

A Picasso is not realistic but it's still art.

I think that the fact that it didn't look real worked in the films favor. Batman Forever was a film made for the MTV generation. Every moment was fun, and it felt like a ride.

All the colors and neon and such made the film great, and probably earned it a lot of money as well.

Remember this film beats out Justice League, Batman Begins, Batman Returns, and Batman vs Superman when adjusted for inflation.

It was a winner.

I appreciate that.

My point is simply that the settings need to match the kind of film one is making. Nolan was trying to bring Batman into reality, so the Gotham of the first four films would have seemed a weird juxtaposition to the Batman story he was telling. Same would go for Jim Carrey's version of the Riddler or Tommy Lee Jones' version of Two-Face. Not even Nicholson's Joker (which I still love) would have fit well into the Nolan-verse: thus the Joker was given a more realistic update for Dark Knight.

As to the appeal of Batman, I think realism is a big part of it... in that I mean, unlike other comic book superheroes, his story is feasible where others are not...

We don't know if there are sentient aliens that look just like us that would have super powers on Earth, and if you got bit by a radioactive spider, you'd probably just have a welt, and if you were bombarded by cosmic or gamma rays, you'd get radiation poisoning and die.

But Batman could exist: he's got a childhood trauma that provides the motivation to become a costumed vigilante and the inherited money to pay for everything he needs in that obsessive endeavor.

First off sorry for not responding sooner. Haven't been on here for a while.

I agree with everything you are saying. Realism was the right way to go for Batman Begins and beyond, and it was definitely the right way after seeing all of the money Dark Knight and Rises and made. $2 billion Batman films can't be wrong after all.

I'm just talking about what I like personally. Marvel and DC have kind of oversaturated the market by making "realistic superhero films."

Which in my opinion has become tedious and boring. It makes me kind of pine for things of my childhood, things that weren't so serious and dark like the original four Batman films. And so realistic.

And no Carrey wouldn't have worked in the Nolan universe. Totally agree with you there.

I guess I'm just talking about what I prefer for the moment, not that my way works for the audiences of today.

But it works for me!

Best way to describe it would be to say: it's an early Jim Carrey movie. People should immediately know what this means.

It's a dancing humanistic shell brimming with otherworldly cartoonism, like Jim.

Riddler appears at end...

https://bamsmackpow.com/2020/07/04/d...er-exists/amp/

https://www.ign.com/articles/batman-...ream-bat?amp=1
Deleted scene where bruce wayne morphes into batman