Talk:Batman Forever/Archive 1

message: Tommy Lee Jones is a great actor.  There was no excuse for him to ham it up so over-the-top in this; however, I believe it was direction.  The next Batman movie was even worse.
Something should be said on this page and the one for the Clooney Batman that the production team (including writers, directors and ACTORS) did not take these two movies seriously and aggregiously wounded the Batman idea.  Tom S.
:It really amazes me when people insult Tommy Lee Jones performance as over-the-top. I really liked how he was calm and cool as Dent yet just psychotic as Two-Face. It may not be exactly what is in the comics, but it is certainly a valid interpretation (and really that's what all movie versions of comics are, an interpretation). At any rate I don't think he was any more over-the-top than Nicholson's Joker. That's not an insult, Nicholson was phenominal. But these characters are larger than life and beyond the norm. If you simply mean Jones was overacting, I refer you to Cobb or Natural Born Killers. Compared to those he's positively subdued in Batman Forever. I think there's a lot in Forever that is true to Batman and was mising from all the other three to a degree. Someone on the new DVDs made a really interesting statement. As it relates to the comics, Batman is Bob Kane's 1939 version. Batman Returns is how the characters were treated in the 90s. Batman Forever is Bill Finger's heyday in the 1940s with an intersting detective or adventure story yet larger than life props like the giant typewriters and huge pennies in the Batcave. Batman & Robin is the TV show. All are valid interpretations, it really just depends on what you like.--Talison 05:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Batman Run since the 60s 

message: It says early in the article that "Originally it was intended that the third Batman film would be directed by Burton... When Burton was attached by the studio to the Superman film..." Later, in the Trivia section, it says that, "Director Tim Burton intended to direct the third film in the franchise, but turned it down due to creative differences."
The first quote makes it seem that Burton became attached to another movie and was unable to direct, but the latter quote says he refused it. Are they both true? Maybe the first should be changed to say that Burton refused the role as director or that was not to work on the project.
--Daev 03:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Burton Inconsistencies? 

message: This section seems to be a POV fork, Characterizing opinions of people's work.
The lines which seem to be biased are:
Due to the fact that Batman Returns earned less than the original, Warner Bros. insisted the movie be made into a kid-friendly cash cow.1
This resulted making the third Batman movie with a feel that was more reminiscent to the 1960s TV show than its Burton predecessors
Batman Forever has been regarded by some as a homoerotic movie after a conservative columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, Gary Willis, (not a movie reviewer) sardonically bashed the movie's campiness and perceived homoerotic motifs ("Batman Forever is a Gay Old Time," Chicago Sun-Times, 1995). Though not defending the film's cinematic merits, most view this analysis a groundless throwback to similar homophobic criticisms of the early years of the comic books and the 1960's TV series.
: I suggest that this be removed...Much of the negativity came from the drastic makeover of the franchise (most of it led by Joel Schumacher at the will of the Warner Bros. executives)....unless a source is provided. Forever young 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reaction and box office Bias

message: I dont think it's necessary to write everything that happens in the movie in this section.
Why is that notice about the plot being "overly long" still up?  I don't really think this plot summary is longer than usual, is it?  There are certainly some plot summaries out there that are quite a bit more overboard than this one. Chalkieperfect 09:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: This article has pov issues. The reaction area reads liike one persons opinion: Kilmers wooden performance, criticism of Joel, cartoonish acts by Jim and Tommy, criticism of gadgets etc etc. Though many of these opinions are most likely true, it needs to be referenced properly. The plot needs a massive rewrite as well, it is huge, the whole article is 33 kilobytes. Davey4 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I hated that stupid Batman and Robin film that one sucked and the batman films before this were worse! But This film was a genuine work of art.
Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman & Robin all have the movie posters in the infobox, whereas this one has the DVD cover. Can somebody please upload a movie poster for this one too? Osaboramirez 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Batman Of Them All 

message: The text pretty much assumes that the UK Region 2 DVD is the only R2 release, there are many others. Also, only the UK release was previously cut, while all other R2 releases (both original and special edition) were/are uncut http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=41 62.142.194.228 12:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Video releases 

message: Removed POV: "Still, to this day, Jim Carrey is the most recognizable, as well as the most beloved, actors to portray the green suited villain. While most comic book fans will judge his performace as more "Joker-like" in nature, non-fanboys enjoyed Carrey's comedic, yet villainous, portrayal of the famous Bat-Foe." Smylere Snape 03:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: ATTENTION TO ALL EXPERIENCED EDITORS: If you have not contributed significantly to this article, please review it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Media. Wildroot 12:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nominee 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
Great job Wildroot. I'm looking forward to you future work.Evildeadbuzz 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, you beat me to it, Evil. It is a very solid article Wildroot, most definitely deserving the status of GA. Anakinjmt 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article.  These are the following issues:
#Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.
 Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with the fair-use rationales for any of the pictures, except for maybe the teaser poster. Having pictures that show the heroes and villians is pretty standard. The critical analysis section has the first two paragraphs talking about reviewers's thoughts on the film, and what is mentioned of being said by cast and crew is responses to criticism concerning the film, which means it is relevant to the section. As for "purely online sources"...did you even look at the reference section? Sure, there are online references (which, BTW, what's this crap about "online sources not sufficient for shaping an article's content". Where exactly is that said in the good article criteria? Nowhere, that's where. In fact, GameFAQs is a featured article and has no offline cites. Do you think it shouldn't be considered an FA? A reference is a reference, no matter where it comes from, as long as it's verifiable), but there's also stuff from the DVD's, from the Chicago Sun-Times, and from Entertainment Weekly, which is an online source, but it also appeared in the actual magazine. It's just easier to get it from the website then to try to find the actual magazine. You don't like how he reviewed it? Fine. I've been an editor here much longer than he has and I agree with the review; are you saying that I would have made a mistake in passing it? Wildroot, don't feel threatened that the article may lose its GA status. I think the article is worthy of GA. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, non-free images need to be supported with critical commentary -- take a look at WP:NFC#Acceptable images.  This would mean there needs to be content directly commenting on the specific screenshot or something in the screenshot.  While it may be "pretty standard" to decorate images with the look of a film's characters, it does not add anything significant to the article per WP:NFC#Policy.  Take a look at Fight Club (film), Road to Perdition, and Sunshine (2007 film) -- these are three films with what I believe are well-supported fair use rationales.  Additionally, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the response from people on the set to whatever criticism took place.  However, there needs to be more critical reaction for a blockbuster film -- two or three full paragraphs' worth.  As for citing offline sources, I meant to say, showing User:Erik/Batman Forever in the process, that there was more information available offline.  It's great to use online sources since verifiability is easier, but online sources are not always comprehensive, as my subpage shows.  Also, I would inform you that this article does not belong to Wildroot.  I am only expressing concerns because I believe that this article can progress further before reaching Good Article status. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot section is overly long; as Erik has pointed out, every image other than the one in the infobox fail WP:FU, which requires critical commentary for every non-free image used. Here's a big hint, the DVD box is not relevant to the article. I would ditch that image, and the teaser image. Then, I'd move the Batman and Robin image to the Production section because you have a paragraph in there that discusses the changes to the Batman costume, because that's the closest thing you have to satisfying critical commentary for any other image on the page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot section looks fine to me. I can try to trim it down, but keeping plot sections short for movies is no easy task. The DVD box is there because the article mentions that it came out on DVD with the 3 other Batman films in a special anthology edition. I'll move the Batman and Robin one up to production, but the Two-Face and Riddler one looks to be fine where it is. It's in the cast section, so I don't see a problem with that. And, the critical analysis section IS 3 paragraphs long, with mentions of comments by Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, and a mention of the Rotten Tomatoes rating. And, Erik, I am fully aware of WP:OWN. However, I would argue that Wildroot has done considerable work on the article, and he is a large reason of the push to GA, and he is the only one known of actively trying to improve the article; hence why I addressed him. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including a non-free image of the anthology set only serves to identify the said set -- with that approach, it would be appropriate to include a gallery of every Batman Forever poster and every Batman Forever VHS cover and every Batman Forever DVD cover.  Non-free images need to have a specific purpose in the article, which means we can't pick an image and say, "I believe this helps show so-and-so in the film."  There's no limit to that approach.  Images need to be chosen to complement existing content in the article.  For example, if the Batmobile in Batman Forever was designed a specific way, a picture of it would complement the description.  Another example would be explaining the makeup process of Two-Face and having a picture of Tommy Lee Jones as the villain.  I know that the attempt is to show images of the heroes and the villains from the film, but these images can easily be found elsewhere.  Wikipedia strives to provide real-world context about the film, so only images relevant to that context should be included.  Additionally, what I am trying to say about the Critical analysis section is that there should be more independent reviews -- you only have three major ones, and they don't really say why the film was good or bad.  It needs to be explained if the story was too contrived, the costumes too gaudy, the dialogue too stilted, etc.  It's not just opinion of whether the film was enjoyable, but specific reasons why the film caused that opinion.  I would be happy to help provide offline sources with the article, and I've extended the offer to Wildroot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now it makes more sense. I apologize if I have come across as a jerk. Looking back at some of the things I've said, I definitely seemed to have let things get out of control on my end. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's alright. :)  I'm hoping to retrieve some information for Wildroot, but not everything may be available online.  I'm on break now, but when I get back to the university, I can access the stacks for some more out-of-reach information.  Right now, though, I'm working on expanding The Mist for this weekend.  I'll see if I can help out with resources for Batman Forever tomorrow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter that the film came out in a box set, that is not critical commentary. WP:FU is clear that if you are going to include any non-free images, especially box art for DVDs, you need critical commentary on that image. That would mean you would need critical commentary on the box art for that DVD set, because simply saying "the movie came out in a box set" is not critical commentary, and not enough to justify the fair-use of that non-free image. This image is on each of the film pages. It's unnecessary for all the articles. It's pure eye-candy. I don't understand the home video release of any of those films better when I look at the DVD box set.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Reassessment 

message: Greetings for anyone wondering what this is, it's a list as seen from Erik's User:Erik/Batman Forever page. The list follows:
*EVANS, David: Caped Fear
*Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.29 n.10 , February 1998, p.32-35, English, illus
*A discussion of the problems of adapting comic books for film, focussing on the BATMAN films amongst others
-
*PERENSON, Melissa J.; NEWMAN, Kim: Designing Gotham / Batman redundant
*StarBurst (0955-114X) n.228 , August 1997, p.20-25, English, illus
*Interview with Barbara Ling and John Dykstra about the special effects in BATMAN & ROBIN and comparison of the Batman films
-
*BRETT, Anwar; JONES, Matthew;: Batman and Robin
*Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec n.No.20 , July 1997, p.4-47, English, illus
*Several articles about BATMAN & ROBIN and the Batman films: interviews with George Clooney, Joel Schumacher, Arnold Schwarzenegger *and Michael Gough, features on BATMAN FOREVER BATMAN RETURNS, BATMAN and the 1966 Batman
-
*NATHAN, Ian: Nothing but the truth...
*Empire n.88 , October 1996, p.62-64, English, illus
*Director Joel Schumacher talks about casting differences with author John Grisham for A TIME TO KILL and about the casting of the lead roles in his BATMAN films.
-
*MCILHONEY, Lawrence: Designing Forever
*StarBurst (0955-114X) , 31 December 1995, p.22-24, English, illus
*Interview with designer Barbara Ling on the sets of BATMAN FOREVER
-
*NATHAN, Ian: Q&A
*Empire n.77 , November 1995, p.54, English, illus
*The reasons why forty minutes of footage failed to make the final cut in BATMAN FOREVER are explained.
-
*TIRARD, Laurent: Noël made in Hollywood: La folie du marketing atteint des so
*Studio Magazine (0982-8354) n.103 , October 1995, p.36,37, French, illus
*On the various merchandising products available for recent Hollywood films, such as BATMAN, CONGO, JUDGE DREDD etc.
-
*MURRAY, Will: Riddler forever
*Starlog n.218 , September 1995, p.27-30, English, illus
*Jim Carrey talks about his role as The Riddler in BATMAN FOREVER and especially his scenes with Tommy Lee Jones who played Two-Face.
-
*VAZ, Mark Cotta: Forever a knight
*Cinefex n.63 , September 1995, p.90-113, English, illus
*Article about the special effects in BATMAN FOREVER: the co- ordination of shooting and post-production, miniature sets for Gotham city, the Batmobile model, the animatronic bat, the characters in the film
-
*WILLIAMS, ALan: Batman forever
*International Media Law (0263 6395) v.13 n.9 , September 1995, p.67-68, English
*Review of a copyright dispute between Warner Bros. and sculptor Andrew Leicester over the alleged use of a copy of a work on public display, called Zanga Madre, which appeared as Gotham City in BATMAN FOREVER.
-
*JANKIEWICZ, Pat: Peter MacGregor-Scott declares Batman Forever
*StarBurst (0955-114X) n.204 , August 1995, p.8-14, English, illus
*Interview with producer Peter MacGregor-Scott about the making of BATMAN FOREVER: on the casting and the characters in the film and about his films before BATMAN FOREVER; and interview with Chris O'Donnell about the characters he plays
-
*JANKIEWICZ, Pat: Batcherls forever
*StarBurst (0955-114X) n.204 , August 1995, p.39-42, English, illus
*Interview with Lee and Janet Scott Batchler about the script for BATMAN FOREVER
-
*GRAY, Marianne: Robin forever
*StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Star n.Trek , August 1995, p.36-39, English, illus
*Interview with Chris O'Donnell about his upbringing and his career, acting and playing Robin in BATMAN FOREVER
-
*NAUGHTON, John: 'We Have a Problem'
*Premiere v.3 n.7 , August 1995, p.46-54, English, illus
*Report from the press screenings and conferences for BATMAN FOREVER, with an interview with Val Kilmer, a look at the work of production designer Barbara Ling, and a report on the internet site.
-
*NATHAN, Ian: Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, Kilmer
*Empire n.74 , August 1995, p.108-117, English, illus
*A report from a press viewing of Joel Schumacher's BATMAN FOREVER with interviews with the Schumacher, Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, and Jim Carrey.
-
*Premiere
*Film-Echo/Filmwoche n.29 , 21 July 1995, p.9-11, German, illus
*On the premiere of BATMAN FOREVER in Hamburg
-
*PIZZELLO, Stephen: Batman Forever mines comic-book origins
*American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.76 n.7 , July 1995, p.34-42,44, English, illus
*Article on the visual style of Joel Schumacher's BATMAN FOREVER, looks at the use of the original comics, the type of film stock used and filming techniques. [Includes pull- out diagram of the lighting rig for the circus sequence].
-
*MAGID, Ron: Effects help to expand Batman's world
*American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.76 n.7 , July 1995, p.45-48,50,52,54-55, English, illus
*Description of the methods used to achieve the special effects on Joel Schumacher's BATMAN FOREVER, for example the creation of Gotham City, the bat-signal, digital rendering of some Batman sequences, creation of the Bat Cave
-
*SHAPIRO, Marc: Knightmare master
*Starlog n.216 , July 1995, p.40-45, English, illus
*Joel Schumacher explains why he wanted to direct BATMAN FOREVER.
-
*WEAVER,Tom: Gotham's finest
*Starlog n.216 , July 1995, p.46-49, 63, English, illus
*Profile of Pat Hingle who plays Commissioner Gordon in BATMAN FOREVER and who has a screen career stretching over 40 years.
-
*WARREN, Bill: Batman's batman
*Starlog n.215 , June 1995, p.50-53, 72, English, illus
**Michael Gough has played butler Alfred Pennyworth in all the recent BATMAN movies and he explains how he sees his role and how it has changed with different directors and cast.
-
*BIODROWSKI, Steve: Batman Forever
*Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.26 n.4 , June 1995, p.4-5, 61, English, illus
*Looks at the making of BATMAN FOREVER
-
*BIBBY, Bruce: Riddle Me This, Batman
*Premiere (0894-9263) v.8 n.9 , May 1995, p.52-59, English, illus
*Interview with Val Kilmer, Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones, Nicole Kidman, Chris O'Donnell, Barbara Ling and Joel Schumacher about BATMAN FOREVER.
-
*Front desk news: dead clever, that...
*Empire n.65 , November 1994, p.11, English, illus
*Article on the use of 'motion capture' on BATMAN FOREVER - a technique whereby an actor's features are scanned and combined with a skeletal 'body map'.
-
*The business
*Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.4 n.10 , October 1994, p.4, English
*Article on the personnel changes on the production of BATMAN FOREVER.
-
*Front desk in production
*Empire n.63 , September 1994, p.14, English
*Note on Michael Keaton's reasons for leaving the project.
-
*HAZELTON, John: Carrey set to vex Batman
*Screen International (0307-4617) n.959 , 27 May 1994, p.2, English, illus
*Jim Carrey has been signed to play The Riddler, replacing Robin Williams.
-
*ALTMAN, Mark A.: Dark Knight
*Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.25 n.1 , February 1994, p.64-68, English, illus
*Article on BATMAN FOREVER (a.k.a. BATMAN III); statements by director Tim Burton on the production
-
*The Lost Boy
*Empire n.54 , December 1993, p.14, English, illus
*Warner Brothers are not using Tim Burton to direct BATMAN 3, but he will be executive producer and may direct a Catwoman spin-off.
I will be checking off each one after reading it and publishing new info on the main article page. As soon as Erik lets me read these (which he promised he would), then I will get down to business. —Wildroot (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine Published Articles 

message: There's a fair amount of information at Gotham City which is not reflected here in this article. Would someone please bring over anythign that can be used, and delete anything which you can refute based on the research and info here? I don't want to randomly throw in facts from there to here and significantly throw off all the work that got this a GA, but there's abotu zero apparent overlap between the two articles. ThuranX (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gotham City article info 

message: It says in this article that Batman Forever is the 4th highest grossing Batman film to date.  Under the Batman Returns article, it says that Batman Returns is the 4th highest grossing Batman film to date.  Which is it?Vesus (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office grosses 

message: I've just done a date audit and discovered that the monobook script is suddenly removing such links. I've checked with the programmer. In fact, I think WikiProject film might already deprecate such links. Please let me know if you want me to revert (or are reverting  yourselves—feedback would be good). Tony (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say have the links in there. Considering this is a '95 film, 1995 in film is a better link than simply 1995. Plus, and this is just me, I'm sometimes curious what other films came out that year and the link is a nice thing to have. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  year in film links 

message: I appreciate the info, but we seriously need to find some other way to summarize this whole thing. Any suggestions? Wildroot (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Summarizing might be good, but surely we would lose information in doing that? The list I posted is not the complete list, just the most important changes.JesusFreak89 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "original cut" 

message: The Movie is ambiguous as to the fate of Sugar and Spice-it only shows them running away on stairs under the platform after Nigma's carrier beam is destroyed. Was it planned that way in the original script?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sugar and Spice fate

message: Weren't the external scenes of "Wayne Mansion" shot at Webb Institute in Glen Cove, NY?  The Wikipedia entries for other Batman movies include information about where they were filmed.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb_Institute 
96.255.105.148 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming location 

message: It would appear that someone has been trolling there.
 218.186.18.233 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reaction Section

message: After Bruce takes Dick into his home, he has a flashback to the murder of his parents.
Is that footage reused from an earlier movie (maybe an alternate angle?), or is it new?
Allen (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reused footage? 

message: *
*
*
Wildroot (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-keaton-batman_us_586ca422e4b0eb58648b33d9
Majinsnake (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you have any comment or recommendation other than a random URL? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Keaton 

message: I've added Bill Finger to the infobox under the "based on" section along with Bob Kane. As I've stated on the other Batman film pages, Finger is now an acknowledged co-creator of Batman. I think it's important to add this to each page since it keeps the pages as factual as possible - without this note in the infobox there is little or no reference to Finger as the co-creator, while some mention of Kane's contribution is still present. I've  noted that Finger's contribution was uncredited at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly Lobotomy (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Finger Creator Credit 

message: Throughout the article Meridian is referred to alternately as a 'psychologist' and 'psychiatrist'. These are two distinct things - but I can't find a definitive source on it outside .fandom wikis (which are similarly inconsistent).
ADEps (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the instance of "psychiatrist" to "psychologist" because the latter appears much more often in this article and in other material. ADEps (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry/psychology 

message: Vulture.com interviewed Joel Schumacher. He comments about Kilmer "I said he was pyschotic", and says that Tommy Lee Jones was difficult but always delivered good takes. He says "I shouldn't have made a sequel" and explains his reasoning, and also makes his opinions clear  "Nor do I ever think Batman and Robin are gay." 
It's a long interview which covers many topics including Batman but there's probably some of that interview that could be referenced in this article. -- 109.76.195.16 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schumacher 

message: Horrible language throughout. Anyone care to clean it up? My suggestions and edits tend to get revertedRobbmonster (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Talk:Batman Forever/GA1. Darkknight2149 02:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is a mess 

message: An anonymous editor added a long list of deleted scenes to the article. This was reverted. 
It is an interesting list but was not well sourced, and it made that section disproportionately long. It might be worthwhile to reorganize and reinclude some of those details in other ways. For example, rather than focusing on the deleted scenes it could be mentioned that Rene Auberjonois originally had a larger role, or expanding the background of other characters. Maybe more could be written about the script development. This article does not mention the film novelization, or the comic adaptation, both of which include various deleted scenes, so again there may be other ways to add more details and improve this article, other than making Deleted scenes section extremely long. -- 109.79.72.89 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these sequences are probably all related to the Schumacher cut of the movie, which was confirmed to exist in the summer, by Varity afer Schumacher'S death. So these could be mentioned in relation to those. But far as i'm conerned if the Joel Schumacher perfered the darker Schumacher Cut then Warner should release that cut to the public so we can see the diffrences between that cut and the theatrical cut. I personally think there is no need for a special/extended/director's cut if the original theatrical cut is the cut that the director prefers. So Warner should at minimum try to figure out which of the cut Joel Schumacher prefered and go form there me thinks DoctorHver (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted scenes 

message: I'd like to see this get back to GA status. But I tried to provide more citations for the awards section and it seemed nigh-impossible to cite anything that's not IMDB (IMDB seems to be the only place that keeps track of these awards). Anyone know a better way of verifying these things? Also checked the FILM MOS and was unsure how the plot summary/cast list didn't follow its instructions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep looking. Here is an announcement of the 1996 MTV Movie Awards nominations  There are references in the article 53rd Golden Globe Awards, I'd be very surprised if none of those could be reused. It takes some digging but IMDB gets most of its information from press releases in the first place. -- 109.76.202.85 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards verification/other GAN stuff