Talk:Batman Forever

Reception

Look at reviews for the time; Batman Forever does not belong in average/mediocre media. Just because it was there on the old wikis does not mean it belongs there, this is not the old wiki. If you'd stop quickly reverting my revisions, you'd see I actually cite reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert from 1995. Batman Forever received mixed to positive reviews at the time, and still continues to receive mixed to positive reviews to this day. Therefore, it belongs in good media. MisterSandmanAU (talk) 02:44, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

It has a mediocre 5.4 on IMDb, has a 41% critic score and 32% audience score on RT, but has 6.8 user score on metacritic, I’m confused. TheMoonandEarth (talk) 02:47, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

There's a reason conflicting reviews are mixed-to-positive and not positive and negative; it's a collection of many different reviews. Additionally, it's tedious to sort between genuine reviews and fake reviews meant to bomb/inflate the score. MisterSandmanAU (talk) 02:52, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd hold contemporary reviews from the time over modern review counts. They can be grossly exaggerated, as I said before. MisterSandmanAU (talk) 02:53, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

This page is locked due to the amount of edit warring regarding the film's reception. Also, MisterSandmanAU, please refraining from starting edit wars and take what others tell you into consideration. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 03:43, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/batman-forever-101100/

https://preview.reelviews.net/movies/b/batman3.html

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/batman-forever-1995 MisterSandmanAU (talk) 04:19, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

@SuperStreetKombat Give @MisterSandmanAU the benefit of the doubt, and allow him to edit the page like he wants. However, I told him to edit the page to balance the bad qualities and good qualities. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 13:12, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

@CJWorldGame32125 Dude, have you even looked at this film's mixed reception? There are thousands of people that agree that it's not a particularly bad movie, it does have a lot if flaws. Google it up and you'll see what I mean. Also, you should pay more attention to the situation that happened on this page before automatically siding with one user over the other. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 16:42, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

Got nothing to say? Well, you've just proven my point. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 04:14, April 8, 2024 (UTC)

stop it dude it recieved mixed-negative reviews, i like the movie but i understand this is a reception wiki so it goes in average now please stop it ToTheEdge (talk) 15:39, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I've provided evidence that it didn't. If you can't accept that then I don't know what to tell you aside from the fact you're pushing misinformation.

I can also provide more modern reviews that can prove you wrong. MisterSandmanAU (talk) 13:10, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, CinemaScore, etc ToTheEdge (talk) 13:14, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

okay you know what maybe it should go in decent not good but decent ToTheEdge (talk) 15:47, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

I’m still so confused on this, we might have to forbid the page altogether. TheMoonandEarth (talk) 15:55, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

@MisterSandmanAU You've only shown 3 out of tons of other sources that show the movie's "positive" reception, which isn't enough to prove that this page should be moved to Good media. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 16:38, March 25, 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion going out of hand and slightly over the top, so I will y'all 3 choices:

a. Move to blog while add page from old wiki,

b. Remove completely ditto, and

c. Keep without ditto.

For review, you could just use (unbiased) fan perspective. Nuff said. Oldwish12 (talk) 19:38, March 27, 2024 (UTC)