The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > Batman World

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-24-2011, 10:45 PM   #251
GothamAlleys
Side-Kick
 
GothamAlleys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,631
Default Re: The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

What I like:
- Design of the city (minus colors of course)
- Batman's first cowl
- sound mix

What I dont like:

- Casting: Kilmer is not Batman or any superhero by any stretch. Val-ium Kilmer never gets angry or threatening, he portrays a moping around poster boy who is never moved by anything, not even by his cave being destroyed. Its like they loaded him with valium.

- Everything is red and pink, from the city at night to Two Face

- Riddler. He does a bad impression of a stereotypical flamboyant homosexual

- Two Face. He is a retarded and gullible cousin of Joker, not Two Face

- The dialogue! Ugh, its the worst dialogue Ive heard in any movie (aside from Troll 2). I mean the conversations between Chase and Batman, its just bouncing off cheesy one liners off of each other. Im an open book, you read? Its the car, chicks dig the car. Jesus...
And the movie even starts with a dumb one liner!

- Batman's character - as I mentioned, Kilmer is a moper on Valium, not Batman. And I dont see why would he get fascinated by a psycho overly promiscuous fanatic of his

- Inclusion of Robin. His mere presence changes the mood and Batman's character completely. His existence in real world makes no sense whatsoever

- abandonment of a very interesting subplot of Returns which TDK also introduced, whcih is Batman perceived as an enemy of the city

The overall vibe of the movie. Feels more like a SpiderMan movie than a Batman movie

__________________
GothamAlleys is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 07:13 PM   #252
TheDragonator
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,287
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Bruce Wayne adopted a person who is over TWENTY YEARS OLD.

That is all.

TheDragonator is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 07:32 PM   #253
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat Attack View Post
I didn't care for the Batman Forever or Batman & Robin score at all. The "Bwaaaaaa bwa bwa bwaaaa bwa bwa bwa!" just sounds annoying to me. It almost sounds sarcastic.
Heh. The music is kinda saying 'oooooh, looooook, feeeeeel all the heroism.'


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonator View Post
Bruce Wayne adopted a person who is over TWENTY YEARS OLD.

That is all.
Bruce Wayne adopted a person.

That is all.



Well, he kinda gave him where to stay more than actually, officially and legally "adopt" him anyways.

El Payaso is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 07:44 PM   #254
Ponyboy
I'm the real Peterman.
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I think Batman Forever is really a fun movie... it was an experience at the theatre. It's not really a decent Batman film, if you wanna deconstruct the thing.

__________________
www.WelcomeToBoneville.com
Ponyboy is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 07:57 PM   #255
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

But it's still watchable and doesn't snub the dark of it all.

El Payaso is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 08:31 PM   #256
Spoonman
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 383
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I like Batman Forever and enjoy it to this very day.

Spoonman is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 08:37 PM   #257
jacobed
Probationary Ban - I will return in a few days.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,646
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Its without a doubt my favorite of the original 4

jacobed is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:51 PM   #258
Ponyboy
I'm the real Peterman.
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 2,946
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Payaso View Post
But it's still watchable and doesn't snub the dark of it all.
Oh I agree. There are parts that really make me groan. Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face should've been epic but it was just a real poor reflection of the character. I do still break it out on occasion and give it a watch, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobed View Post
Its without a doubt my favorite of the original 4


May I recommend a psychiatrist for you?


__________________
www.WelcomeToBoneville.com
Ponyboy is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 02:17 AM   #259
Mandalore464
New User
 
Mandalore464's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 990
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I like Forever. I like it a lot more than Batman (1989). I never really cared much for Burton's Godfather Joker or midgety Batman (I never liked how his Batman looks absolutely clueless as to what's going on for the whole film... How could he not see that silly mime was up to no good?).

Kilmer's Batman was the first that got me interested in Batman more than the villains.

I still think Batman Returns is largely superior in terms of art direction, acting, cinematography, music, and basically every single technical aspect of filmmaking. But Forever is the first Batman film that's really about Batman to me. Burton's were... well... Burton movies more than they were Batman movies. Don't get me wrong, they're amazing films, but I think Burton's unconditional love for his villains completely overshadowed Batman, and while it ended up delivering one of the most beautiful and tragic interpretations of the Penguin ever in the second film (My eyes still get watery during his death scene), it hurt the first Batman a lot.


Last edited by Mandalore464; 11-18-2011 at 03:01 AM.
Mandalore464 is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 04:50 AM   #260
Blue Sugar
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Land of the ice and snow
Posts: 4,841
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

It's mediocre. It got some fun stuff and some nice points. But more bad than good ones. I gotta say I dig Carrey's The Riddler though, he is fun!

Blue Sugar is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 09:02 AM   #261
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 35,607
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

The villains are a fail for me. But I love all the Bruce Wayne stuff. Especially his scenes with Chase and Dick. Alfred also has some good scenes with Dick.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 09:24 AM   #262
Mister Meddle
The Barber of Seville
 
Mister Meddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,371
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I agree it was the corny villains. IMO they were way too cartoony for a live action film. It got the point where Two Face was just a bad imitation of the Joker. The Riddler was no different than any of the other characters that Carrey played. . And there were a number of small things like the colorful lights, Batmobile driving up a building, the way Riddler magically had his own island built so instantly. And the corny box that's nothing more than a blender full of popcorn that somehow could read your mind. IMo the most enjoyable character was Dick Grayson.

Funny how it's everything that takes place out of the costumes that was more enjoyable. Edward Nygma was great until he became the Riddler and Bruce Wayne was alright until he walked into some Fruity Pebbles zone wearing a muscle suit with nipples.

__________________
"I'm not in this business to protect the rules, I serve justice"
Mister Meddle is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 10:16 AM   #263
HolyPurpleSocks
Tusi Live
 
HolyPurpleSocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Garden State.
Posts: 11,165
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Still the Batman film with the most re-playability to me, to this day. Mostly for the sake of nostalgia, but also because the soundtrack, the zany sound effects, the performances (mainly by Carrey, O'Donnell, Kilmer as Bruce) all happen to full of so many memorable lines, moments and facial expressions. It's one of those 'kinda good' movies that etches itself into your memory because of how embedded it was in the pop culture of that time. I look at it now, and can still enjoy watching it by myself, with my 4-year old niece, with a group of friends doing a 'riff' on it...it's just damn entertaining. That's enough for me to love it, pardon the pun 'Forever'.

__________________
*T*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JokerGrayson View Post
Innercity Bonfire, IMO.


"She wants to kill you, Dick..."
--George Clooney (to Chris O'Donnell)
'Batman & Robin', 1997
HolyPurpleSocks is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 11:21 AM   #264
GothamAlleys
Side-Kick
 
GothamAlleys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,631
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Personally I HATE Forever. To quote MTV.com, “Largely considered the film that began a slow, painful, camp-fueled death for the black-suited superhero (with "Batman and Robin" marking the final nail in that coffin), the "Forever" villains are often listed among the worst comic-book performances of all time”

For me it wasn’t a Batman movie, only in name. It was a generic superhero or more of a SpiderMan movie. The character was off, the feel was off, the imagery was off, the personalities of the characters were off and on and on. Where to start?

First of all, the movie starts with a dumb one liner. A Batman movie starting with a one liner! As oppose to all the other movies (sans B&R) which had some kind of buildup for the audience to see batman, the first thing we see IS Batman, or should I say Val Kilmer in a homosexual imitation of a Batman suit. But lets keep it all together. So one liners – I could never imagine Batman throwing so many stupid one liners at the same time and being so talkative. I mean: "You trying to get under my cape?", "It's the car, chicks dig the car", "I'll get drive through", "Try a fireman. Less to take off.”. The dialogue is cringe worthy and its not even a dialogue, its corny one liners exchange – “Im an open book, you read? I don’t blend on a family picnic – that’s all right, bring your scarred psyche”….
Then we have Batman saying obvious stuff like an idiot - “"You've been sucking Gotham's brain waves and now you've devised a way to read mens minds" - Captain Obvious here. Ok, so I guess that briefly covers the sorry excuse for dialogue in this movie

Now lets get to Batman whos not in the movie actually. All Kilmer does is being sad and depressed. He speaks so softly and so low hes barely audible. As I already said, he seems like he overdosed on Valium. Even when hes Batman, and thats my biggest issue. We never get to see any anger from him, any fire in his eyes. Just moping. Ive been a hardcore fan since 88 and Ive never seen Batman as CONSTANTLY a calm, expressionless, 100% self reserved half asleep character who never has any kind of expressions or feelings. Bale mirrors Modern Age Batman I came to know. Keaton mirrors the very earliest depiction. West mirrors Silver Age. Kilmer mirrors someone on Valium overdose. Both Keaton and Bale showcase the rage and anger that is the primary characteristic of Batman






You NEVER see ANY emotions or anger or fury or losing control with Valium Kilmer. He has the same expression in every situation and as Batman he constantly looks spooked and startled



Not to mention the imagery and feel of Batman. Keaton and Bale moved, looked and landed like a bat or a vampire, with spread out wings or covered by cape. They looked like a giant bat or a creature



Valium Kilmer had none of that. Hes moves and presence resembled that of a generic superhero with flowing cape, descending on a rope like SpiderMan to a gasping Superman’s crowd h look, its Batman!”….

There should be some rage or emotions involved. At least make him do an angry face instead of being a Valium Man all the time even when hes about to loose everyone, even when his cave is destroyed etc etc

He even strikes a pose like Superman!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0n0hNAOcfU...rever76wl3.jpg


What happened to the creature of the night? A guy who was hiding in the shadows?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...batcage2b1.PNG
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...n/tdk_1229.jpg

Now the SpiderManBat lands in the middle of a crowd on a colorful street?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...inthecrowd.JPG

And the feel? I mean images from Burtons and Nolans movies are QUINTESSENTIAL batman. Quintessential. The darkness, the mist, the setting, the imagery –

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uB6XApK-v2...0/darkvibe.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...tshadowret.PNG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...00/balroof.PNG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...00/BBwatch.png

And what the hell is that? Not even Batman never stands, behaves or looks like Batman, but it just looks like a guy in a Halloween suit in a circus
http://cute-poison.org/albums/movies...itmap-2511.jpg

And what happened to Gotham which is suppose to be a darker version of New York?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...0/cathedra.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...r_1995_003.jpg
Whats with the Barbie City?

And the batcave? Keaton and Bale had a cave with sporadic equipment scattered around
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...okybatcave.PNG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lkqR1KGWOG...0963bbcave.jpg

What the hell is it with neon carshow display? This is suppose to be Batman?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...BFBatcave8.jpg

While Burton and Nolan took a very different approach and drew from different eras, the quintessential and defining core characteristics of Batman and his world are shared by Keaton and Bale. Schumacher’s movies are just not Batman movies. Theyre colorful generic superhero movies loaded with Saturday night superhero cartoon clichés and childish comic booky heorism

Then theres the pointless regression in the storyline. The whole parents thing again. It was already dealt with in the first movie and the revenge was completed. He moved on in Returns, the whole sudden depression and moping around as if it just happened the day before was unnecessary. He killed Joker and in Returns doesnt even mention his parents. He is STILL traumatic and affected by it (never said otherwise), but he moved on to another phase. Same in TDK - never mentions his parents, never stops to mourn about them. Its all about his life and companionship, as was Returns - the second film as well. Bale himself says he moved on from his parents death in TDK. Despite that, hes still affected and still the same Batman. Valium Kilmer suddenly turns into a hardcore Depression Man

And he says hes both Batman and Bruce Wayne cause he chooses to be. I mean, seriously? I dont know how soemone can miss the mark more with Batman. Bruce Wayne is just a mask, in the comics and in Burtons and Bales movies. Hes Batman, thats hes real identity.

Its amazing that Keaton and Bale were both chosen for their intensity and fire in the eyes, while Kilmer was chosen cause he was "handsome" and "young". But what to expect from a man who constantly dismissed Batman as just a comic book and continuously insisted this material cant be taken seriously cause "its Batman".


And I mean, making out in the suit? My god...

And whats up with being so enchanted with a cliche blonde holywood start-looking doctor? This is another thing I dont get. Chase was just a weird hottie who was in love with Batman like teenage girls with Justin Beaber. I dont know how she got his interest other than seductive looks and behavior. Vale was just a girl for him, he was dismissive of her and she had to chase after him when he didnt have much interest and had to even be pelted by Alfred to answer her calls. Catwoman was a fellow tarnished soul, a bride of Frankenstein. Rachel was someone who knew and understood Bruce from his childhood. But Chase? Just another cliche "hot blonde" who needs saving and yet he was so into her


Ok, lets movie on to the villains, shall we? Ill just mention them briefly – not only they look like descends of crayola pack, but theyre both ridiculously stereotypical overly flamboyant homosexuals and both act silly and goofy. Jones plays a homosexual, gullible and retarded cousin of Joker and Carrey plays a guy who REALLY needs to hold back with his homosexuality

Theres much more but I think I made my point already

__________________

Last edited by GothamAlleys; 11-18-2011 at 11:26 AM.
GothamAlleys is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 06:38 PM   #265
4theLulz
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

GothamAlleys,

Amazing post. And spot on, in my opinion.

4theLulz is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 06:44 PM   #266
Indy1Jones
Indiana Jones
 
Indy1Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: At The Raven
Posts: 2,138
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Yeah It Was Decent.

__________________
It's Not The Years, It's The Mileage
My deviantart page.
http://indy1jones2.deviantart.com/
Indy1Jones is offline  
Old 11-19-2011, 01:57 AM   #267
Mandalore464
New User
 
Mandalore464's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 990
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamAlleys View Post
Personally I HATE Forever [...]
Theres much more but I think I made my point already
You know, everything you say is absolutely true. It's cheesy and corny, a parody of Batman.

But that was the point though, wasn't it? It's not like they tried to deliver the ultimate Batman film (something that I still think is impossible considering all the different incarnations of Batman over the years), they went with a campy Batman, like the TV show did before them, they knew they had to do something radically different than what Burton had done and went balls out with it and did it.

I give them credit for that.

I think it's very hypocritical -not addressing you here GothamAlleys- to hate Forever for being campy and not hate the TV show or the comics from the 50s who were at least as campy. I wonder (rhetorical question here) if it's related to a lot fo people growing up with the Batman from the TV show and thus failing to acknowledge its abysmal flaws. Seriously though, have a ten-year old who's never watched any Batman film before watch Forever and it'll be his favourite film for weeks. Then make him watch Burton's and he'll go "Good films but WTF this guy's got issues".

Now have him watch Burton's Batman first and Forever later and he'll hate Forever. That's because the Batman you grow up with, the one you watch first etc. eventually becomes your defining incarnation of the character. It's not true for 100% of the audience though. I for example grew up with the TV show and Batman Returns, and while it's still my favourite film from a technical point of view (cinematography, screenplay, references, character arcs...), I now hold Batman Begins as my defining take on what Batman should be.

It's important I think to stay open-minded about it all. At the end of the day it's just a character that's far beyond what any director, writer or actor could realistically portray whether it be on a screen or on a page. Sure, we all have our favourite version of Batman, but does that mean that any other version should be dissed and ***** all over?

Batman Forever is not my definitive Batman at all. Two-Face especially was the weakest villain of the first four movies. But nor was Keaton's. Keaton's Batman was first and foremost an interpretation of the character seen through the prism of Tim Burton. It's a Burton character before it's a Batman character. Interpretation. The point of those films is not to try and bring the comic-book pages to life. It's primarily to allow a director, who has a certain vision of the character, to express it.

Schumacher went too far with Batman and Robin because he started to parody himself. But I still think Batman Forever, although flawed -but what movie isn't?- did it right.

Now it's only fair for you not to like it. But why not be open-minded about it? It's not like they were aiming at something different and missed. Batman Forever looks exactly like it was supposed to : Bright, cheesy, colourful. And yet it still managed to retain important themes from the mythos. The Bruce Wayne arc is to me the most interesting in every Batman film that's come out since 1989. Kilmer's Batman was poor, but is it a small feat that they managed to make Wayne as interesting, no, MORE interesting than Batman? Who was able to do that? Nolan tried in Batman Begins. The result? Back in the theatre, I was dying to see Bale putting on the cowl and cape and going nuts on criminals.

I completely understand the people disliking the film because it went completely the opposite way of what Batman is to them. But I think "hating" it is a bit strong. It's not like Schumacher invented this whole "gay Batman" concept. Some people and critics have been calling Batman gay since the 50s...

Batman Forever, just like the TV show before it, has its place in the Batman pantheon of live interpretations. It's different, yet enjoyable. Burton's Batman was also a different take on the character, yet was enjoyable.

Take Batman Forever for what it is, not for what you think it should have been.

And I still think Forever's a lot less corny than a lot of comic books from the 50s and 60s... Why couldn't there be a spot for such interpretations of the character?


Last edited by Mandalore464; 11-19-2011 at 05:21 AM.
Mandalore464 is offline  
Old 11-19-2011, 07:09 AM   #268
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

What amazes me about Forever is that its tone allows Robin to be a good contribution to the bat-world without ruining it. At least Dick Grayson, because when robin appears with the holey joke...

But yes, I'm completely against a movie Robin, I think he has no place in a serious movie adaptation. But in Forever the whole Dick Grayson story and O'Donnel's work was good.

El Payaso is offline  
Old 11-19-2011, 09:14 AM   #269
Doctor Jones
Known as Strider
 
Doctor Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On location with Spielberg
Posts: 30,696
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I do believe you can bring Robin back into a film. It's not about making him relevent, it's about making him understood again. Batman does need Robin for development reasons. Batman can't continue being by himself his whole career. He can only do it for so long. When he began, he never anticipated these villains, and fighting them over and over again doing God knows what, it's possible it can make you go over the edge. Robin is there to bring him back. The fact they're similar yet opposite is what makes their relationship a great one. Dick is that light to Bruce's darkness. Him saving Dick from any potential fate to train him as his own was the best way for preventing Bruce to potentially fall over his line. I just can't see Bruce being alone forever as Batman. He's gonna need someone with him eventually. If Bruce even sees this, then that at least says something.

Besides, eventually it will get old to see Batman always solo. I prefer Batman solo, but in reading the comics, they can be just as good with Robin. It's too damn interesting to pass up on film. Hell, Dick's story in BF was the standout thing about it. I feel like there is a lot of potential. What comes from a great character in the comics, can also result in a great movie character and story dynamic. It's there, it just hasn't been recognized yet. I have faith in that.

__________________
"We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible. And we count these moments. These moments when we dare to aim higher. To break barriers... to reach for the stars... to make the unknown known. We count these moments as our proudest achievements. But we lost all that. Or perhaps we've just forgotten that we're still pioneers... that we've barely begun and that our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us. That our destiny lies above us."

Last edited by Doctor Jones; 11-19-2011 at 09:25 AM.
Doctor Jones is offline  
Old 11-19-2011, 09:33 AM   #270
Mandalore464
New User
 
Mandalore464's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 990
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

^ Agreed.

I think it's weird that only a few people question the presence of Robin in the comic books yet a lot of fans do it when it comes to Robin in a film.

Dark Victory is a great way of bringing Robin into the evolution of Batman as a character. It could totally work as a film. His presence in Arkham City was great as well, although he was an older Robin. It's actually a shame he's confined to a mere cameo in it.

I also agree that Robin would probably have felt weird in a Nolan Batman film, because they went in a specific direction that required a lot less suspension of disbelief than what's usually required of comic book movies (I'm not saying it doesn't require any, just less).

Once a new era of live-action Batman is introduced, one probably closer to the comic-books world, Robin will fit in the whole picture.

Mandalore464 is offline  
Old 11-19-2011, 11:36 AM   #271
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jones View Post
I do believe you can bring Robin back into a film. It's not about making him relevent, it's about making him understood again. Batman does need Robin for development reasons. Batman can't continue being by himself his whole career. He can only do it for so long. When he began, he never anticipated these villains, and fighting them over and over again doing God knows what, it's possible it can make you go over the edge. Robin is there to bring him back. The fact they're similar yet opposite is what makes their relationship a great one. Dick is that light to Bruce's darkness. Him saving Dick from any potential fate to train him as his own was the best way for preventing Bruce to potentially fall over his line. I just can't see Bruce being alone forever as Batman. He's gonna need someone with him eventually. If Bruce even sees this, then that at least says something.

Besides, eventually it will get old to see Batman always solo. I prefer Batman solo, but in reading the comics, they can be just as good with Robin. It's too damn interesting to pass up on film. Hell, Dick's story in BF was the standout thing about it. I feel like there is a lot of potential. What comes from a great character in the comics, can also result in a great movie character and story dynamic. It's there, it just hasn't been recognized yet. I have faith in that.
I disagree. You certainly need reason to develop the characters, but that doesn't have to include Robin. He's not a natural next stop. He's popular because of the comics and the old TV series.

Take Nolan. He needed new motivations for the character. Inmstead of including Robin he came up with this "Batman needs to be a fugitive in order to protect the city" idea. That wasn't in the comics but it worked.

And if he really needs more people involved I rather see a TDKR type of story where he starts a little army instead of having a 12 year old boy in a red/yellow suit.

And again, Robin - or Dick Grayson as Robin wasn't all that great - in BF worked ONLY because of the tone of the movie where you could dig a rebel youngster wanting to follow Batman's steps. Successfully.

Now, Batman solo will get old? Really? Superman, Spiderman solo will get old too? Can't see why or how.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
^ Agreed.

I think it's weird that only a few people question the presence of Robin in the comic books yet a lot of fans do it when it comes to Robin in a film.
Maybe they realize what works in comics doesn't always work on screen. And we have some Robin on screen to ponder over, compare and contrast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
Dark Victory is a great way of bringing Robin into the evolution of Batman as a character. It could totally work as a film. His presence in Arkham City was great as well, although he was an older Robin. It's actually a shame he's confined to a mere cameo in it.
It wouldn't be taken seriously on screen no matter how many tragic mirroring sequences you put. The moment you have this kid in a yellow cape all credibility gets lost. Yes, even if it's a black cape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
I also agree that Robin would probably have felt weird in a Nolan Batman film, because they went in a specific direction that required a lot less suspension of disbelief than what's usually required of comic book movies (I'm not saying it doesn't require any, just less).
That's what I'm saying. BF was the perfect tone for Robin because you were more forgiving to certain things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
Once a new era of live-action Batman is introduced, one probably closer to the comic-books world, Robin will fit in the whole picture.
I hope it will be a comic-book era that won't be that close to Schumacher's.

El Payaso is offline  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:04 AM   #272
Mandalore464
New User
 
Mandalore464's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 990
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Payaso
Maybe they realize what works in comics doesn't always work on screen. And we have some Robin on screen to ponder over, compare and contrast.
I realize that too, thanks for the reminder.

Yet all you have to judge from, compare and contrast are versions of Robin. Just because he was made in such ways that did or didn't work does not mean he couldn't work in another version.

If writers can make him work in comic books, they can make him work on screen. At the end of the day, he doesn't even have to be a kid in tights.

I find your lack of faith in the screenwriting industry disturbing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Payaso
It wouldn't be taken seriously on screen no matter how many tragic mirroring sequences you put. The moment you have this kid in a yellow cape all credibility gets lost. Yes, even if it's a black cape.
There are more subtle ways to make a character appealing than just resorting to pathos.

You said yourself it's worked before, why couldn't it work again? All it takes is a talented director willing to make something more out of Robin than just a funny kid hanging around in Batman's shadow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Payaso
I hope it will be a comic-book era that won't be that close to Schumacher's.
I think the lesson's been learned, so it shouldn't happen again.

Mandalore464 is offline  
Old 11-20-2011, 04:11 AM   #273
EliteF50
Side-Kick
 
EliteF50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,176
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Batman Forever wasn't hot garbage, but it was garbage.

EDIT: Never mind. It's terrible.

__________________
*T*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JStorm View Post
"The first rule of 'Tusi is to not talk about 'Tusi."
Listen to my updated Bane voice impression!

Last edited by EliteF50; 01-07-2012 at 01:53 PM.
EliteF50 is offline  
Old 11-20-2011, 09:26 AM   #274
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
I realize that too, thanks for the reminder.
I have it on my signature. Stan the Man's words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
Yet all you have to judge from, compare and contrast are versions of Robin. Just because he was made in such ways that did or didn't work does not mean he couldn't work in another version.
It still is a testament of some attempts on the matter that are woprthy to examine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
If writers can make him work in comic books, they can make him work on screen. At the end of the day, he doesn't even have to be a kid in tights.

I find your lack of faith in the screenwriting industry disturbing.
Hav eyou noticed those "Expectations vs Reality" memes? They're reflected on cinema in the fact that on paper everything sounds greatr. but when you have to actually do it, then things change.

Writing Robin for a movie is the easiest thing on earth. To show him and make him serious and believable, that's completely different matter. I wish great ideas were to be merely written and planned. Execution though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
There are more subtle ways to make a character appealing than just resorting to pathos.

You said yourself it's worked before, why couldn't it work again? All it takes is a talented director willing to make something more out of Robin than just a funny kid hanging around in Batman's shadow.
I said it worked before - as in BF - because the tone was campy enough (not too much in BF's case) to allow it. Then I said I hoped that much of camp wouldn't be back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalore464 View Post
I think the lesson's been learned, so it shouldn't happen again.
Then Robin wouldn't happen again.

A single man that poses as a womanizer playboy shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed to adopt a boy to start with. A man in a mask who endangers a minor's life on a daily basis should and would be captured. I can undersytand Batman being a fugitive for his principles (he blames himself of a crime in order to protect the city's spirit), but for actual ilegal reasons...

El Payaso is offline  
Old 11-20-2011, 10:29 AM   #275
Mandalore464
New User
 
Mandalore464's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 990
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Payaso View Post
Hav eyou noticed those "Expectations vs Reality" memes? They're reflected on cinema in the fact that on paper everything sounds greatr. but when you have to actually do it, then things change.
Actually I write and direct myself, so let me tell you that while true that things look and sound different than what you expect them to on paper, it's actually often for the best.

Otherwise films would not be made, they'd be novels.

Mandalore464 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.