The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[El Payaso]

Never thought any villiain in the same movie where the Joker's in could surpass my interest. Eckhardt's Dent/Two Face did.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Same. His story was really well done. The moment when he finds the coin in the hospital and remembers tossing it to Rachel was great

 

[The Morningstar]

Hmm, but in TDK he actually doesnt. It doesnt bother me at all since I loved this portrayal of two Face, but there was no evidence of double/split personality

That's my point. He doesn't develop a split personality. He doesn't go schizo.

I do like the portrayal in TDK. But my favourite is still TAS. I liked the whole "Big Bad Harv" thing it had going.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I have to say that one of the things that pisses me off about the Schumacher films is that they took great characterizations from Batman: The Animated Series, and pissed on them and ruined them by camping them up. Want a split-personality Two-Face? You got it, with hyperactivity added! Want the cold, emotionless Mr. Freeze who wants to cure his ailing wife? You got it, but he'll make an assload of awful puns.

 

[circa81]

I enjoy Forever as much as Returns, for different reasons, ofcourse. Batman 89 rules all, to me. A few observations about forever to explain why I like it better then Nolan's.

First, like Burton, Schumacher doesn't take the whole idea so damn seriously. Nolan's version really went out of the way the come up with a logical explanation for everything, for a premise that isn't logical to begin with. When Nolan tries to explain these extraordinary aspects of the mythology in such a realistic and serous fashion, they seam weak and UNrealistic.

Second; Kilmer's Batman may not be as nuts as Keaton, but it's still played out that he's not exactly sane as well. Also, while not threatening like Keaton, he's a better Wayne and Batman to me. He just seams more...in control and comfortable in the role of Batman, whereas Bale always seamed like he was putting on an act as Batman, it felt unnatural to me.

3rd, Gotham actually looks a city that you can't confuse with another city. About the neon and brightness; In forever, it felt like the gaudiness of Vegas on steroids, Sin city to the max.


4th, Kidman's character was a much better fit to the story, whereas Rachel seamed to exist just to have a main female in the cast, kinda like Vale in Batman.

5th, I like Carry's take on the Riddler. Sure, he was playing himself often, but the character's obsession with Wayne and of becoming the smartest person ever, I liked that real narcissistic aspect, which is pretty much the defining personal characteristic of the character. As for Jone's Two face, well, it's about as close to the source material as it is in TDK. At least in Forever he actually was a multiple, not just angry like in TDK.

Just a brief overview of why I like Forever.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I enjoy Forever as much as Returns, for different reasons, ofcourse. Batman 89 rules all, to me. A few observations about forever to explain why I like it better then Nolan's.

So you prefer Batman Forever to The Dark Knight?

First, like Burton, Schumacher doesn't take the whole idea so damn seriously. Nolan's version really went out of the way the come up with a logical explanation for everything, for a premise that isn't logical to begin with. When Nolan tries to explain these extraordinary aspects of the mythology in such a realistic and serous fashion, they seam weak and UNrealistic.

Personally, the Schumacher films (and maybe even the Burton films) simply cannot beat the Nolan films' depth. In my opinion, you can talk about Forever feeling more like a comic book style than The Dark Knight all you want, but a Batman film with substance will always come out on top.

Second; Kilmer's Batman may not be as nuts as Keaton, but it's still played out that he's not exactly sane as well. Also, while not threatening like Keaton, he's a better Wayne and Batman to me. He just seams more...in control and comfortable in the role of Batman, whereas Bale always seamed like he was putting on an act as Batman, it felt unnatural to me.

Val Kilmer's Bruce Wayne never evoked much of a passion for what he does, and nor does his Batman. I could buy Michael Keaton's Batman and Christian Bale's Batman scaring criminals because they made an effort to be scary. I never bought Val Kilmer's Batman scaring criminals because he never seemed to make that effort.

3rd, Gotham actually looks a city that you can't confuse with another city. About the neon and brightness; In forever, it felt like the gaudiness of Vegas on steroids, Sin city to the max.

My problem with the Schumacher films' Gotham is less the neon, but things like the blacklit alleyways, the giant naked man statues all over the place, et cetera.

4th, Kidman's character was a much better fit to the story, whereas Rachel seamed to exist just to have a main female in the cast, kinda like Vale in Batman.

I kind of agree.

5th, I like Carry's take on the Riddler. Sure, he was playing himself often, but the character's obsession with Wayne and of becoming the smartest person ever, I liked that real narcissistic aspect, which is pretty much the defining personal characteristic of the character. As for Jone's Two face, well, it's about as close to the source material as it is in TDK. At least in Forever he actually was a multiple, not just angry like in TDK.

I think Carrey's Riddler has a lot of potential, but Carrey plays the role far too hyperactively to really capitalize on it, in my opinion.

Just a brief overview of why I like Forever.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it.

 

[circa81]

So you prefer Batman Forever to The Dark Knight?

Despite so wanting to, I hate Nolan's take , and I feel TDK is the most overrated move ever. It's not even watchable to me.


Val Kilmer's Bruce Wayne never evoked much of a passion for what he does, and nor does his Batman. I could buy Michael Keaton's Batman and Christian Bale's Batman scaring criminals because they made an effort to be scary. I never bought Val Kilmer's Batman scaring criminals because he never seemed to make that effort.
Personally, the Schumacher films (and maybe even the Burton films) simply cannot beat the Nolan films' depth. In my opinion, you can talk about Forever feeling more like a comic book style than The Dark Knight all you want, but a Batman film with substance will always come out on top.

I have to disagree here. I get more substance out of Burton's films and forever then Nolan's. See my post history to understand why. Kilmer's Batman/Wayne, while not scary, feels authentic to me, much more then Bale. It's funny, I thought for years That Bale could play the perfect Batman, and then he did, and it sucked to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by circa81
3rd, Gotham actually looks a city that you can't confuse with another city. About the neon and brightness; In forever, it felt like the gaudiness of Vegas on steroids, Sin city to the max.

My problem with the Schumacher films' Gotham is less the neon, but things like the blacklit alleyways, the giant naked man statues all over the place, et cetera.

Doesn't bother me, why does it bother you, if I may ask?

Quote:
Originally Posted by circa81
4th, Kidman's character was a much better fit to the story, whereas Rachel seamed to exist just to have a main female in the cast, kinda like Vale in Batman.

I kind of agree.

Cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by circa81
5th, I like Carry's take on the Riddler. Sure, he was playing himself often, but the character's obsession with Wayne and of becoming the smartest person ever, I liked that real narcissistic aspect, which is pretty much the defining personal characteristic of the character. As for Jone's Two face, well, it's about as close to the source material as it is in TDK. At least in Forever he actually was a multiple, not just angry like in TDK.

I think Carrey's Riddler has a lot of potential, but Carrey plays the role far too hyperactively to really capitalize on it, in my opinion.

I mostly agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by circa81
Just a brief overview of why I like Forever.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it.

Same here

 

[circa81]

Sorry for the lousy formatting, it's my weakness.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Despite so wanting to, I hate Nolan's take , and I feel TDK is the most overrated move ever. It's not even watchable to me.

Ok.

I have to disagree here. I get more substance out of Burton's films and forever then Nolan's. See my post history to understand why. Kilmer's Batman/Wayne, while not scary, feels authentic to me, much more then Bale. It's funny, I thought for years That Bale could play the perfect Batman, and then he did, and it sucked to me.

Nolan's Batman films is far more cerebral than either the Burton films or Batman Forever.
Bale's Batman is more authentic to me. I can't buy Kilmer's Batman having the drive to spend so much of his time, money, and energy that it takes to be Batman.
I can buy Bale's Batman or Keaton's Batman doing these things, because they come off as the kind of driven person that would actually do them.

Doesn't bother me, why does it bother you, if I may ask?

It bothers me because these things don't make sense, and they detract from the authenticity. What city has alleys that are lit like night clubs? Why are the huge statues all over the city?

 

[Fudgie]

I prefer the BTAS and TDK Two Face over the comic book version

Same here.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I prefer the BTAS and TDK Two Face over the comic book version

How would characterize their differences?

 

[CConn]

I didn't like that his face was white.

 

[GothamAlleys]

How would characterize their differences?

Well, while Two face has a potential to be terrific villain because I really dig the whole idea of the character, I think the comics didnt reach that potential, only BTAS and TDK did. What I mean is even tho TF always looked cool to me I never thought of him as being a dangerous and scary villain. He was just this yelling and fist wagging villain. In BTAS he actually became intimidating and TDK has just great characterization with all the pathos of the character brought up front. I feel his anger when I watch the movie, and if a viewer does that than the movie succeeds in a very tough area

 

[OutRiddled]

Well, while Two face has a potential to be terrific villain because I really dig the whole idea of the character, I think the comics didnt reach that potential, only BTAS and TDK did. What I mean is even tho TF always looked cool to me I never thought of him as being a dangerous and scary villain. He was just this yelling and fist wagging villain. In BTAS he actually became intimidating and TDK has just great characterization with all the pathos of the character brought up front. I feel his anger when I watch the movie, and if a viewer does that than the movie succeeds in a very tough area

Mainly because I hate the character of Rachel and I did not buy their relationship one bit. So he's anger as Two-Face just seemed a little 'off' to me.

 

[babbage]

I enjoy Forever as much as Returns, for different reasons, ofcourse. Batman 89 rules all, to me. A few observations about forever to explain why I like it better then Nolan's.

First, like Burton, Schumacher doesn't take the whole idea so damn seriously. Nolan's version really went out of the way the come up with a logical explanation for everything, for a premise that isn't logical to begin with. When Nolan tries to explain these extraordinary aspects of the mythology in such a realistic and serous fashion, they seam weak and UNrealistic.

Second; Kilmer's Batman may not be as nuts as Keaton, but it's still played out that he's not exactly sane as well. Also, while not threatening like Keaton, he's a better Wayne and Batman to me. He just seams more...in control and comfortable in the role of Batman, whereas Bale always seamed like he was putting on an act as Batman, it felt unnatural to me.

3rd, Gotham actually looks a city that you can't confuse with another city. About the neon and brightness; In forever, it felt like the gaudiness of Vegas on steroids, Sin city to the max.


4th, Kidman's character was a much better fit to the story, whereas Rachel seamed to exist just to have a main female in the cast, kinda like Vale in Batman.

5th, I like Carry's take on the Riddler. Sure, he was playing himself often, but the character's obsession with Wayne and of becoming the smartest person ever, I liked that real narcissistic aspect, which is pretty much the defining personal characteristic of the character. As for Jone's Two face, well, it's about as close to the source material as it is in TDK. At least in Forever he actually was a multiple, not just angry like in TDK.

Just a brief overview of why I like Forever.

Wow. Nothing personal, but I think I just met my complete opposite! Usually I can find SOMETHING I agree with -or even understand- in someone's analysis of something, but I can't find any here. I'm kind of blown away! Interesting to read, nonetheless.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It has some bad effects, used that stupid golden age origin for Two-Face (why would someone carry a vile of acid and walk with it, nonetheless to a court room)
Robin was too old to be Bruce's ward, maybe if they said he was 16 years old -one big if- it would have been excusable
Elliot Rosenthal theme is 'meh'
Nippled suits
Riddler & Two-Face connection

Beyond those, it's a fun decent movie

 

[The Morningstar]

It annoys me when people say Batman 89 doesn't have any depth or themes. Of course it does. It's basically a satire of the 80s/90s culture. Joker and his plots specifically.

As Jack Napier he is this ultimate yuppie gangster. He's vain as hell, into contemporary art, is materialistic etc.

When he becomes Joker he becomes this kinda, twisted yuppie. You think his plots of poisoning make up and beauty products is a coincidence? Course not. He's using peoples vanity against them, in a fatal way. Same way he uses peoples greed and desperation against them at the parade where he's handing out millions of dollars to lure them all to their deaths.

Perfect satire of the 80s/90s.

And the best thing is? There is no subtle as a sledgehammer to the knee caps dialogue explaining all that. There is no monologues going on about how he's using peoples vanity/materialism/greed/desperation against them. It's left to us, the audience to figure it out.

Burton's films do have depth. Just as much as Nolan's. Difference is, Burton's films don't spoon feed the audience. They show, instead of telling. Which Nolan's films are so badly guilty of.

 

[Fudgie]

People probably say it has no depth because they don't see all of that when they watch it. I know I sure don't. Joker just wanted to relive them of their failed useless lives as he called it.

 

[babbage]

I was a kid throughout the whole 80s and a teen in the 90s and I honestly have no idea how Joker satirizes 80s/90s pop culture or yuppies or anything like that. He had an avant garde shtick, combined with a psychopathic lust for violence (which I liked... "I am the world's first fully-functional homicidal artist." Great line), but I don't see the satire. Do you have any citations from Burton?

 

[The Morningstar]

No but for me it's pretty obvious.

He puts poison in make up and beauty products. It then has a scene of the news reporters without make up all spotty and rough looking, whereas before they were all good looking with no imperfections etc. It's blatant satire/piss taking.

Then you have the parade where he is handing out millions of dollars to all the poverty stricken citizens of Gotham.

Yea he says he wants to "relieve them of their useless lives". I'm glad he just said that. If it was Nolan's film he would of gone on a long monologue about how he was using peoples desperation from being poverty stricken against them. lol.

It's called showing and not telling. It's definitely there. If you can't see it you need to watch it again. Or maybe you just need to be spoon fed these things

 

[babbage]

Yeah, whatever. Sorry I asked.

 

[Fudgie]

Guess you're seeing something I don't. I saw a guy using cosmetic products which nearly everyone uses in some form to get people. Even baby powder was mentioned as one of the tainted products.

Giving away free money, especially 20 mil, is guaranteed to attract you a big crowd whether people are poor or not. Who's gonna resist free millions whether they are well off or not?

That's how I see it. A nice comic booky monologue might have added some depth and clarity to it.

 

[The Morningstar]

Na, a monologue would have ruined it. Show, don't tell.

I mean what, would a nice monologue saying "The replicants are more human than humans" in Blade Runner, for example, helped? No, it would have ruined it. Spoon feeding and telling instead of showing ruins movies.

 

[circa81]

I totally agree with you, Morningstar. Burton used subtly to great effect, an idea that seams to be lost on Nolan. You'd like this comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSAhuL8FJuQ

 

[El Payaso]

Guess you're seeing something I don't. I saw a guy using cosmetic products which nearly everyone uses in some form to get people. Even baby powder was mentioned as one of the tainted products.

Giving away free money, especially 20 mil, is guaranteed to attract you a big crowd whether people are poor or not. Who's gonna resist free millions whether they are well off or not?

That's how I see it. A nice comic booky monologue might have added some depth and clarity to it.

Just what those movies didn't need: a spoon-feeding long-winded monologue. You're either able to see it or at least able to enjoy it. The fact that's not verbally explained doesn't make it nonexistent.