Batman Forever The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[CountOrlok]

This is such a strawman argument. There's people who have survived gun shots to the heart, and to the head, too.

It's not a vindication citing the Golden Gate bridge survivors as proof that Dent was alive at the end of BF.

I'm not trying to prove that he was alive. I'm trying to prove that he could have survived.

It was a death trap set up with special trap doors above to drop people in.

As if someone was dumb enough to design it so the spikes were so far apart that a whole body could land between them lol.

As I said before, the fall was enough from that height where Chase and Robin were, to kill them.

I'm saying based on the movie it's heavily implied he is, whereas nothing in the movie implies he isn't.

Implies, yes. But implying it is different to definitively confirming it.

Not arrogant, just confident.

Truly confident people don't need to belittle others to be confident.

A lot of things that were intended to be in it by the scriptwriter were not. That's why that script is not worth anything as a source of validity. There's far too many changes between it and the movie.

It's worth at least something, being the shooting script for the movie.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not trying to prove that he was alive. I'm trying to prove that he could have survived.

I didn't know the river around the Golden Gate Bridge was littered with spikes. It's not just the high fall, it's what he fell into.

As I said before, the fall was enough from that height where Chase and Robin were, to kill them.

As I said before, the fall was enough from the height where Dent fell to kill him, too. Especially with spikes at the bottom.

Implies, yes. But implying it is different to definitively confirming it.

Die Hard never confirmed at the end that Hans Gruber was dead. It just implied it. That doesn't mean he wasn't dead. When a villain disappears over a cliff, or into the ocean, or something loose like that, I get how there is an implication or possibility of survival. Falling from a great height into a huge bed of spikes, I don't get how we need confirmation he is dead to know he's dead. Especially when you see his motionless hand sink into the water.

Truly confident people don't need to belittle others to be confident.

Telling you that you were wrong about something is not belittling you. Everyone can and has been wrong at one time or another.

It's worth at least something, being the shooting script for the movie.

Not if the script goes through a myriad of changes and ends up being very different in many ways to the movie.

 

[CountOrlok]

I didn't know the river around the Golden Gate Bridge was littered with spikes. It's not just the high fall, it's what he fell into.



As I said before, the fall was enough from the height where Dent fell to kill him, too. Especially with spikes at the bottom.

I'm not going to repeat points I have already made yet you have ignored.

Die Hard never confirmed at the end that Hans Gruber was dead. It just implied it.

No one could have possibly survived that fall, so I don't see your point.

Telling you that you were wrong about something is not belittling you. Everyone can and has been wrong at one time or another.

But I wasn't wrong.

Not if the script goes through a myriad of changes and ends up being very different in many ways to the movie.

So the script should be entirely discounted, then? It has nothing to with the movie? Is that what you saying.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not going to repeat points I have already made yet you have ignored.

I didn't ignore anything you've said. I just have not agreed with them, and with good reason.

No one could have possibly survived that fall, so I don't see your point.

No one could survive a high fall into a bed of spikes either.

But I wasn't wrong.

Yes you were. I wasn't the only one telling you so either.

So the script should be entirely discounted, then? It has nothing to with the movie? Is that what you saying.

Yes, the script should be discounted as a source of proof for the final product of the movie because the outcome of the movie has too many differences to that script.

 

[CountOrlok]

I didn't ignore anything you've said. I just have not agreed with them, and with good reason.

Fair enough, but don't try and pass your opinions off as fact. I don't.

No one could survive a high fall into a bed of spikes either.

Well, we already discussed that. He could have missed the rocks. Not like Hans Gruber because a fall from that height onto the ground would kill anyone.

Yes you were. I wasn't the only one telling you so either.

Truth doesn't rely on majority opinion. Truth stands by itself. You could've had 1000 people to back you up, it would've made no difference.

Yes, the script should be discounted as a source of proof for the final product of the movie because the outcome of the movie has too many differences to that script.

It is a source of proof.. may be not a very strong source of proof, but a source of proof nonetheless.

 

[The Joker]

Fair enough, but don't try and pass your opinions off as fact. I don't.

You mistake confidence with arrogance and fact. If something is a fact I'll say so. I don't act like it.

And yes you have often presented your point of view as fact.

Well, we already discussed that. He could have missed the rocks. Not like Hans Gruber because a fall from that height onto the ground would kill anyone.

Two things;

1. The fall from Dent's height would have killed anyone, too. Especially onto spikes.
2. No death trap that relies on killing people by dropping them into a pit of spikes has the spikes spaced so far apart that a whole body can land between them. That just doesn't make any sense.

Truth doesn't rely on majority opinion. Truth stands by itself. You could've had 1000 people to back you up, it would've made no difference.

I never said truth relies on majority opinion. I said I wasn't the only one pointing out the truth to you.

It is a source of proof.. may be not a very strong source of proof, but a source of proof nonetheless.

It's not proof when it's not a credible source of proof. Which it's not. It's a draft of the script chock full of changes to the movie we got. Ergo it's not reliable.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Is this a serious conversation?!?

 

[The Shape]

Not sure why this debate went on for as long as it did, but here's what it boils down to:

It is heavily implied that Two Face died at the end of Batman Forever. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he may have lived. HOWEVER, there is also no strict evidence that proves he did die, despite the heavy implications.

So, in conclusion, if someone wants to believe that Two Face survived the fall at the end of BF, they have every right to do so. But it's pretty clear that he died and most like-minded folks will see that. There's no "winner" or "loser" to this debate, only "losers" because of the time you both lost debating it.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Batman Forever clearly implies that Two Face dies. He falls into a pit of spikes...Robin's look of satisfaction and the fact that Riddler is the only one in Arkham at the end suggests that Harvey is dead.

But the fact that Two Face's suit is in Batman and Robin is really strange... that seems to suggest that maybe Two Face is alive... Why would they have the clothes of a dead former inmate? It doesn't make sense. These are based on comics, where almost no one stays dead, and the Schumacher movies were by far the least realistic Batman movies, so anything is possible. It is certainly possible that Two Face could have survived.

I don't think Schumacher wanted to give a definitive answer, i think he set it up so people would be having this conversation.

 

[CountOrlok]

"We did not know if the film was going to be successful. We didn't know if there were going to be sequels. I wanted to keep the possibility that the villains would come back if Warners needed it. I didn't expect to be doing another Batman movie myself at the time. But I left Harvey.. you don't really know if Harvey's dead or not and Jim certainly is not dead."

Joel Schumacher (BF commentary)

 

[I Am The Knight]

So, I just learned the other night that Jones agreed to play Two-Face because the character was his son's favorite.

From EW:

''[When] I went to meet with Tommy to do my spiel to get him to do the role,'' says director Joel Schumacher, ''I got there and Austin had a pile of Batman comics with Two-Face on top. Tommy told me he's doing the character because it's Austin's favorite.''

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,303022,00.html

I wonder what Austin thought of his father's "performance" in the film?

 

[CountOrlok]

Nothing wrong with Tommy Lee's performance at all. It was just like Two-Face in the comics:

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part.html

People who whine about it are just jumping on the Schumacher hate train because it is popular to do so.

I know.. he's too 'over the top'/'campy'/'goofy'/etc.. He's a 1940s comic book villain, of course he's supposed to be like that.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

That is untrue. Just because you have a different opinion than most people on his performance doesn't mean people are following a trend. I saw you say the same thing about the Catwoman movie. It's extremely insulting. That is tantamount to calling them mindless sheep who are incapable of forming their own opinion so they follow the popular one. People hate it for good reasons. Him being a 1940's comic book villain is not a justification to portray him in such a campy way. Alfred appeared like this initially in the 40's, but that doesn't mean he should be done that way in the movies:

The Joker, the Scarecrow, Catwoman and so forth all hail from the 40's, too. I am certain fans and audiences don't want to see camped up versions of them in the movies either like Two Face was in Batman Forever. Two Face is one of the darkest characters in the Batman universe. And should always be portrayed so. Camp does not suit his character.

And the panel about the best out of three coin toss, you posted that already before the last time you were arguing about this: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28757381&postcount=74

I already told you that was a one off special case because he was having a mental breakdown in that story where he was behaving out of character: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28759487&postcount=75

He was tossing his coin three times to make all his decisions in that story:

It was extenuating circumstances.

 

[CountOrlok]

People hate it for good reasons.

I have yet to hear it.

Him being a 1940's comic book villain is not a justification to portray him in such a campy way. Alfred appeared like this initially in the 40's, but that doesn't mean he should be done that way in the movies:

The Joker, the Scarecrow, Catwoman and so forth all hail from the 40's, too. I am certain fans and audiences don't want to see camped up versions of them in the movies either like Two Face was in Batman Forever. Two Face is one of the darkest characters in the Batman universe. And should always be portrayed so. Camp does not suit his character.

That's your opinion.

You say: "I am certain fans and audiences don't want to see..." - so you speak for everyone?

And the panel about the best out of three coin toss, you posted that already before the last time you were arguing about this: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28757381&postcount=74

I already told you that was a one off special case because he was having a mental breakdown in that story where he was behaving out of character: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28759487&postcount=75

That's your opinion as well. I've read that comic (I downloaded it from a torrent), and I couldn't find anything about him having a "mental breakdown".

He was tossing his coin three times to make all his decisions in that story:

It was extenuating circumstances.

That panel isn't even from the same comic.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

You have never heard people say why they dislike Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face, or do you mean you disagree with their reasons for disliking his portrayal of Two Face?

I am basing my opinion on how unpopular the Joel Schumacher villains were. Also how comic book villains are not done as campy as them in movies, and I believe the reason is that fans and audiences do not want that.

You have seemingly not read the full story. It's 4 parts. It starts in Detective Comics #563, then Batman #397, then Detective Comics #564, and concludes in Batman #398. The panel I posted is from Batman #397. That is why you see him with a normal Harvey Dent face ripping off his skin to reveal an all scarred Two Face while talking about how he can toss his coin when ever he likes until he gets the answer he wants.

 

[CountOrlok]

You have never heard people say why they dislike Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face, or do you mean you disagree with their reasons for disliking his portrayal of Two Face?

People like or dislike whatever they want. I'm saying there are no good reasons outside of personal opinion.

I am basing my opinion on how unpopular the Joel Schumacher villains were. Also how comic book villains are not done as campy as them in movies, and I believe the reason is that fans and audiences do not want that.

Batman Forever was a box office hit.. - http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm - all the Schumacher hate happened before some people had even seen the film:

Then JOEL SHUMACHER's name falls upon the screen, and the sounds of BOOS fill the theater.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/1634

Probably because they had heard about other negative reviews, but these people were definitely going in with that kind of mindset.

As for camp in comic book villains:

300 and 300: Rise of the Empire - both box office hits, and featuring a campy villain.

You have seemingly not read the full story. It's 4 parts. It starts in Detective Comics #563, then Batman #397, then Detective Comics #564, and concludes in Batman #398. The panel I posted is from Batman #397.

Ok, I didn't know that. I will have to read the other issues.

 

[CountOrlok]

Also, I want to repeat a good point made by Uma Thurman, the actress who played Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin:

Did you know at the time how notorious its reputation would become?
What is it notorious for?
For being campy.
Well, it came out in a different time when people were still being *****y about campy. Humor being campy and campy being a code word for gay has changed. I think one of the most beautiful things I will get to say I’ve witnessed in my lifetime is to have lived through part of the major movement of trying to quell persecution of human beings who have a different sexual orientation. If you think of the Berlin Wall coming down, people always talk about all these big things. I think what Pope Francis did 10 days ago, which people have just talked about in hushed voices: “Oh yeah, you hear the pope said that?” -- I’m not Catholic, but I have to tell you, to me, Pope Francis should be sainted for this, what he did for mankind. For the millions and millions and millions of people on the earth who have died because of who they were. God, you just got me. So anyway, the word “campy” has nothing to do with “Batman & Robin”; it just somehow made me think of this. Obviously the Batman movies went in a very serious direction, a very humorless direction. Really straight and hardcore.
Absolutely. They’re beautiful movies, but they’re not the same ones that Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher were making.
Oh no, they’re totally different: hardcore violence. And I like them. But I think at the time the idea of taking a male superhero and having fun with it and someone using the c-word [campy] on it caused people to be very nasty. And that kind of nastiness was acceptable on those terms. And I think that’s the reason some people were particularly annoyed. They didn’t like seeing that tone applied to their heterosexual male icon.
That’s an interesting perspective on it.
Well, it takes time, and the idea that that wasn’t appropriate was because there was a deep-seated discrimination at hand, and hatred and fear. So what Joel did was actually very threatening at the time, and I think it is truly one of the things that we should all feel -- and me as a person -- is beyond greater than the Berlin Wall coming down. Far more thousands or millions more have died under that discrimination and those biases and those scriptures being interpreted in such a cruel manner compared to those who died coming out of East Germany. Anyway, this is very serious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4966880.html

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Forgive me but you saying no good reasons outside of personal opinion is untrue. The performance being too over the top, campy, and lacking any menace or nuance are good reasons and are certainly not subject to opinion. The performance was all of those things. Nobody could deny that it wasn't. It's all there in the movie. Most of it was intentional from what I understand regarding the camp.

I'm sure you realize that any hate that came before seeing Batman and Robin came from people who hated the direction he had already taken the franchise with Batman Forever. Now they were getting more of the same. Or in Batman and Robin's case even worse.

I'm sure you're not really serious about using the box office as a device to say what audiences love and don't love: http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/classic-movies-box-office-bombs/

http://www.sofasandsectionals.com/so-bad-its-good

The villain of the 300 movies was not as nearly campy as Joel Schumacher's Batman villains. With respect to Miss Thurman's opinion, audiences were not afraid of camp, they just had evolved from it that they were not enthralled by campy heroes any more like they were a couple of decades ago. Tim Burton fought to move Batman away from the campy image of the TV series, and WB and Schumacher undid all that effort. They took Batman in the direction the audience didn't want to go again with him.

 

[CountOrlok]

Forgive me but you saying no good reasons outside of personal opinion is untrue. The performance being too over the top, campy, and lacking any menace or nuance are good reasons and are certainly not subject to opinion. The performance was all of those things. Nobody could deny that it wasn't. It's all there in the movie. Most of it was intentional from what I understand regarding the camp.

That IS your opinion. You're only concentrating on the campy stuff. There were other great moments in Tommy Lee Jone's performance.

Like this:

[YT]xGZVwW5nyrE[/YT]

Or this:

[YT]xFIeJhaIdlc[/YT]

I'm sure you realize that any hate that came before seeing Batman and Robin came from people who hated the direction he had already taken the franchise with Batman Forever. Now they were getting more of the same. Or in Batman and Robin's case even worse.

Yeah well, there's people who hate Batman Returns as well.

I'm sure you're not really serious about using the box office as a device to say what audiences love and don't love: http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/classic-movies-box-office-bombs/

http://www.sofasandsectionals.com/so-bad-its-good

I was saying, at the time, it was a big hit. Movies like The Wizard of Oz became a massive hit and beloved classic over time.. but not at the time.

The villain of the 300 movies was not as nearly campy as Joel Schumacher's Batman villains.

Are you kidding? Xerxes is practically the definition of camp, with his feminine appearance, exaggerated height, piercings, body ornaments, unnaturally deep voice and dressed like a swimwear model.

With respect to Miss Thurman's opinion, audiences were not afraid of camp, they just had evolved from it that they were not enthralled by campy heroes any more like they were a couple of decades ago.

You missed her point. She was saying that camp became associated with homosexuality in popular culture which is why there was a backlash against it.

Tim Burton fought to move Batman away from the campy image of the TV series, and WB and Schumacher undid all that effort. They took Batman in the direction the audience didn't want to go again with him.

"Again". Yes, "again". They were happy with the first time, as it was a big hit.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Two brief scenes where the character is not laughing like an over excited chimp doesn't make the overall performance good. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze had a couple of brief moments like that, too, and his performance is still overly campy.

I'm not sure what point you're making about some people hating Batman Returns. Every movie has some haters, even those which are very popular.

I am also not sure what your point is about Batman Forever being a financial hit at the time. Unlike The Wizard of Oz it never gained popularity over time.

None of those traits equate to Xerxes being a campy villain. An outlandish type of appearance, and a deep voice doesn't make a comic book movie villain campy.

With respect to Miss Thurman, nipples on the Batman costume, and close up butt shots are why there was some association of homosexuality with those movies.

A healthy box office does not always equate to a happy audience, like a poor box office does not equate to an unloved movie.

 

[CountOrlok]

What's wrong with camp anyway? I love camp when it is done right.

I'm not sure what your point was about "people who hated the direction he had already taken the franchise with Batman Forever"..

Batman Forever is still a well-liked movie - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112462/?ref_=nv_sr_1 - a 5.4 score on IMDB isn't bad.

So what's campy in your definition? If Xerxes isn't campy yet Tommy Lee Jone's Two Face is?

And because it's camp.. not just because of nipples and butt shots. Uma Thurman knows what she is talking about. Camp is often associated with the LGBT culture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style) - such as drag queens being considered campy.

A healthy box office means it was a hit at the time.. which means lots of people saw and liked the movie in 1995.

 

[CountOrlok]

From Detective Comics #513

 

[Doctor Octopus]

There's nothing wrong with camp, just like there's nothing wrong with humour. But both can be used and executed badly. I think Schumacher's did that.

What I meant about people who hated what he did with Batman Forever is that they were the ones booing Batman and Robin before seeing it because they were getting more of the same. Or so they thought. They didn't know it was going to be even more campy than Batman Forever was.

I don't think 5.4 is a score of a well liked movie. It's a mixed reaction score. I also don't put any value in IMDb for movie scores. It's a very unreliable site for things like that.

Xerxes did not come close to being as campy as this:

With respect to Miss Thurman she is mistaking those associations with campy and gay, to the actual gay innuendo imagery in these movies like the Bat nipples and the close up crotch and butt shots. Mr Clooney also said he played Batman gay http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/03/03/brokebat-mountain-batman-is-gay-says-george-clooney/

A healthy box office doesn't always mean people liked it. It means a lot of people went to see it, but that doesn't mean they all liked it. It's like popular movies that didn't do big at the box office doesn't mean they are not well liked.

That new picture you posted is an example of Two Face tossing his coin once a day about a decision on what day Batman will die. There is no similarity there to tossing his coin repeatedly in one scene seconds apart.

 

[Snow Queen]

You missed her point. She was saying that camp became associated with homosexuality in popular culture which is why there was a backlash against it.

So, since it seems you agree with this point, you think people don't like how campy and garish (in a poorly executed manner, according to most, particularly in B&R) the two were because it's apparently associated with being gay?

 

[CountOrlok]

That new picture you posted is an example of Two Face tossing his coin once a day about a decision on what day Batman will die. There is no similarity there to tossing his coin repeatedly in one scene seconds apart.

So it comes down to the fact that time is the only difference? What scale of time should we be talking about here? Is 24 hours the minimum, then?

(Btw, I respect your opinion on the other points, but let's leave it that for now)

So, since it seems you agree with this point, you think people don't like how campy and garish (in a poorly executed manner, according to most, particularly in B&R) the two were because it's apparently associated with being gay?

I'm not stating that, although I do find that argument interesting, as well as what Ms Thurman had to say on the issue.