Discussion in 'Community' started by Jarren_Lee-Saber, Sep 11, 2013.
If you had to room with Al Gore in college you'd be cranky too.
batman Forever isn't really bad like B&R, it can be pretty fun if you overlook Jim Carrey's way OTT performance. If you toned down both the villains it would arguably be a pretty good movie.
Michael Gough is reliably good as ever and so is Pat Hingle.
Chris O'Donnell irritates me though, he's just not a good actor.
OH NO IT'S BOILING ACID!!!!!!!
IT'S SOOO YOOOUUUUU!
Forever is the most faithful tas adaptation around.
I'm willing to bet that, had the movie been the same, shot for shot, only animated in the style of Timm instead of live action, with the same performances, it would have been heralded as arguably the greatest batman film ever.
Long time since I've seen much of TAS, but I don't recall Two-Face and Riddler being as ridiculous and campy as they were in Forever.
I'd rather Riddler was like he is in the Arkham games, a Jigsaw-like genius with elaborate death-traps
Not a luminous jacket-wearing, shiny mole sporting, campy pelvic thrusting fool with a giant blender on top of his base.
I'm willing to be that, had Avatar been the same, shot for shot, only live action instead of 3D CGI, with the same performances, it would have been critically panned, a box office failure, and heralded as arguably one of the worst science fiction flops ever.
Calibrating a story to the medium is a key task, and I'd agree Batman Forever failed to do it well.
What. The. ****. Yeah, just no. There is no way that Carrey's turn as the Riddler works, whether it's live action, Timm style animation or Gustave Dore-esque etching. It's just awful. I think you're forgetting how the Riddler was on TAS if you're saying that Carrey's performance is a faithful adaptation of it. He's very unflappable, intelligent, reserved in TAS.
I actually thought Kilmer was good, but most of the rest of the movie was pretty weak.
Does anyone want to discuss Batman Returns? I honestly can't discern whether it's an intriguing failure or an artistic triumph. Keaton and Pfeiffer have tremendous chemistry, DeVito delivers a gangbusters performance, Elfman's on fire, but damn if that marriage between the morbid and the downright goofy wasn't tenuous.
This is one of those rarities that will feature rocket-pack equipped penguins and then throw out an exchange like this:
Bruce: "So no hard feelings, then?"
Selina: "Actually...semi-hard I'd say."
Ritchie how was Gough anything but a terrible Alfred?
In Batman, he's busily being conspicuous where discretion is called for (PERHAPS THIS WAY, SIR? WINK WINK). He sells Bruce out (Going, Miss Vale? We'll be here for quite some time). He lets Vicki into the Batcave.
Woodhouse would have been a better Batman butler.
The directors made Alfred rather a buffoon, but Gough had a charm and knowing look about him that I thought worked very well in the role. He did his best with the character he was given
Same with Jones as Two-Face - Good actor but the way he did the character was off. As you say he was copying Nicholson doing Joker, but the director should have told him that wasn't the way to go. It's not Jones' fault it is the way it is, neither is campy Riddler Carrey's fault (it is his default acting style sure, but he was obviously cast to bring that to the part).
Bad writing is the problem.
Jim Carrey's performance pretty much carries the villain side of the Batman Forever, Two-Face doesn't have much going after he kills the Graysons.
Kilmer was good at times, bad at others. We know he can do better.
If you tone down the villains it would be even worse, they have nothing going for them except camp. Neither Dent or Nigma were set up for anything more. It's not like The Dark Knight where Dent has nearly an entire movie of set up for his fall.
Removing camp isn't always a good decision.
I thought it was amazing and loved the mix of morbid and silliness. I prefer it over all morbid all the time always, I even prefer it over TEH DARK followed by TEH LIGHT, aka BIG DAMN HERO moments.
Returns is good, it's just a bit up and down.
Penguin is a decent portrayal of the character I thought - Small man who looks a little bird-like and has a variety of novelty umbrellas. Ok the rocket-launcher penguin minions were a bit OTT, but for the most part I thought it worked.
I agree the character development was an issue. We got almost nothing for Harvey Dent and a bit for Nigma when he worked for Wayne and had his idea rejected.
But I still would have preferred them to be more threatening, Riddler never seemed like he was a threat to Batman just a guy in stupid outfits with an ego problem. Two Face was at least dangerous, but giving him the female sidekicks and the inconsistent decision system with repeated coin-flipping did distill him somewhat I thought.
At the time I saw Batman Returns, I liked it more than the 1989 film. I think my preference for the 1989 film might have reached the point of being mostly for the nostalgia of the time and the hype, and the thrill of seeing a new kind of superhero/summer action film. No movie has since matched the hype leading up to that movie, and that was a fun movie summer overall. Jump ahead three years, and in 1992, I was the only person standing in line with a specific Batman Returns shirt. The last time I watched Batman, much of the Vicky Vale romance stuff bugged me. One advantage of those films is how Tim Burton made a character out of Gotham City by giving it a distinct look. At the time, I liked Batman Returns more than the 1989 film. I just can't like Batman Forever. I also can't really mix the Nolan films and compare them with the Burton ones.
I have no disdain for the comics whatsoever! Just for the animated films. And still I don't really have disdain for them either, I just don't think they are better than the films.
Sure buddy, if you say so.
Mask of the Phantasm is indisputably better than most of the live-action Batman films, with the exception of Nolan's first two installments.
Never understood the "Batman doesn't kill" nonsense
Well, he doesn't kill now. Except, of course, when he allows certain unrepentant lunatic mass murderers to keep on killing...
Saying Batman doesn't kill is like saying Jigsaw doesn't kill
And Batman passively aggressively killed in Dark Knight Rises as well.
You guys are clearly ignoring the most hardcore Batman of them all, Nineties Batman.
He's powered by Jesus to kill. He also figured the Batsuit wasn't scary enough, so it now shoots throwing stars, has razor claws, and a flame thrower, but most important of all, he added pouches. To hell with passive-aggressive!
Yeah, Azbats was bat**** crazy (pun intended)...but he definitely sported a kickass outfit.
Aside from the pouches
How could he even access those very well, what with his huge claws?