Topics

https://news.toyark.com/2019/07/25/batman-from-batman-forever-by-hot-toys-at-acg-hong-kong-2019-358370

One has to wonder if Batman and Robin are far behind.

Some early pics of Joaquin in the role have surfaced on the net. It appears we're getting a full on origin story that will essentially guide us through his path into crime and the macabre. At a glance it looks like it has potential depending on how disciplined they are in the treatment. I like using BVS as a cautionary example of how these films read when the treatment tries too hard to cater to a social seriousness that collapses on itself with the concept.

If the Joker movie becomes a deep study, leaning on social justification for his maniac and insane behaviors, I think you tread into territory that borders on both unintentional camp and a neglect for the comic book foundation. These stories need to keep him in a surreal environment that justifies the birth of his comic character and not something more inline with Charles Manson. Yes, we can have social themes interwoven in this tale like most comic movies possess. But both the writer and director need to know when to turn the lecture off and bring out the costumes. This is a comic book villain. There has to be an entertainment factor that invites the audience in to watch these films. So in my eyes balance in the treatment will be key here.

With the setting being Christmas time, does anyone use this story element as a rationale to insert Returns as part of the Christmas  festivities? I think it fits in nicely myself.

It's been a staggering 28 years since Michael Keaton burst on the big screen as Batman. While the suit has gone through some alterations, the initial idea of a latex body suit remains consistent to this day. With regards to that initial look (and with all deep respect to Adam West) what has been your favorite suit from that new frontier in the Batman spectacle? Mine is Batman Returns. I absolutely adore that suit. In fact, I just got my Hot Toys Batman Returns/Bruce Wayne set and I can not take my eyes off either figure. But I digress.

I like the Returns look because they really streamlined the outfit, not to mention the cowl. And he absolutely looks as much like the classic version as I can imagine in real life. I like the big neck on the mask and the comic accurate Bat-emblem plus the industrial abs on the suit. At least we can say Tony Stark had nothing to do with this technology, right? But I think he looks the most menacing, yet superbly stylized to capture that ideal look of Batman, for me. What are your choices and why?

I always got the impression Keaton didn't like the direction the franchise was going (even with Returns) because Batman was getting phased out as the central character. Oddly Forever brings much more of the focus back on Wayne in a variety of key scenes. I guess actors will always have their reasons for turning work down, but they're the only ones who have to live without that payday, so like most opinions, it matters little to me. Even though I'm completely fine with the tonal change in Forever, I can understand from an objective point of view why Keaton walked away.

For me the only place where I think opinions grate on me a bit are when the actors take the payday, then piss on the project after the fact, if it doesn't stroke their egos properly in the public. Keaton walked away from a huge (and easy) payday because he didn't like the script. I can disagree with his opinion, but I can respect his decision because he walked the talk. People like Clooney, I don't respect his constant poking at B&R because he took the check and benefited wildly from the film financially to fund other projects he wanted to do.

It's embarrassing to see how he knew nothing about Batman or could differentiate between Marvel or DC properties when asked if he grew up loving these heroes and blatantly lied to demonstrate some kind of shallow loyalty to the project. He knew nothing about the character and so he brought nothing of himself to that role. He was an opportunist and got tapped for an easy payday. He took the money and now shames everyone involved even though he personally benefited from it. He even said as much early on but has since changed that position because he thinks people have forgotten what he originally said. Those opinions bother me because they don't come from an honest position. If B&R had been a huge hit, he would tow the company line on the project because it would inflate his importance. But since it didn't, he just adopted the popular opinion and tries to distance himself from it.

So when it comes to opinions I can respect Keaton for not liking a project he walked away from better than someone like Clooney who read the script, took the check, and tries to revise his position as a unwitting participant without owning any responsibility for choosing to take the role. Even Schumacher had the backbone and balls to say he knew exactly what they (the studio) were asking him to do. Clooney has not.

I'm curious what the expectation are from everyone going in to see this movie. Do you feel the trailers have given you a fairly accurate expectation of the film? Are you drawing your conclusions from what you've seen in the trailers alone or do you feel you have read enough reports to connect the dots on how the film will unfold?  What percentage of story do you feel is going to be about one character or perhaps one conflict as indicated by the title? And do you feel this is going to heavily showcase many heroes as opposed to the three you mainly see in the trailers?

For myself, it appears the studios want me to believe we'll be getting a soft origin reboot with Batman (seen through flashbacks) as he tries to digest and determine the threat level of Superman's arrival. We will see the evolution of society upon Superman based on how they try to rationalize his purpose and meaning for the world. I'm assuming the statue is more memorial than just pure celebration of Superman since there were likely hundreds, if not thousands, of people who lost their lives.

I'm not convinced there will be allot of time spent between Batman and Superman fighting. I'm a bit concerned we've seen the bulk of it from trailers. When I think about it, any fight between those two can not last all that long. Superman will most likely dispose of him quickly during their first meeting, while the second standoff becomes more of a face-off once he  acquires Kryptonite and equals the playing field. But where do they go from there?

My thinking is Lex enters the picture with his Doomsday creation from Zod's body (which begs how he got his hands on him to begin with). From there it becomes more a story of Doomsday besting Superman initially only to see both Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman team up to defeat him. Any other heroes, I believe, will be more quick or subtle cameos with little or no background on them. I'm not sure how Aquaman will fit into any of this.

But because the film will need so much time to resolve conflicts, I think the character development and overall story will suffer for that and come off a little thin. But I think the studio is expecting leniency from the audience to be familiar with these characters and desire more of a rumble in the concrete jungle spectacle.

With Snyder directing, I expect Batman to have less of a morality code and operate more out of pure vengeance which means he will likely not care whether criminals live or die...A borderline "Comedian-type" of enjoyment with inflicting pain. I think Superman will play on a lighter tone because of how dark Snyder goes with Batman and that will give you the rub. Wonder Woman I have no idea. I don't know what social message she will bring to the table, but I'm confident Snyder will make it a talking point. So from a tone perspective, I expect the portrayals to be edgy and therefore divisive. How it will all play together I think will depend on how invested Snyder gets the audience in Batman. I believe he will drive the story. I hope there is some pathos to him to make the audience cheer for him, despite his shortcomings. That's what I'm guessing from the trailers and reports. What do you see?

I know fans will debate script treatment until the end of time between these two films. But shouldn't Schumacher and the effects team receive high grades for creating a visually appealing universe for Batman? The older these films get, the more they seem to retain that timeless quality that defines movies that exceeded production values for their day.

The Nolan films are still relatively new in this era to make much of an assessment for aging gracefully, but the Burton films are showing some dated qualities to them. Sure the original will always retain a degree of timeliness because of the incredible style Burton delivered to this instant classic. But that film also has the disadvantage of being the first film of the modern age to introduce (and pretty much reinvent) the superhero experience. That context should ALWAYS be given to this film, because honestly every movie made since, has built upon those ideas.

But production standards, story pacing, and just the natural evolution of action sequences have evolved allot over time. To me, the Schumacher films seem to have captured the best of those improvements and fashioned two films that look just as striking today as they did when they were released 18 and 20 years ago respectively.  They never seem to lose that 'magic' that made everything appear larger-than-life in a way that makes you want to swim in it.

With so many years invested in fans being divisive over the script treatment and overall tone, are these films not getting the proper credit they should for doing the good work on the visual experience?

I know there has been so much criticism weighed on Batman & Robin for having toy companies on board for design considerations. And I think it's fair to say Schumacher is to blame for that perception since he brought it up in his overview of the film on DVD. But, at the end of the day, isn't every Batman movie a vehicle for toys and related merchandise? The Nolan movies had a slew of toys, as did the Burton films. And Batman '66 has just recently enjoyed a new resurgence of merchandise after the licensing issues were resolved a few years back. So every iteration of this character (minus the serials) has enjoyed an enormous campaign of toys to profit Warner Bros.

I tend to like allot of the design sensibilities in Batman & Robin. Now, it's a given that the Bathammer and Bat-sled are little more than product endorsements since they really did next to nothing in the film. But does that really make them any less valid than the Batmobile, Bat-planes, or Nolan's Tumbler and Batcycle since the end game is promoting licensed goods with the logo splashed across most of it? What is the Batmobile but the ultimate example of licensing toys?

To me that is part of the appeal of Batman. He is this fascinating hero that carries all of these wild gadgets and drives this custom car fashioned to promote his image with it's own weapons to boot. Batman Vs. Superman promises to be another bonanza of merchandise as well. So is there a point where we should accept the blatant commercialism of this character and not presume to be selective on where it's used best? For me, this kind of drives home why the appeal of Batman will live on long after we're gone. Batman just touches the kid in everyone who sees him and I think that is the magic of this hero.

You know I can clearly remember Batman Forever being both a critical and commercial hit. I couldn't hardly find anyone who didn't like it either allot or at least an improvement over the previous movie. Yet when you read the reaction score to the film today it's both dismal in critical and audience reaction. I think allot of that is fallout from Batman & Robin. So I guess my question is... Is it fair that Rotten Tomatoes constantly changes or adds new reactions to a film that is 20 years old without some context that this is not how people felt when it initially came out? I think this movie gets a bum wrap for that. Honestly I think B&R has always gotten a bum wrap as well, but it seems like it to took a much longer time for this film to get dragged down. Is that really a fair consensus since the true history books show it was popular for both critics and audiences? Isn't this revisionist history? 

Throughout my life, I've watched many a theatrical miscue in Hollywood find it's audience long after the critical spotlight has left the subject and new generations have had their chance to watch these movies without any preconceived notions.  Although B&R has had to climb a much steeper hill, I've noticed younger generations carry less criticism for the film than fans who sat in theaters back in 1997. And with the modern character immersed so deeply in dark themes, could it be that audiences are beginning to forgive Schumacher for this lighthearted approach? As a treatment, Batman tends to sway from one extreme to the next if you examine his commercial highs and lows. And typically that swing is gauged by audience reaction to a specific tone. If Snyder's Batman hinges too much on a dark and cynical tone, could audiences finally be done with this overreaction to the 1997 installment and desire a lighter version that reflects something similar to what Schumacher was trying to achieve?