Ivy was made more sympathetic and maybe even reasonable, more of an anti-hero?
How different may the film have been like that? And if she didn't have a poison kiss, or could she have been more sympathetic and reasonable even having it?
Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:24
Ivy was made more sympathetic and maybe even reasonable, more of an anti-hero?
How different may the film have been like that? And if she didn't have a poison kiss, or could she have been more sympathetic and reasonable even having it?
The problem there is that's basically what Mr. Freeze ends up being in the end. If you're going to have multiple villains they can't all be anti-heroes.
Quote from: BatmanFurst on Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 20:18
Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:24
Ivy was made more sympathetic and maybe even reasonable, more of an anti-hero?
How different may the film have been like that? And if she didn't have a poison kiss, or could she have been more sympathetic and reasonable even having it?
The problem there is that's basically what Mr. Freeze ends up being in the end. If you're going to have multiple villains they can't all be anti-heroes.
Good point. Ivy is very similar in spirit to BR Selina as both are brought back to life and have a grudge against men. Freeze definitely has more sympathy with the Nora angle, whereas Ivy manipulates everyone she comes across and IMO is more villainous than BR Selina. Freeze has the muscle, but has more in common with Tom Hardy's Bane.
Ivy killed Woodrue, who was willing to perform illegal human experimentation, engage in human trafficking, commit murder, etc. In a sense, she started as an anti-hero and then just became a straight up villain.
She gave Woodrue what was coming to him tho, which is something.
If anything, Ivy's depiction in the film as an eco-terrorist is something that would never fly today.
A lot of it comes down to presentation. If the movie had been more mindful of narrative opportunities (or at least emphasized what was there), how acting effects characterization, dropped a couple of characters, and not allowed the spectacle to overwhelm all else, the movie as written would have come across better.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 04:33Ivy killed Woodrue, who was willing to perform illegal human experimentation, engage in human trafficking, commit murder, etc. In a sense, she started as an anti-hero and then just became a straight up villain.
She gave Woodrue what was coming to him tho, which is something.
If anything, Ivy's depiction in the film as an eco-terrorist is something that would never fly today.
When we first meet her, she wants to modify plants to fight back against humans.
Ivy values one form of life over another. If we are to believe religious scripture, humans inhabit the Earth to protect it. That explanation never made sense to me. The natural world does not need a custodian. It exists and sustains itself on its own. Ivy is a hardcore environmentalist and knows the human element ruins the natural utopia.
So of course she's going to modify plants against their attackers because to her, plants came first. Every single other thing comes secondary. Which leads me to wonder if this is even considered radical these days? Do these views make her a hero or a villain?
What has been done, has been done. When humans came into existence the world was going to be developed. In 2021, do we really think the planet would still be wild jungle? Ivy can only logically come from the point of view that yes, she hates humanity, but what remains of the natural world must be preserved.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 4 Feb 2021, 01:14
Ivy values one form of life over another. If we are to believe religious scripture, humans inhabit the Earth to protect it. That explanation never made sense to me.
I don't think the Holy Bible says that humans inhabit earth to protect it. I think it says that "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it"
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 18 Oct 2021, 07:36
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 4 Feb 2021, 01:14
Ivy values one form of life over another. If we are to believe religious scripture, humans inhabit the Earth to protect it. That explanation never made sense to me.
I don't think the Holy Bible says that humans inhabit earth to protect it. I think it says that "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it"
The mess of religion is how people choose to interpret things with various contradictions. I did a quick search and found this: "God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and
take care of it. Genesis 2:15." To which I say think for yourself instead of using dusty books from 2000 years ago as life guides.
Quote from: BatmanFurst on Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 20:18
Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:24
Ivy was made more sympathetic and maybe even reasonable, more of an anti-hero?
How different may the film have been like that? And if she didn't have a poison kiss, or could she have been more sympathetic and reasonable even having it?
The problem there is that's basically what Mr. Freeze ends up being in the end. If you're going to have multiple villains they can't all be anti-heroes.
I have a similar criticism when it comes to Riddler and Two-Face being the same comic relief archetype in BF. I believe BF would've been much better if Two-Face was a serious villain, and was the complete opposite of the much more comical Riddler. We know why the reaction to BR was a response to making Two-Face and Riddler the way they were, but I've no doubt BF would've been better off if only one of the villains were comic relief.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 23 Feb 2022, 02:06
I have a similar criticism when it comes to Riddler and Two-Face being the same comic relief archetype in BF. I believe BF would've been much better if Two-Face was a serious villain, and was the complete opposite of the much more comical Riddler. We know why the reaction to BR was a response to making Two-Face and Riddler the way they were, but I've no doubt BF would've been better off if only one of the villains were comic relief.
Yeah, agreed.
Two-Face could have easily been portrayed as more the "straight man", as compared to Carrey's Riddler, and the comedic possibilities would
still be available if Schumacher wanted to, while already in production, amp up the humor.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 24 Feb 2022, 05:03
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 23 Feb 2022, 02:06
I have a similar criticism when it comes to Riddler and Two-Face being the same comic relief archetype in BF. I believe BF would've been much better if Two-Face was a serious villain, and was the complete opposite of the much more comical Riddler. We know why the reaction to BR was a response to making Two-Face and Riddler the way they were, but I've no doubt BF would've been better off if only one of the villains were comic relief.
Yeah, agreed.
Two-Face could have easily been portrayed as more the "straight man", as compared to Carrey's Riddler, and the comedic possibilities would still be available if Schumacher wanted to, while already in production, amp up the humor.
As of late, I think Shumachers biggest gift and curse was the amount of freedom of expression and laid back atmosphere he gave his actors. Carrey was hired to be Carrey, so that can't be helped, but someone needed to tell Tommy Lee Jones to cool it. Two-Face being the straight man (and holding the darker story line together) would of saved the film from alot of its missgivings.
I don't blame Jones. We all know he's more than capable of playing serious roles, he was simply following directions on how to play Two-Face. Schumacher was once quoted saying "if you don't like it, blame the director" in regards to B&R, but when you read into the studio's agenda of making Batman lighter, Schumacher might only deserved to be blamed for being a company man. I don't think making the film toyetic was his idea. The same could be said for making Two-Face a goofy villain.