Batman-Online.com

This is becoming a movement....!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12mkhf_in-defense-of-joel-schumacher-s-batman_shortfilms?fbc=353

Warning for language.

Also, another guy's defense (in two parts) for those who haven't seen them (again warning for language, I think):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMIH7Sp2tEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wyLysZHIHc

A movement I refuse to be a part of.  The moment people start equating the Schumacher films to anything Burton or Nolan did I tune out.  Schumacher was interested in selling toys not making films.

^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 00:15
^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Me too. There's more stuff in BF that matches up with my sensibilities.

I've said it before, but if they included those deleted scenes in BF for a director's cut edition, I'd really sit up and take notice.

As long as no one here is saying that the Schumacher films are as good as the Burton ones...

I don't think anyone is saying that, but if they were, that's their right.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 00:20
I don't think anyone is saying that, but if they were, that's their right.

Of course it is but it just irritates me.  What I love about this site is that it's primarily a celebration of the Burton Batman films.  There are plenty of other places on the net where people are arguing that 'Batman & Robin' is better than 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' and whilst I have to assume that some of those people are genuine I also seriously suspect some of those people have an anti-Burton agenda.  Maybe that makes me paranoid or elitist or whatever but I honestly think 'Batman & Robin' is a borderline travesty, and although I enjoy it on its own terms I cannot see why anyone would prefer it to the Burton Batman films.

I think they were absolutely as good as Tim's, just in a different way. Joel wasn't going for a gothic fairy tale take. He was going for a pop comic stying. Apples and oranges, much in the way Nolan and Burton are unto themselves. B&R is heavily flawed, yes... but 'good' is in the eye of the beholder.

And it was Warner Bros. that wanted his films to be 'toyetic.' In Joel, WB realized they had a man who even though he has artistic vision, he won't fight the studio on their wishes when he's signed a contract. That's why they liked him as a choice.

Gobbs, you seriously should look into more of Joel's filmography---Generally he's made nothing but exceptional (and even dark/nihilistic) films, such as Falling Down, Trespass, Blood Creek, The Number 23, Phone Booth, 8MM, etc.... His Batman flicks are actually the odd set out, and what does that tell you? It was all WB, baby.

BF is Joel when he's left alone. B&R is Joel when he's thrown his hands up and says "you want me to make a toy commercial? You'll get a toy commercial!" And yet still he tries to have real ideas squeezed in there.

And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest. The only difference is one set is more serious than the other--quality is relative.

Well i'm both a tim burton & joel schumacher fan & i love their work both equally despite what people say about ether tim or joel & their minor flaws not only that but i would defend ether films & directors if a hater or anti-fan disses them cause they're not in their taste or wose not really batman films (cause batman kills) i know they have a voice & free to speak how they feel but there are some parts in life where you have to stand up & defend what you love cause these films are the ones that got me into batman & if it weren't for the movies i would've never been a batman fan like i am today.

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 00:36
Gobbs, you seriously should look into more of Joel's filmography---Generally he's made nothing but exceptional (and even dark/nihilistic) films, such as Falling Down, Trespass, Blood Creek, The Number 23, Phone Booth, 8MM, etc.... His Batman flicks are actually the odd set out, and what does that tell you? It was all WB, baby.

If you've seen some of my posts on other threads you'll know that I am an admirer of a lot of Schumacher's 80s/90s work including 'The Lost Boys', 'Flatliners', 'Falling Down', his John Grisham adaptations and even the campily fun 'classic' 'St. Elmo's Fire'.  He also made great work post-Batman with 'Tigerland' and 'Phone Booth' although he seems to have disappeared off the radar lately (although I'd be interested to read your opinions on 'Trespass' and 'Blood Creek').  It's precisely because Schumacher was capable of making a genuinely dark but still visually arresting Batman that his two frankly sub-par efforts are all the more frustrating.  They're both watchable but for me a huge let-down after the first two superlative and today rather underrated Burton-directed Batman movies.

I also echo the sentiment that I'd take Forever over TDK any day, even though Forever is mediocre. That being said, are the rumours about Forever undergoing several edits true, or are they nothing more than a myth?

Quote
10 Great Movies Ruined Entirely By Last Minute Changes

8. Batman Forever

Schumacher has been credited many times with killing the franchise, and he's accepted most of the criticism in stride. But in reality, Schumacher gets unfairly blamed for things that were far beyond his control. Originally, Schumacher wanted his Batman films to have a similar tone to the 1989 Batman. When Schumacher was hired, he wanted to direct an adaptation of Batman: Year One and do a prequel film, but Warner Bros. refused, saying they were only interested in a sequel. Schumacher conceded, and his initial cut of Batman Forever was around two and a half hours long.

This initial version was reportedly much darker than the theatrical cut, and far more similar to Batman than Batman & Robin. The studio forced the movie through several major edits, with somewhere around forty minutes of footage being cut. As opposed to a much darker version of Two-Face and the Riddler, the more camp aspects of the two became highlighted.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-great-movies-ruined-entirely-by-last-minute-changes.php/3 (http://whatculture.com/film/10-great-movies-ruined-entirely-by-last-minute-changes.php/3)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 14:59
I also echo the sentiment that I'd take Forever over TDK any day, even though Forever is mediocre. That being said, are the rumours about Forever undergoing several edits true, or are they nothing more than a myth?

Quote
10 Great Movies Ruined Entirely By Last Minute Changes

8. Batman Forever

Schumacher has been credited many times with killing the franchise, and he's accepted most of the criticism in stride. But in reality, Schumacher gets unfairly blamed for things that were far beyond his control. Originally, Schumacher wanted his Batman films to have a similar tone to the 1989 Batman. When Schumacher was hired, he wanted to direct an adaptation of Batman: Year One and do a prequel film, but Warner Bros. refused, saying they were only interested in a sequel. Schumacher conceded, and his initial cut of Batman Forever was around two and a half hours long.

This initial version was reportedly much darker than the theatrical cut, and far more similar to Batman than Batman & Robin. The studio forced the movie through several major edits, with somewhere around forty minutes of footage being cut. As opposed to a much darker version of Two-Face and the Riddler, the more camp aspects of the two became highlighted.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-great-movies-ruined-entirely-by-last-minute-changes.php/3 (http://whatculture.com/film/10-great-movies-ruined-entirely-by-last-minute-changes.php/3)

Man i hope it's true cause i hope with that version of forever haters can stop bashing it & see a brighter side of BF  :-X

Quote^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Quote
And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest.

:( I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

Eh even without the Nolan worshippers i still don't like the nolan films at all i mean they aren't bad movies it's just that they ain't my cup of tea of batman.  :P

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 20:52

Quote^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Quote
And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest.

:( I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

That's the way I tend to feel Silver Nemesis.  Perhaps I'm being unfair but I see too much hardened Burton or Nolan hatred from each set of fans.  Personally, I think the Burton and Nolan Batman films are great, the Schumacher ones not so much although I'm glad to see people still derive pleasure from them.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 00:19As long as no one here is saying that the Schumacher films are as good as the Burton ones...

The Schumacher films are as good as the Burton ones. Burton nailed a lot of key aspects of the character while Schumacher nailed other ones. To me they're both equally Batman. I enjoy them a lot.

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 00:36Gobbs, you seriously should look into more of Joel's filmography---Generally he's made nothing but exceptional (and even dark/nihilistic) films, such as Falling Down, Trespass, Blood Creek, The Number 23, Phone Booth, 8MM, etc.... His Batman flicks are actually the odd set out, and what does that tell you? It was all WB, baby.

I could be wrong but what it told me was that Joel was willing to subordinate his usual style to accommodate Batman. I admire that. A lot of directors out there would sooner attempt to force the material to suit them... but maybe we should leave Bryan Singer out of the discussion.

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 00:36And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest. The only difference is one set is more serious than the other--quality is relative.

On any other forum, those would be fighting words. But here, more and more it's becoming the prevailing sentiment.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 20:52

Quote from: thecolorsblend^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

:( I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

Hate. I don't know about that. Hate... it's such a strong word.

There's a sequence in TDK where Bruce pretends to run off with the Russian ballet ladies but it's actually just an alibi for Batman to kidnap Lao. Batman field tests his new suit, beats the piss out of Lao's security guards, kidnaps Lao and drags his ass back to Gotham City.

In TDKRises, there's a bit where Batman takes down a few of Bane's thugs and then is forced to escape from Gotham City PD, first using the batcycle and then with the batcopter.

I love both of those sequences because they scream Batman to me. They're just cool and lots of fun to watch!

But the Nolan movies are more than just cool scenes strung together; they deal with ideas too... and I simply don't like very many of those ideas.

Burton and Schumacher had ideas in their movies too but they understood they had to make the real world into myth... while Nolan tried to drag myth into the real world. I find Burton and Schumacher's end results more engaging to my sensibilities than I do Nolan. There's a lot to enjoy in Nolan's movies but ultimately they're not for me.

If other people enjoy them, hey, more power to them. Me being an old fuddy-duddy shouldn't be rain on their parade... but FFS they shouldn't rain on mine and, as others have said, the Nolan Nazis have done that very thing lo these past several years.

I don't hate Nolan's films... they just don't give me any particular joy overall. I'm not going to be inclined to talk-up their enjoyable aspects because... they get praised to death. Overpraised, really. So I'm just less inclined to think about them in general. I'm indifferent on them.

..Which is a lot more than you could say for most fans and their less liked interpretations.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  5 Aug  2013, 20:52

Quote^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Quote
And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest.

:( I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

I can only speak for myself, but I could care less about what other people have to say about the old films, I judged these new movies on their own merits and thought they just sucked. I thought the first one was just poorly made, and story-wise the sequels got worse every time and were an insult to the intelligence.

I mean, I'll admit as long as I treat the third film as a farcical comedy; I tend to enjoy it much better than the other two. But the only few things I genuinely liked were Tom Hardy's comical portrayal as Bane, Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, JGL, and Michael Caine and Gary Oldman in the first film. And I even liked a couple of actions scenes in the second one and the final chase sequence in the third. Otherwise I found everything else in the trilogy to be unworthy of my time. And for such movies that took themselves so seriously, I expected better storytelling than what we got, in my honest point of view.

QuoteBut the Nolan movies are more than just cool scenes strung together; they deal with ideas too... and I simply don't like very many of those ideas.

I don't mind if themes in a story are actually clever and are well thought out, like the divided public opinion over Batman's crime-fighting stance in The Dark Knight Returns. But, if you're going to simply throw ideas like Batman is supposed to stand for order as opposed to Joker's chaos, but still have Batman trash the city and endanger everybody else while driving vehicles in pursuit of the Joker, then I'm not going to be impressed.

It's interesting how many times studio interference has ruined comic films;

Schumacher had a great film lined up with Forever, everyone I've spoken to who has seen the deleted scenes believes they would have improved the movie.
As we all know the studio interfered heavily with Batman and Robin and got the film they wanted; a 2 hour toy commercial appropriate for children. And of course the studio ran Burton out in the first place.

Mark Steven Johnson was left alone while making daredevil because the studio didn't see it as a box office smash. After spider-mans success, they began to interfere and similar to batman forever, forced the director to churn out a more family friendly movie which was far worse; if you haven't seen the directors cut, check it out.

Sam Raimi was well on his way with the spider-man films, the second one was considered the greatest comic film of all time at the time (then Batman Begins came and the Nolanites had to trash every film which rivaled it but that's another story); with the third film they pressured him to include Venom and it brought down the franchise and Rami gets criticized for misusing a character he didn't want there in the first place.

Iron Man 2 as well was underwhelming with John Favreau having less control over the first film although at least in this case it is understandable with the avengers coming.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 02:01Schumacher had a great film lined up with Forever, everyone I've spoken to who has seen the deleted scenes believes they would have improved the movie.

The cuts made improved the flow of a movie intended to be a summer actionfest. Goldsman placed the scene where Bruce reconciles his guilt over his parents death in the absolute worst part of the movie. The stakes have been raised as high as they can be and it's time for Batman to go into action... not an introspective voyage of self-discovery. Don't blame the studio; blame Goldsman for not putting the scene some place else.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 02:01As we all know the studio interfered heavily with Batman and Robin and got the film they wanted; a 2 hour toy commercial appropriate for children. And of course the studio ran Burton out in the first place.

I'll grant this... with the proviso that none of this was kept secret from Schumacher. He knew what he was getting himself into.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 02:01Mark Steven Johnson was left alone while making daredevil because the studio didn't see it as a box office smash. After spider-mans success, they began to interfere and similar to batman forever, forced the director to churn out a more family friendly movie which was far worse; if you haven't seen the directors cut, check it out.

The studio wanted a fast-paced, 90 minute film. MSJ should've given them a fast-paced, 90 minute film. I realize he wants to satisfy his inner artist. But whatever, the studio is paying the bill and they were clear up front that this son of a son needs to be about 90 minutes. I blame him.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 02:01Sam Raimi was well on his way with the spider-man films, the second one was considered the greatest comic film of all time at the time (then Batman Begins came and the Nolanites had to trash every film which rivaled it but that's another story);

Day-um, son, I'd totally forgotten about Spidey 2 being so crowned but you're right. You're absolutely right, that's how things were shaping up until Nolan came along. Man...

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 02:01with the third film they pressured him to include Venom and it brought down the franchise and Rami gets criticized for misusing a character he didn't want there in the first place.

Venom wasn't the center piece villain of the film, that much is true, but I don't think he got shortchanged. Eddie Brock is a loser who found the symbiote. The movie showed Eddie Brock as a loser who found the symbiote. Apart from quibbling over his use of personal pronouns, I don't see how Spider-Man 3 was too far off in its presentation of Venom.

If anything, I'd say what kind of ruined that franchise for me was Mary Jane getting kidnapped and used as bait by the villain in every goddamn one of them. Find a new plot already, Raimi!

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 02:01Iron Man 2 as well was underwhelming with John Favreau having less control over the first film although at least in this case it is understandable with the avengers coming.

Iron Man 2 is an underwhelming story. Tony is getting poisoned. Okay, that's a little interesting. Tony is getting harassed by the government who think they own the citizens. Alright, the libertarian in me can definitely see Tony's point of view. But the key conflicts and baddies revolve around warmed over leftovers from the first Iron Man. Someone is using Stark's technology against him... so Stark has to use his own technology better to win the day! Eh. The Avengers infomercial aspects are what sustain my interest in that movie.

And Favreau wasn't happy about the Avengers stuff? Coulson and Fury only have a few scenes. The references to Avengers stuff isn't as heavy as he seems to think from what I remember. Frankly, I think Favreau wanted to find other stuff to do and the Avengers excuse was a convenient one. Iron Man 3 was a fairly stand alone movie. You can't not acknowledge what Tony went through with the Avengers but it's not like IM3 was an Avengers film guest starring Iron Man. I like Favreau as an actor and as a director but I don't buy his excuse for leaving the franchise. He was ready to move on and I think he invented an ejection seat to do so. Fine, good for him, but I don't believe him.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 03:24
The cuts made improved the flow of a movie intended to be a summer actionfest. Goldsman placed the scene where Bruce reconciles his guilt over his parents death in the absolute worst part of the movie. The stakes have been raised as high as they can be and it's time for Batman to go into action... not an introspective voyage of self-discovery. Don't blame the studio; blame Goldsman for not putting the scene some place else.

Actually, I disagree. I think it was perfect for building tension... Alfred even lists all the reasons why they're in deep sh*t to Bruce while he's in the bed lying down. Chase is kidnapped, the cave is destroyed, Dick has run away, and there's another riddle. Bruce's entire world is scattered and blown apart... and he's forgotten his life as Batman.  ???  Admittedly not psychologically realistic but hey, it's a movie.

So the villains are poised to win completely, and the audience would have been worried that Batman was as good as dead already, since he was (metaphorically) dead in Bruce. We see a bit of a hushed moment between Bruce and Alfred, and we see Bruce at his lowest point in the film, he's timid, afraid of confronting the reality of this life he's forgotten...the responsibility... in a way he's freed in the way he wants to be because if this were any other situation, the curse of Batman'd be lifted but he has to face it, so he goes into the cave.

Cue finding the book, the bat, the pan-around shot with Bruce and the bat puppet (which, had it been scored, would have been epically toned) and he emerges from the cave.... Batman has returned and the villains are in trouble. Would have been more effective than Batman's sudden return in TDKRises, on the ice coming out of the dark with no fanfare. Under Joel's hand in a final edit it would have been a stand-up-and-cheer moment.

I'll give you that it coming so late in the film and only being a subplot that lasts about 3 minutes is less effective than the idea deserves, but under the hand of a skilled director such as Schumacher, with a full score and a final, tightened edit, it would have been effective even through it's brevity.

QuoteVenom wasn't the center piece villain of the film, that much is true, but I don't think he got shortchanged. Eddie Brock is a loser who found the symbiote. The movie showed Eddie Brock as a loser who found the symbiote. Apart from quibbling over his use of personal pronouns, I don't see how Spider-Man 3 was too far off in its presentation of Venom.

I agree. As a Spider-Man fan and a Venom fan... he was great in SM3. I actually think Grace's Brock is more interesting and entertaining than the comics version. Playing up the "evil Spider-Man" aspect by making Brock more like Peter was a great enhancement to Venom. I could have done with more screen time for him, but he was fantastically done.

QuoteAlfred even lists all the reasons why they're in deep sh*t to Bruce while he's in the bed lying down. Chase is kidnapped, the cave is destroyed, Dick has run away, and there's another riddle. Bruce's entire world is scattered and blown apart... and he's forgotten his life as Batman.  ???  Admittedly not psychologically realistic but hey, it's a movie.

I think the scene of bruce finding out his parents death was not his fault made too much sense to leave out; he stops being tortured (which explains why doesn't act that way in the next film) and makes the transition to choosing to be batman.

QuoteI agree. As a Spider-Man fan and a Venom fan... he was great in SM3. I actually think Grace's Brock is more interesting and entertaining than the comics version. Playing up the "evil Spider-Man" aspect by making Brock more like Peter was a great enhancement to Venom. I could have done with more screen time for him, but he was fantastically done.

I'm as big of a spidey fan as I am a batman fan and Venom is my favourite villain. I think if the series continued and we got reduced to lesser villains, I'd have been unhappy in the back of my mind knowing we barely got any Venom and no Carnage. But since the series is over, I liked the way he was handled. I definitely though Topher Grace was passionate about his role, I don't think they need a big strong actor playing venom; they played Brock as more of a parallel version of Parker but with less morals. Topher explains his characters inspiration as "what if a bad person got Peter's powers". He basically is the evil version of spider-man with slightly more powers.

But anyhow keep in mind that film was made with the series intended to continue so I think if it did go the planned 6 films, the lack of Venom would have been a legit criticism.

QuoteThe studio wanted a fast-paced, 90 minute film. MSJ should've given them a fast-paced, 90 minute film. I realize he wants to satisfy his inner artist. But whatever, the studio is paying the bill and they were clear up front that this son of a son needs to be about 90 minutes. I blame him.

But MSJ did not get to make what he signed on for; initially it was expected to be a modestly profitable R rated film. After filming had completed (and the success of spider-man), the studio made him reshoot and recut the film to have it PG. You have to admit it's hard for any director to completely finish a film assuming and R rating and then be told "we changed our mind, we need you to make it lighter and PG"

QuoteDay-um, son, I'd totally forgotten about Spidey 2 being so crowned but you're right. You're absolutely right, that's how things were shaping up until Nolan came along. Man...

It was on the top 250 list in 2005 well over 8 on the IMDB. Today it sits at 7.4 : two main factors brought it down- the Nolanites inability to accept any other superhero films (I'm sure they all gave it low ratings) and some peoples opinion on Raimi changing from 'genius' to 'hack' after being underwhelmed by the third film. Also while the new vs old debate isn't nearly as bad with the spider-man films than the batman films, there are inevitably fans of the new series which lowered their opinions of the old series.

QuoteIf anything, I'd say what kind of ruined that franchise for me was Mary Jane getting kidnapped and used as bait by the villain in every goddamn one of them. Find a new plot already, Raimi!

To be fair the original plan was Gwen Stacy getting kidnapped, Raimi had to change it to MJ once Bryce Dallas Howard got pregnant. That being said the 'danzel in distress' was badly overdone with Parker saving MJ's life SIX times in that trilogy as well as saving Gwen once.

QuoteAnd Favreau wasn't happy about the Avengers stuff? Coulson and Fury only have a few scenes. The references to Avengers stuff isn't as heavy as he seems to think from what I remember. Frankly, I think Favreau wanted to find other stuff to do and the Avengers excuse was a convenient one. Iron Man 3 was a fairly stand alone movie. You can't not acknowledge what Tony went through with the Avengers but it's not like IM3 was an Avengers film guest starring Iron Man. I like Favreau as an actor and as a director but I don't buy his excuse for leaving the franchise. He was ready to move on and I think he invented an ejection seat to do so. Fine, good for him, but I don't believe him.

favreau was more constricted with what he could do in the second film vs. the first. The avengers references aren't overloaded but consider the following; the first film had cap's shield barely visible in a scene and nick fury in the credits, that's it. The second film had Fury and Coulson as characters in the film, the avenger initiative discussed at the end with the Hulk rampage on the monitors, Caps shield, Black Widow as a main character, and Thor's hammer in the credits.

I think by IM3, they didn't need to heavily reference the avengers; it already happened, no need to build it up, the challenge was more to go back and do a successful solo film. That was actually the first film in the avenger series which has NO foreshadowing for any future films; they talk a little bit about the avengers but even the credit scene doesn't give any hints like all the ones before, it's merely for comedy.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25But MSJ did not get to make what he signed on for; initially it was expected to be a modestly profitable R rated film. After filming had completed (and the success of spider-man), the studio made him reshoot and recut the film to have it PG. You have to admit it's hard for any director to completely finish a film assuming and R rating and then be told "we changed our mind, we need you to make it lighter and PG"

This I did not know. Okay then.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25It was on the top 250 list in 2005 well over 8 on the IMDB. Today it sits at 7.4 : two main factors brought it down- the Nolanites inability to accept any other superhero films (I'm sure they all gave it low ratings) and some peoples opinion on Raimi changing from 'genius' to 'hack' after being underwhelmed by the third film. Also while the new vs old debate isn't nearly as bad with the spider-man films than the batman films, there are inevitably fans of the new series which lowered their opinions of the old series.

I'm sort of in the middle on that. I thought the Raimi films were far too parasitic of the Reeve Superman films and, irrespective of BDH getting knocked up, too repetitive in some respects.

On the other hand, Raimi's Spider-Man is more in line with the Lee/Romita Spider-Man and I have a real fondness for that era. So hmm.

Then you get into the, in my view, completely unnecessary reboot... which was nevertheless fun to watch and took inspiration from other eras of the character... and I dunno, it's tough to bash on it too much. Plus, Garfield killed it in a way that Maguire just didn't.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25To be fair the original plan was Gwen Stacy getting kidnapped, Raimi had to change it to MJ once Bryce Dallas Howard got pregnant. That being said the 'danzel in distress' was badly overdone with Parker saving MJ's life SIX times in that trilogy as well as saving Gwen once.

Speaking as someone who's not a director and doesn't have to deal with potential fallout from a major Hollywood starlet potentially risking her pregnancy just to shoot an action scene, part of me wonders why he couldn't have used her for close ups and body doubles/stunt doubles/CGI doubles for the action stuff. Only use BDH for the moments when she can stand stock-still.

Also, I realize the BDH thing is the narrative that gets floated around but I don't see why Sandman or Venom would target her. It's simply not logical. MJ is the more likely hostage.

Bear in mind, I'm arguing from ignorance on a lot of this but it just doesn't look like the "it was supposed to be Bryce" bit holds up.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25favreau was more constricted with what he could do in the second film vs. the first. The avengers references aren't overloaded but consider the following; the first film had cap's shield barely visible in a scene and nick fury in the credits, that's it. The second film had Fury and Coulson as characters in the film,

Common in franchise films.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25the avenger initiative discussed at the end

Five or ten minutes out of how long a movie?

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25with the Hulk rampage on the monitors,

That's a visual effect. It could've been anything on the "screen" for all the difference it made to how easy or difficult or long or short the setup for the shot was. The specifics are the computer effects guys' territory.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25Caps shield,

Prop department. Would Favreau have felt somehow more placated if the prop had been an encyclopedia or a stack of unsold Swingers DVD's?

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25Black Widow as a main character,

She was a supporting character in that movie. Cumulatively she probably had less than 15 minutes of screen time. And I don't see how this is any different from any other franchise movie where the studio says a certain character must be thrown in.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25and Thor's hammer in the credits.

The camera starts on Thor's hammer and then drifts up to Coulson who speaks into a cell phone or walkie talkie or something. That is (or could be) pure second unit. There's no reason Favreau would necessarily have had to direct that shot himself when signature stuff like Stark's landing at the Expo is obviously more deserving of his attention.

More broadly, and again speaking as someone who's not a director and doesn't have to deal with this BS... part of the gig, man. If you do big tentpole movies like this with big budgets then you should know ahead of time that it's filmmaking by committee. That's especially true for a start up movie studio that's betting their entire existence on a movie designed to secure their long term future. I don't see how Favreau's task was any different from directors who are instructed to insert a certain catch phrase here, product placement there, room for a video game sequence here, an idea from the toy designers there and so forth.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:25I think by IM3, they didn't need to heavily reference the avengers; it already happened, no need to build it up, the challenge was more to go back and do a successful solo film. That was actually the first film in the avenger series which has NO foreshadowing for any future films; they talk a little bit about the avengers but even the credit scene doesn't give any hints like all the ones before, it's merely for comedy.

All the more reason for Favreau to stay, yes? "Hey Mr. Favreau, Kevin Feige here, say, we've got the Avengers stuff out of our system so you know that standalone movie you said you wanted last time? Well I've got good news, buddy, we're doing a standalone Iron Man 3. Who's your friend? Huh? Who's your buddy? Who makes stuff HAPPEN for you, huh?" C'mon, I think the more logical explanation is that Favreau had some interesting offers to direct other movies come his way as a direct result of his success with Iron Man and he naturally wanted to explore those and experiment with telling other types of stories. Who could blame him? I don't begrudge him that.

Maybe you're exactly right, maybe Favreau left for all the reasons you say but based on the examples you (and people from other boards) have cited, I just find that kind of hard to believe. It doesn't add up for me.

 I call Batman Forever an average comic book flick that could've been better, and Batman & Robin a trainwreck.

That said, I like Batman Forever more than Singer's X-Men films or Raimi's Spider-Man films (Spider-Man 2 was pretty good though)

QuoteAll the more reason for Favreau to stay, yes? "Hey Mr. Favreau, Kevin Feige here, say, we've got the Avengers stuff out of our system so you know that standalone movie you said you wanted last time? Well I've got good news, buddy, we're doing a standalone Iron Man 3. Who's your friend? Huh? Who's your buddy? Who makes stuff HAPPEN for you, huh?" C'mon, I think the more logical explanation is that Favreau had some interesting offers to direct other movies come his way as a direct result of his success with Iron Man and he naturally wanted to explore those and experiment with telling other types of stories. Who could blame him? I don't begrudge him that.

Maybe you're exactly right, maybe Favreau left for all the reasons you say but based on the examples you (and people from other boards) have cited, I just find that kind of hard to believe. It doesn't add up for me.

Not to derail the Schumacher thread further with Iron Man discussions, but did Favreau ever say that he left the Iron Man franchise due to what happened behind the scenes of the second movie?  From what I read, he left the director's chair for exactly what you say- he wanted to move onto different projects, with Disney's Magic Kingdom coming up.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/jon-favreau-explains-why-he-traded-iron-man-3-for-disneyland-trip/

And I agree that it's believable.  I feel that if there was any lasting ill will between Favreau and Marvel, it wasn't evident in Iron Man 3.  Even though he wasn't in the director's chair, Favreau still had his biggest acting part out of all three IM movies in that one.  He could've easily walked away from the franchise and Shane Black could've replaced his character with someone else (or recast him.  See Terrence Howard and Ed Norton, who had much bigger parts than Favreau ever did as Happy Hogan).

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 18:21

QuoteAll the more reason for Favreau to stay, yes? "Hey Mr. Favreau, Kevin Feige here, say, we've got the Avengers stuff out of our system so you know that standalone movie you said you wanted last time? Well I've got good news, buddy, we're doing a standalone Iron Man 3. Who's your friend? Huh? Who's your buddy? Who makes stuff HAPPEN for you, huh?" C'mon, I think the more logical explanation is that Favreau had some interesting offers to direct other movies come his way as a direct result of his success with Iron Man and he naturally wanted to explore those and experiment with telling other types of stories. Who could blame him? I don't begrudge him that.

Maybe you're exactly right, maybe Favreau left for all the reasons you say but based on the examples you (and people from other boards) have cited, I just find that kind of hard to believe. It doesn't add up for me.

Not to derail the Schumacher thread further with Iron Man discussions, but did Favreau ever say that he left the Iron Man franchise due to what happened behind the scenes of the second movie?  From what I read, he left the director's chair for exactly what you say- he wanted to move onto different projects, with Disney's Magic Kingdom coming up.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/jon-favreau-explains-why-he-traded-iron-man-3-for-disneyland-trip/

And I agree that it's believable.  I feel that if there was any lasting ill will between Favreau and Marvel, it wasn't evident in Iron Man 3.  Even though he wasn't in the director's chair, Favreau still had his biggest acting part out of all three IM movies in that one.  He could've easily walked away from the franchise and Shane Black could've replaced his character with someone else (or recast him.  See Terrence Howard and Ed Norton, who had much bigger parts than Favreau ever did as Happy Hogan).

I don't think it's been conclusively revealed why Favreau was not in the chair for iron man 3 (was he even offered it or did he decline?). Either way it didn't seem like he was a malcontent, he says good things about the experience and that he felt it helped improve his own character (which it does, Happy's best film as a character was the third film).  It seems like it was kind of more mutual.  Now maybe this is marvels plan, interesting to note that at this point in time, Favreau is the only man to direct two films in the avengers series; Thor and Cap are both changing directors for their sequels. Now maybe it's directors not enjoying having their films constricted by Marvel's ultimate plotlines or maybe Marvel is doing it hoping each individual film can get its own feel and identity (as some people do feel the second iron man was too similar to the first).

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 21:00
Now maybe it's directors not enjoying having their films constricted by Marvel's ultimate plotlines or maybe Marvel is doing it hoping each individual film can get its own feel and identity (as some people do feel the second iron man was too similar to the first).

I always thought it was the latter.  Get fairly distinctive directors, if not necessarily auteurs, to add their own stamp to each film to give them a degree of uniqueness.  Makes sense bearing in mind that these films are part of a continuous series and therefore might otherwise run the risk of looking 'samey'.

I think trying to compare Schumacher's films to Nolan's are worlds apart, because their objective are polar opposites. The Nolan films conceptualized the Batman myth by asking (and romanticizing) the question, "If this could really happen, how would he do it?" Of course it's in a hyper-reality without any basis in truth. But there are several aspects about it that make it feel grounded. First and foremost, performing the duties of Batman can NOT be a life long career. Despite the advantages of technology, Wayne is still battered from his nightly ventures into fighting crime. So it doesn't take long before the ravages of that abuse take it's toll. But Nolan sets it up to where Batman "the hero" can continue. And for once, Bruce Wayne gets to find that peace that Batman could never provide him. For me, it was a fascinating study on the character, that flushed him all the way out. Certainly not a comic book style direction. But nonetheless, an interesting point of view that clearly brought in enormous box office around the world. So it's accomplishments speak for itself. Being such a huge fan of that trilogy would likely make most believe I'm ready to dismantle the Schumacher films. Not so. I liked those films as well, but for different reasons.

If the history of Batman has proven anything, it's that the concept can be successfully reinterpreted so many different ways. I think Schumacher embraced the comic book aspect from the 60's and essentially said, "Lets have some fun with this." And I'm very glad he did. Because in this day and age where everything has to be taken SO SERIOUS, it's refreshing to have an interpretation where the focus is really on the surface texture of the character. It's about the environment, the costumes, the colorful personalities, and the lighter qualities that make the hero "cool". Because at the end of the day it IS a man dressed up like a bat. Exactly how serious should we take this? So there are times when I look forward to putting in Schumacher's films, while others I want a different take, so I pop in the Nolan versions. But I see absolutely no reason why anyone can't like both, since neither really compete with each other.

I think B&R would have been more broadly accepted had Schumacher dialed back some of the sexual innuendo and tired one liners that littered this film. I love the look of that movie. The costumes, sets, and Batmobile are great looking additions to the Batman universe. I just personally think Schumacher saw the sets and probably felt like everything else would take a back seat. So I think he went overboard in competing with it. And I doubt the studio asked him to shoot butt shots in the opening sequence or encouraged him to lace the dialogue with sexual innuendo like Ivy's, "I'll help you grab your rocks." Or "There's something about an anatomically correct rubber suit that puts fire in a girl's lips." For a film that should have been 100% family friendly, these were awkward moments that didn't belong. So the movie suffered from tonality issues more than anything. That and I don't think Mr. Freeze had a full paragraph of dialogue that didn't contain a ice joke. So those moments really undermined any sense of pathos one could have for his yearning to save his wife . I also would have preferred Clooney at least make some effort to disguise his voice as Batman. He has a very distinctive voice. So talking like the same person in or out of the mask (in a very public setting) effectively killed the notion no one would recognize who he was.  And to me, those aspects of the film are VERY MUCH controlled by the director.

I don't accept Schumacher's excuse the studio ruined the film by asking him to promote the product side of the movie. Being "toyetic" is hardly a new concept for superhero films. What is Iron Man? What is the Avengers? What is Spider-man? And if we want to cross hairs on the definition, we even have HUGE blockbusters based on actual toys. Anyone heard of Transformers?  :-\ So being "toyetic" is something EVERYONE should anticipate on some level in a superhero movie. After all, these movies are made to sell merchandise. Yes, the American Express card moment is ridiculous and poorly concocted. But the look of B&R fits with the previous movie, so I don't see where the totality of the film's appearance hurt tickets sales.

At the end of the day, both Forever and B&R are great looking movies and fun to watch in their own right (warts and all). So I have no problem accepting them as I do the Nolan films. Two different approaches and both done mostly well in my book. It's a pity Schumacher took such a beating after B&R. The man certainly got black listed in Hollywood after that. I don't think he remotely deserved it. There are SCORES of poorly made films in this genre that don't even approach the level of quality both of these films still possess. And for all the criticism piled against the Schumacher films, they're both still visually fun to watch after all these years. That speaks volumes right there.

I thought about starting another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate to post this here.

I listened to this podcast on a show called Trentus Magnus Punches Reality. The show's host defends the Schumacher's movies by arguing they aren't the biggest crimes against humanity as many people make them out to be, despite their legitimate problems. Magnus - the host - argues that there is a bit of depth going on in BF and B&R e.g. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from going down the same murderous path as he did, and how the two needed to make amends in the fourth film for not only Alfred's sake, but themselves as a team. And among other things, he he doesn't mind how Two-Face is portrayed in Forever; in fact, he argues that people would be scared of him if he existed in real life.

You can listen to the podcast here, but you'll need to fast forward to get to the topic. It starts on 13 minutes and 50 seconds.

http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/TheSecondEpisodeAnniversaryEpic.mp3

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 26 Feb  2015, 10:05
I thought about starting another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate to post this here.

I listened to this podcast on a show called Trentus Magnus Punches Reality. The show's host defends the Schumacher's movies by arguing they aren't the biggest crimes against humanity as many people make them out to be, despite their legitimate problems. Magnus - the host - argues that there is a bit of depth going on in BF and B&R e.g. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from going down the same murderous path as he did, and how the two needed to make amends in the fourth film for not only Alfred's sake, but themselves as a team. And among other things, he he doesn't mind how Two-Face is portrayed in Forever; in fact, he argues that people would be scared of him if he existed in real life.

You can listen to the podcast here, but you'll need to fast forward to get to the topic. It starts on 13 minutes and 50 seconds.

http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/TheSecondEpisodeAnniversaryEpic.mp3

The title of that episode is The Second Episode Anniversary Epic Milestone Retrospective Spectacular Extravaganza. The common consensus among a lot of people (myself included) is that takes some serious balls to do a retrospective in the second episode of your podcast.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Jul  2015, 01:13

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 26 Feb  2015, 10:05
I thought about starting another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate to post this here.

I listened to this podcast on a show called Trentus Magnus Punches Reality. The show's host defends the Schumacher's movies by arguing they aren't the biggest crimes against humanity as many people make them out to be, despite their legitimate problems. Magnus - the host - argues that there is a bit of depth going on in BF and B&R e.g. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from going down the same murderous path as he did, and how the two needed to make amends in the fourth film for not only Alfred's sake, but themselves as a team. And among other things, he he doesn't mind how Two-Face is portrayed in Forever; in fact, he argues that people would be scared of him if he existed in real life.

You can listen to the podcast here, but you'll need to fast forward to get to the topic. It starts on 13 minutes and 50 seconds.

http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/TheSecondEpisodeAnniversaryEpic.mp3

The title of that episode is The Second Episode Anniversary Epic Milestone Retrospective Spectacular Extravaganza. The common consensus among a lot of people (myself included) is that takes some serious balls to do a retrospective in the second episode of your podcast.

Hey colors! How are you going? It's been a while.

It's a pretty good podcast, isn't it?  ;) And you're right that it takes some courage to do a retrospective in the second episode ever, especially for films that people haven't taken too kindly to...until arguably now.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 27 Jul  2015, 09:18Hey colors! How are you going?

By train, I'm afraid.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 27 Jul  2015, 09:18It's been a while.

Indeed it has. Life. You know?

Life...

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 27 Jul  2015, 09:18It's a pretty good podcast, isn't it?  ;)

You know the truth. Don't you?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 27 Jul  2015, 09:18And you're right that it takes some courage to do a retrospective in the second episode ever, especially for films that people haven't taken too kindly to...until arguably now.

Indeed. This new look the Schumacher movies have been getting the past few years is quite welcome. I think it's perhaps all the demand we've had lately for a "fun" Batman movie that people remember, hey, Schumacher made a couple of fun Batman movies. Love them or hate them, they didn't aspire to be something they weren't.

Nolan's movies are fine in their place... but there's plenty of room for more than just his take.

I just watched this one for the first time in five years (weeks after seeing Batman Begins again). It's definitely not that bad, it's fun and campy and you could tell Schumacher did attempt to bring that comic book to life. That's fine that it's not everyones favourite variation but it is a version of Batman whether people enjoy it or not. While Nolan bored us to tears at points, Schumacher kept the pace rolling, if anything he could have dialed it back. It's too bad the series didn't go on because I felt like this one was the start of a new chapter for batman; he's no longer lonely and tortured over his parents, he has Dick under his wing but he realizes his own mentor Alfred wont be around to guide him.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 28 Jul  2015, 03:43
I just watched this one for the first time in five years (weeks after seeing Batman Begins again). It's definitely not that bad, it's fun and campy and you could tell Schumacher did attempt to bring that comic book to life.

BF is better than TDK and TDKR. You won't find many people saying that on other forums without being called a troll. But this place is different.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 28 Jul  2015, 04:45

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 28 Jul  2015, 03:43
I just watched this one for the first time in five years (weeks after seeing Batman Begins again). It's definitely not that bad, it's fun and campy and you could tell Schumacher did attempt to bring that comic book to life.

BF is better than TDK and TDKR. You won't find many people saying that on other forums without being called a troll. But this place is different.

TROLL!!!

Only kidding.  ;)

QuoteBF is better than TDK and TDKR. You won't find many people saying that on other forums without being called a troll. But this place is different.

I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises (I just can't find the interest) but I've always thought Batman Forever is better than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight or at least more fun and enjoyable. I'll even admit I enjoy Batman & Robin better than those two newer movies.

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Wed, 29 Jul  2015, 00:23

QuoteBF is better than TDK and TDKR. You won't find many people saying that on other forums without being called a troll. But this place is different.

I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises (I just can't find the interest) but I've always thought Batman Forever is better than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight or at least more fun and enjoyable. I'll even admit I enjoy Batman & Robin better than those two newer movies.

I don't mind BB actually. But agree Schumacher's two movies are infinitely more watchable.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 29 Jul  2015, 03:20I don't mind BB actually. But agree Schumacher's two movies are infinitely more watchable.

It is interesting how BB ended up aging the best. Yeah, TDK has that high falutin' "serious cinema" cred (and a swiss cheese story) and TDKRises has an amazing first hour or so (and the rest is mostly "meh").

For most of BB's runtime though, you're into the story, the actors are as invested in the characters as they'll ever be (seriously, it's all downhill from here) and the BB villains were all new to live action.

Really, the only thing that got indisputably better as the trilogy went on if you ask me was the music. Zimmer was less experimental with BB's score. It has melody to it and that's nice. But it doesn't have the same innovative qualities to it as the scores for TDK and TDKRises.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Jul  2015, 07:21

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 29 Jul  2015, 03:20I don't mind BB actually. But agree Schumacher's two movies are infinitely more watchable.

It is interesting how BB ended up aging the best. Yeah, TDK has that high falutin' "serious cinema" cred (and a swiss cheese story) and TDKRises has an amazing first hour or so (and the rest is mostly "meh").

For most of BB's runtime though, you're into the story, the actors are as invested in the characters as they'll ever be (seriously, it's all downhill from here) and the BB villains were all new to live action.

Really, the only thing that got indisputably better as the trilogy went on if you ask me was the music. Zimmer was less experimental with BB's score. It has melody to it and that's nice. But it doesn't have the same innovative qualities to it as the scores for TDK and TDKRises.

I don't get how there's a swiss cheese story.

"I don't want to kill you!"

"You know, I thought you really were Dent."

In the scene preceding those two lines of dialogue, the Joker opened fire on Harvey's convoy and he was clearly shooting to kill. If he really thought Harvey was Batman... well, obviously he wanted to kill him.

Of course, that all ended up being a ruse anyway. Apparently the Joker intended to get caught. So rather than fake it and allow himself to get caught in a way that might not get him killed, he finds the most intricate, Rube Goldberg way to "infiltrate" the police station.

All this requires the Joker to know Harvey wasn't actually Batman (which invalidates the first part of the interrogation scene with Batman) and for him to somehow predict he'd be kept in the same holding cell as Random Thug #1 into whose chest he'd implanted a bomb. It also requires him to know he'd somehow be able to detonate the bomb in a way that wouldn't take himself out too.

The obvious question to ask is why would he go to all this trouble? You could say he was protecting the mob (his temporary employers) and his real objective was getting to Lao. Fine.

If that's the argument, why even get arrested at all? Why not stitch a phone into Random Thug #1's chest, have him get arrested for something or other and then detonate the bomb remotely? That alone might kill Lao. But if it didn't, the police station would be chaos and smithereens, which would allow a cop on Maroni's payroll (which don't seem to be in short supply) to kill Lao when nobody's looking.

Was the Joker's objective then a face-to-face conversation with Batman? Um, why would he want that? But if I'm supposed to believe the Joker needed some kind of conversation with Batman, there are any number of other ways to get it. Allowing himself to get arrested is probably the stupidest possible way to go about the job considering he can't be sure Gordon will let him be interrogated by Batman.

All around, TDK works great as long as you don't think about it very much.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Jul  2015, 08:43
"I don't want to kill you!"

"You know, I thought you really were Dent."

In the scene preceding those two lines of dialogue, the Joker opened fire on Harvey's convoy and he was clearly shooting to kill. If he really thought Harvey was Batman... well, obviously he wanted to kill him.

That's not the line. He says, "You know... for a minute there... I thought you really were Dent. The way you threw yourself after her!" This showcases that when he attacked the convoy he likely didn't believe that Dent was Batman. But for a minute after the fake reveal he did.

QuoteOf course, that all ended up being a ruse anyway. Apparently the Joker intended to get caught. So rather than fake it and allow himself to get caught in a way that might not get him killed, he finds the most intricate, Rube Goldberg way to "infiltrate" the police station.

The Joker doesn't seem to really care if he gets killed.

QuoteAll this requires the Joker to know Harvey wasn't actually Batman (which invalidates the first part of the interrogation scene with Batman) and for him to somehow predict he'd be kept in the same holding cell as Random Thug #1 into whose chest he'd implanted a bomb. It also requires him to know he'd somehow be able to detonate the bomb in a way that wouldn't take himself out too.

The Joker says that he just does things. He didn't know that he could detonate the bomb in a way that wouldn't take him out too. He just did it. It also doesn't really seem to matter if the thug was in his cell or not. But the mob does have cops on their payroll.

QuoteThe obvious question to ask is why would he go to all this trouble? You could say he was protecting the mob (his temporary employers) and his real objective was getting to Lao. Fine.

If that's the argument, why even get arrested at all? Why not stitch a phone into Random Thug #1's chest, have him get arrested for something or other and then detonate the bomb remotely? That alone might kill Lao. But if it didn't, the police station would be chaos and smithereens, which would allow a cop on Maroni's payroll (which don't seem to be in short supply) to kill Lao when nobody's looking.

Thank you for this. This forced me to realize something I hadn't thought about.

The Joker doesn't want Lao dead. Because Lao is the only person who knows where the money is. So, blowing him up would be counter-productive. He needs him alive to get the money.

QuoteWas the Joker's objective then a face-to-face conversation with Batman? Um, why would he want that? But if I'm supposed to believe the Joker needed some kind of conversation with Batman, there are any number of other ways to get it. Allowing himself to get arrested is probably the stupidest possible way to go about the job considering he can't be sure Gordon will let him be interrogated by Batman.

All around, TDK works great as long as you don't think about it very much.

The Joker says why he did this: He wanted to see what Batman would do. Why would he want a conversation with Batman? What? Because he adores the crap out of him. He completes him. This plan achieved all his goals. It makes sense.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 04:41That's not the line. He says, "You know... for a minute there... I thought you really were Dent. The way you threw yourself after her!"

So my summary of the line I wrote off the top of my head wasn't word-for-word perfect?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 04:41The Joker doesn't seem to really care if he gets killed.

Ah yes, the Indestructible Crazy Enemy. He can do anything and succeed at anything because, whoa, he's crazy, man!!!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 04:41The Joker says that he just does things.

Nice try but in that same scene he denies having a plan. That's contradicted by his actions in kidnapping Rachel and Harvey and deliberately giving Batman and the police the mixed up addresses. It's also contradicted by the scene where Batman dangles him off a building and he admits to targeting Harvey in all this.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 04:41The Joker doesn't want Lao dead. Because Lao is the only person who knows where the money is. So, blowing him up would be counter-productive. He needs him alive to get the money.

Really? But that can't be right. I thought the Joker was a guy with simple tastes. Doesn't he enjoy dynamite and gunpowder and gasoline? I mean, the thing they have in common is they're cheap. Why, if the Joker ever came face to face with a huge pile of money, I could see him burning it up or something.

So no. I don't buy a word of what you just said.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 04:41The Joker says why he did this: He wanted to see what Batman would do. Why would he want a conversation with Batman? What? Because he adores the crap out of him. He completes him. This plan achieved all his goals. It makes sense.

Again, if that's all he wanted to do, there are less risky ways of going about it.

There are positive aspects of Nolan's films but overall they really only work for me as an Elseworld's story.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 16:46So my summary of the line I wrote off the top of my head wasn't word-for-word perfect?

It changes the context of the line.

QuoteAh yes, the Indestructible Crazy Enemy. He can do anything and succeed at anything because, whoa, he's crazy, man!!!

It just happens to work. It is a movie.

QuoteNice try but in that same scene he denies having a plan. That's contradicted by his actions in kidnapping Rachel and Harvey and deliberately giving Batman and the police the mixed up addresses. It's also contradicted by the scene where Batman dangles him off a building and he admits to targeting Harvey in all this.

He doesn't say he doesn't have plan. He asks Harvey "Do I really look like a guy with a plan?" He doesn't say he doesn't have a plan.

QuoteReally? But that can't be right. I thought the Joker was a guy with simple tastes. Doesn't he enjoy dynamite and gunpowder and gasoline? I mean, the thing they have in common is they're cheap. Why, if the Joker ever came face to face with a huge pile of money, I could see him burning it up or something.

So no. I don't buy a word of what you just said.

It was for the mob. He got the money for them. He said he was a man of his word. He fulfilled his end of the deal. It's all there.

QuoteAgain, if that's all he wanted to do, there are less risky ways of going about it.

But not a way that would achieve all of his goals. Get Lau, have a conversation with Batman, see what he'd do. It was a kill three birds with one stone situation. Plus I bet any other way wouldn't have been as fun for him.

QuoteThere are positive aspects of Nolan's films but overall they really only work for me as an Elseworld's story.

It's all elseworlds.

I've seen people desperately reach to justify something before but... wow...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 31 Jul  2015, 20:41
I've seen people desperately reach to justify something before but... wow...

I'm stating what happens in the film.

Quote
He doesn't say he doesn't have plan. He asks Harvey "Do I really look like a guy with a plan?" He doesn't say he doesn't have a plan.

Asking a question like that only alludes to telling somebody you don't have a plan for your actions. In the Joker's case, that's complete and utter crap and it only makes Harvey Dent an even bigger moron for falling for that bullsh*t.

Quote
It was for the mob. He got the money for them. He said he was a man of his word. He fulfilled his end of the deal. It's all there.

Except he ended up burning the money to spite the mob. Remember?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fbatman%2Fimages%2F5%2F5d%2FJoker_burns_money.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20120815201522&hash=27644df359828896a827d352f5539c44eb479392)

Anyway, I thought you believed that the Joker was a maniac who spouts nonsense and lies just to cause chaos? In that case, that's not somebody I'd describe "a man of his word".

I'm a Joker fan, but I can't believe how poorly written he is in this movie. Very overrated interpretation of the character.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  2 Aug  2015, 14:06Asking a question like that only alludes to telling somebody you don't have a plan for your actions. In the Joker's case, that's complete and utter crap and it only makes Harvey Dent an even bigger moron for falling for that bullsh*t.

Harvey was already psychologically broken. The Joker just twisted him. Of course that alludes that he doesn't have a plan, but it's also a way of not saying that he doesn't. It's a manipulation tactic.

QuoteExcept he ended up burning the money to spite the mob. Remember?

He said he was only burning his half. But even if he did burn the whole thing, he still did that so he could get it.

QuoteAnyway, I thought you believed that the Joker was a maniac who spouts nonsense and lies just to cause chaos? In that case, that's not somebody I'd describe "a man of his word".

I didn't say lies. I said nonsense. Which to me means that he doesn't really have a true set of beliefs beyond trying to cause chaos. But I didn't say he was a man of his word. I said that he said that.

QuoteI'm a Joker fan, but I can't believe how poorly written he is in this movie. Very overrated interpretation of the character.

I don't really see how.

I think as the film finds newer generations, it is met with less criticism.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  7 Sep  2015, 16:13I think as the film finds newer generations, it is met with less criticism.

If you're referring to TDK, I find the opposite to be true, actually. When the film first came it received close to universal acclaim. Over the past several years there's been a noticeable tapering off of peoples appreciation for it.

If you mean the Schumacher films, yes indeed, people do seem willing to give them a second look these days. There's a lot to enjoy too so I'm fine with it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  8 Sep  2015, 16:59

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon,  7 Sep  2015, 16:13I think as the film finds newer generations, it is met with less criticism.

If you're referring to TDK, I find the opposite to be true, actually. When the film first came it received close to universal acclaim. Over the past several years there's been a noticeable tapering off of peoples appreciation for it.

If you mean the Schumacher films, yes indeed, people do seem willing to give them a second look these days. There's a lot to enjoy too so I'm fine with it.

I'm referring to Batman & Robin. When that film was originally released, the hero genre was still in it's infancy where the DC license, mainly Batman, was really the only notable bright spot from the comic industry. Comic fans wanted respect for their heroes. So a Batman movie had to carry not only the hopes of every Batman fan out there, but the perceived 'dignity' of comic fans everywhere. Schumacher's miscue was going completely lighthearted, when fans wanted the notoriety of a Dark Knight film. Fans felt betrayed and insulted based on those expectations.

But the grand irony to all that is Batman Forever set the stage for this next installment. When you had fans and critics alike pumping their fists in acceptance of a movie that played to those ideas of fun and a removed seriousness that the Burton films had anchored themselves to, it was a collision of unintended treatments that found their way into this film. In short, the studio gave what was perceived as more of what was liked in Forever.

18 years later the industry and fan sensibilities are much different. You have television shows, Netflix exclusives, monster big budget hero films and Marvel is sharing in that success. Add to that a slew of different treatments of Batman in cartoons and the resurgence of Batman '66, this film no longer has to carry the expectations of an entire nation of fans demanding respect. In short, I think the film is beginning to be viewed on it's own merits instead of what fans felt like they needed back in 1997 when comic book material was still frowned on.

Sure, you still have that pocket of fans that feel some odd desire to shout their hate of this film, which I find kind of suspect. Because in an era where there are SO many iterations of heroes, many of which are not successful, this one seems to be watched the most, which tells me its a guilty pleasure for many.  It's a good looking film, even if fans are divided on it's treatment. In many ways, it's one of the films in this series that visually holds up the best. And that could be what brings people back to it so much. After all, Batman is a visually fascinating hero and this movie plays to those comic images in a creative and colorful fashion that I believe fans enjoy. I honestly think if Schumacher had given Clooney a gruff voice as Batman, replaced Bane with henchmen, and removed so many of the ice puns for Arnold, you might have a film people celebrate today.

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 22:00
This is becoming a movement....!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12mkhf_in-defense-of-joel-schumacher-s-batman_shortfilms?fbc=353

Warning for language.

Also, another guy's defense (in two parts) for those who haven't seen them (again warning for language, I think):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMIH7Sp2tEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wyLysZHIHc

I'm watching the second half of the YouTube video again and I'm curious about the criticism regarding the lack of a balanced tone in the Schumacher films.

On one hand, the host praises the goofy tone as a tribute to the Adam West show. But on the other hand, he criticises the more serious moments i.e. Riddler stalking and obsessing over Bruce, Mr. Freeze trying to revive his cryogenic frozen wife, and claims the producers wanted the films to be both dark and funny. Which it can't be possible, according to the host.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I still believe the humour in BF and B&R leaves a lot to be desired at times, but I don't think shifting the tone from goofy to serious is wrong in principle. After all, Iron Man 3, Civil War and Guardians of the Galaxy can get away with it. In fact, even the Burton films shifted the tone with comedy and drama, albeit the humour was much darker.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 18 Sep  2016, 10:12On one hand, the host praises the goofy tone as a tribute to the Adam West show. But on the other hand, he criticises the more serious moments i.e. Riddler stalking and obsessing over Bruce, Mr. Freeze trying to revive his cryogenic frozen wife, and claims the producers wanted the films to be both dark and funny. Which it can't be possible, according to the host.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I still believe the humour in BF and B&R leaves a lot to be desired at times, but I don't think shifting the tone from goofy to serious is wrong in principle. After all, Iron Man 3, Civil War and Guardians of the Galaxy can get away with it. In fact, even the Burton films shifted the tone with comedy and drama, albeit the humour was much darker.

If Pixar made shot-for-shot remakes of the Schumacher films without changing a thing, people would love and cheer for them. The darkness of those movies doesn't overwhelm the fun or humor. Those movies are fairly Pixar'ish already. They're aging remarkably well; far better than I ever would've anticipated.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Sep  2016, 16:48If Pixar made shot-for-shot remakes of the Schumacher films without changing a thing, people would love and cheer for them. The darkness of those movies doesn't overwhelm the fun or humor. Those movies are fairly Pixar'ish already. They're aging remarkably well; far better than I ever would've anticipated.

The Schumacher films do appear to be aging better than many might have expected. I think allot of it has to do with the simple fact that Schumacher stayed focus on the idea he was making a comic book. Now while that seems to insult the fragile sensibilities of some fans, I think it was a long overdue approach. If you look at the comics, Batman dwells in a rather colorful world of heroes and villains and no where is this better illustrated than in the Schumacher films. I think that is a big reason why those films get rediscovered by each new generation because it's the only treatment that really considers the kids (which is not a bad thing).

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 21 Sep  2016, 11:16I think that is a big reason why those films get rediscovered by each new generation because it's the only treatment that really considers the kids (which is not a bad thing).

Agreed. I was 14 years old when BF came out and I was enthralled with the visuals of it. But also Schumacher made being Batman seem kinda cool. Yeah, there's the psychological torment he went through in that movie but when you move away from that stuff, the Cool Factor of being Batman is there... and it's somewhat absent from the Burton films, tbh. Yeah, Burton made some very sophisticated films and I'd never say otherwise. But I can't ever remember watching B89 or BR and thinking "Man, it'd be COOL to be Batman".

But dammit all, I DID with BF. He had the car, the gadgets, the suit, the castle, the cave, the butler, the wealth, obviously he was Building the Beast with Two Backs with Nicole freaking Kidman and there's a lot of there to be in awe of.

I suspect I might've loved B&R upon its release had I been younger when it came out. But at 16... well, you know how it is. But I know a little kid who loves the crap out of B&R, it's her favorite Batman movie... probably because she's big on Batgirl and Poison Ivy. So there's something to it.

I don't mind a Batman that maybe isn't kid-friendly... but some child-accessible iteration of the character should always be available for the kids to latch onto so that Batman can mature right along with them.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 22 Sep  2016, 03:24
I was 14 years old when BF came out and I was enthralled with the visuals of it. But also Schumacher made being Batman seem kinda cool. Yeah, there's the psychological torment he went through in that movie but when you move away from that stuff, the Cool Factor of being Batman is there... and it's somewhat absent from the Burton films, tbh. Yeah, Burton made some very sophisticated films and I'd never say otherwise. But I can't ever remember watching B89 or BR and thinking "Man, it'd be COOL to be Batman".

I always thought the mysterious story behind Batman's past and how he is this loner billionaire attracted this hot blonde in B89 made me think how cool he was when I was a kid. But BR was way too tragic, and me think "you know what, maybe someone like this existing in real life wouldn't be such a good idea after all".

Leadership can be a burden. Bruce basically says so himself. He's driven to live this life "because nobody else can." He knows what has to be done, and sitting on the sidelines watching Gotham go to the dogs just isn't an option anymore.

So he acts. He has a cool car, a cool set of gadgets and a mansion. But he's alone. He's not the life of the party. Basically every waking minute of his life is focused on the mission. Being Batman is both a torment and a necessity.

Kilmer is an evolution of Keaton. The character came out of the shadows and became more of a superhero. He was still a haunted personality, but he worked his way through those demons.

He still has the cool car and the cool gadgets, but he's more of a balanced guy at peace with the life he's chosen. The abnormal is now completely normal. He's also willing to fight crime with a partner - Robin and eventually Batgirl.

Yes. Whether I like them or not, I can't deny that the Schumacher films gave a fitting conclusion to what Burton had started.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 22 Sep  2016, 03:24
I was 14 years old when BF came out and I was enthralled with the visuals of it. But also Schumacher made being Batman seem kinda cool. Yeah, there's the psychological torment he went through in that movie but when you move away from that stuff, the Cool Factor of being Batman is there...and it's somewhat absent from the Burton films, tbh. Yeah, Burton made some very sophisticated films and I'd never say otherwise. But I can't ever remember watching B89 or BR and thinking "Man, it'd be COOL to be Batman".

I was slightly younger when it came out, and still felt it was underwhelming. Nowadays I like and enjoy the Schumacher films, but back then BF felt like the movie equivalent of your favourite metal band putting out a soft rock album. For some people, darkness is where it's at with Batman. The light versions are ok and cool and fun (love Brave and the Bold, or the Lego Batman games), but not the "main" thing.

QuoteI can't ever remember watching B89 or BR and thinking "Man, it'd be COOL to be Batman".

Disagree, especially about Returns. The city is less of "urban decay" (like Frank Miller's Batman, Year One or TDKR) or "real world" (like Nolan's films are supposed to be) but a Gothic fun park with Batman as its all powerful living gargoyle. This is something that captures the imagination of certain kids.

Quote from: Azrael on Thu, 29 Sep  2016, 06:40
I was slightly younger when it came out, and still felt it was underwhelming. Nowadays I like and enjoy the Schumacher films, but back then BF felt like the movie equivalent of your favourite metal band putting out a soft rock album.

That's what most metalheads must've felt when Metallica became "Alternica" back in the 90s.

I quite like BF. I would like it even more if they released an ultimate cut. However with that said, I think it's way past time Batman fans accepted and enjoyed the Schumacher films for what they are. 'Burtoning them up' is now way past the point.

Here is a slideshow from Cinema Blend talking about the good things about BF & BR.

Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1561229/why-batman-forever-and-batman--robin-are-much-better-than-you-remember

The only standout point for me was a nod for Michael Gough's Alfred.

QuoteDespite the fact that Michael Caine made a serious impression as Alfred Pennyworth in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, and Jeremy Irons has shown early promise with his limited exposure in the DCEU, there's still a large segment of the audience that will always consider Michael Gough to be the quintessential Alfred. As a holdover from the Keaton era, Gough brought his characteristic gravitas to the iconic butler, and an almost Yoda-like wisdom that helped ground the Schumacher Batman movies. As these films aimed for a much lighter tone that the Burton films, Alfred always scored solid laughs, and his sage like presence helped guide the new members of the Bat Family that signed on during the events of Batman Forever as well as Batman & Robin.

I think Michael Gough certainly lent a tremendous foundation to the storied franchise. Even in Batman & Robin, his scene with Clooney on his (near) death bed was very touching. Still is to this day. When I watch that moment, it really shows me what a lost opportunity Schumacher had to make Clooney something more in the role. Had Schumacher's treatment catered to a slightly more serious tone, Clooney might have pulled in a tremendous performance. As it was I never felt like Clooney really had much guidance from scene to scene. You could tell he felt out of place in the part of Batman, but seem to find his footing as Bruce Wayne. Gough played off his energy really well. They had good chemistry.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 22 Aug  2017, 13:34
I think Michael Gough certainly lent a tremendous foundation to the storied franchise. Even in Batman & Robin, his scene with Clooney on his (near) death bed was very touching. Still is to this day. When I watch that moment, it really shows me what a lost opportunity Schumacher had to make Clooney something more in the role. Had Schumacher's treatment catered to a slightly more serious tone, Clooney might have pulled in a tremendous performance. As it was I never felt like Clooney really had much guidance from scene to scene. You could tell he felt out of place in the part of Batman, but seem to find his footing as Bruce Wayne. Gough played off his energy really well. They had good chemistry.

In Clooneys defense it must have been hard to act as Batman with jokes coming from every corner. For the most part the Bruce Wayne scenes were more straight forward with only one joke (about pointing the telescope at his bedroom). I've stated several times that Clooney was just as good a Bruce Wayne as any other live action actor to play him. He didn't ham up or mail in any of those scenes within the cowl. And yes Alfred's storyline was likely the best part of the movie, we all know Bruce asks a lot of Alfred in just about every interpretation of Batman, I especially liked his response when asked if he gave up his life to serve Bruce "looking after heroes? My only regret is that I wasn't out there fighting with you"

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 22 Aug  2017, 14:46

In Clooneys defense it must have been hard to act as Batman with jokes coming from every corner. For the most part the Bruce Wayne scenes were more straight forward with only one joke (about pointing the telescope at his bedroom). I've stated several times that Clooney was just as good a Bruce Wayne as any other live action actor to play him. He didn't ham up or mail in any of those scenes within the cowl. And yes Alfred's storyline was likely the best part of the movie, we all know Bruce asks a lot of Alfred in just about every interpretation of Batman, I especially liked his response when asked if he gave up his life to serve Bruce "looking after heroes? My only regret is that I wasn't out there fighting with you"

Well said. Yeah, I don't think this film's hammy reputation came from the style of acting on Clooney's part so much as some of the lines he had to deliver in the cowl. I guess if we're being completely honest, every time we see Clooney he's playing the straight man throughout. But unlike Adam West who did it purposely against heavy innuendo, here Clooney is probably a bit more lost for motivation since there is no clear direction so much as moment to moment action he reacts to. But I will also add, probably the biggest complaint on Clooney above all else, is just the simple fact that he has no public identity for Batman at all. His voice is identical. His mannerisms are identical. Quite frankly you would have to be deaf, not to know Bruce Wayne was under the mask. And I think that was too far a leap from the other incarnations to just abandon a deep or gravely voice to disguise who he was. With all the customizing people make to movies, I think it would be interesting if someone modified Clooney's voice to see how different scenes would register. It might be quite surprising. If he had a voice like Kevin Conroy maybe he would have got away with it.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 22 Aug  2017, 17:54
But I will also add, probably the biggest complaint on Clooney above all else, is just the simple fact that he has no public identity for Batman at all. His voice is identical. His mannerisms are identical. Quite frankly you would have to be deaf, not to know Bruce Wayne was under the mask. And I think that was too far a leap from the other incarnations to just abandon a deep or gravely voice to disguise who he was. With all the customizing people make to movies, I think it would be interesting if someone modified Clooney's voice to see how different scenes would register. It might be quite surprising. If he had a voice like Kevin Conroy maybe he would have got away with it.

It's definitely bizarre how after three films, the producers suddenly decided to stop Batman speaking in a deep voice. I guess it reflected the attitude that they were making a "toy commercial" when making B&R.

But just for the hell of it, maybe you could theorise the lack of Batman's voice changing in costume reflected how much peaceful his state of mind became. Compare that to the Burton films and BF, the voice reflected how angry and troubled he was. But by the time we get to B&R, he had vanquished his demons and became more of a focused, experienced investigator rather than an angry creature of the night. As a matter of fact, we could already see this change after he destroyed the Riddler's mind-warp device and as he confronted Two-Face one last time.

Of course, you could dismiss what I just said as utter pretentious drivel and there was absolutely no profound reason to abandon the voice. :P

I like what they did with Affleck's voice. It's disguised and doesn't sound ridiculous. There's a nice balance of aggression and a ghostly whisper. I actually appreciate what Bale had in mind for his voice. It's a big attempt at getting into character and changing his persona. His Begins voice was rather good. But indeed, it became a parody in the sequels. Something you can't accuse Affeck's voice of being. We all love Keaton, but Kilmer also did a really good job with the Bat voice.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  1 Oct  2017, 13:45
I actually appreciate what Bale had in mind for his voice. It's a big attempt at getting into character and changing his persona. His Begins voice was rather good.

I don't think his voice in the first film was that much different or better than the sequels. As soon as he talks to Rachel for the first time, I thought "what the hell is wrong with his voice?". And the scene where he screams at Flass... :-[...God, that was so sh*t.

Believe it or not, Bale's voice actually sounded much better in the auditions when he wore Val Kilmer's sonar suit. It's a shame they didn't stick with that.

No. The voice in Begins was fairly restrained compared to TDK\TDKRises and the rain scene with Flass was seen as quite powerful in 2005. It's a bit silly only now, in hindsight, well after the growl was overdone in The Dark Knight and became a meme.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbatman-online.com%2Fimages%2F13850407220372.jpg&hash=32efbfb246092b7f9a37f12f472da97f2c10c935)

Quote from: Azrael on Mon,  2 Oct  2017, 23:35
No. The voice in Begins was fairly restrained compared to TDK\TDKRises and the rain scene with Flass was seen as quite powerful in 2005. It's a bit silly only now, in hindsight, well after the growl was overdone in The Dark Knight and became a meme.

Yeah, the Begins voice wasn't that bad. Same goes for the Begins batsuit.

Quote from: Azrael on Mon,  2 Oct  2017, 23:35
No. The voice in Begins was fairly restrained compared to TDK\TDKRises and the rain scene with Flass was seen as quite powerful in 2005. It's a bit silly only now, in hindsight, well after the growl was overdone in The Dark Knight and became a meme.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbatman-online.com%2Fimages%2F13850407220372.jpg&hash=32efbfb246092b7f9a37f12f472da97f2c10c935)

I completely disagree. I don't see how him screaming "SWEAR TO ME" sounded any better than shouting "WHERE'S THE TRIGGER?.' Both moments were ridiculous, but what makes the Flass scene a little worse is Bale's overexaggerated facial expressions and hissing. It made the scene unintentionally awkward.

The voice in the sequels might have sounded a little deeper, but it was always the same overdone, goofy cookie monster voice. The claim that he sounded better in BB never made any sense to me.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  3 Oct  2017, 03:12
I completely disagree. I don't see how him screaming "SWEAR TO ME" sounded any better than shouting "WHERE'S THE TRIGGER?.' Both moments were ridiculous, but what makes the Flass scene a little worse is Bale's overexaggerated facial expressions and hissing. It made the scene unintentionally awkward.

The voice in the sequels might have sounded a little deeper, but it was always the same overdone, goofy cookie monster voice. The claim that he sounded better in BB never made any sense to me.

Gotta disagree, Funny Fish. Bale's voice isn't my preference or anything, but it's much better in Begins compared to the sequels. The Flass interrogation sequence isn't a representation of his whole vocal performance in Begins.

I beg to differ. Even when he tries to speak in a low voice, like whenever he speaks to Gordon and Ra's al Ghul, he still sounds ridiculous. Mumbles and grumbles, as if he sounds constipated. Which wasn't the intention of course, but that shows how bad he sounds. The times when his voice sounds decent in these films are very rare.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this instance.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  1 Oct  2017, 13:45
I actually appreciate what Bale had in mind for his voice. It's a big attempt at getting into character and changing his persona. His Begins voice was rather good. But indeed, it became a parody in the sequels.

Quote from: Azrael on Mon,  2 Oct  2017, 23:35
No. The voice in Begins was fairly restrained compared to TDK\TDKRises and the rain scene with Flass was seen as quite powerful in 2005. It's a bit silly only now, in hindsight, well after the growl was overdone in The Dark Knight and became a meme.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbatman-online.com%2Fimages%2F13850407220372.jpg&hash=32efbfb246092b7f9a37f12f472da97f2c10c935)

A part of me admires Bale for sticking with the gravel voice in TDKR, despite all the stick he took for it in TDK. For better or worse, that voice was part of the characterisation he established for his Batman. It was part of his method for getting into character. And that's something he refused to compromise. I can sort of respect that.

But I do wish he'd stuck with his Batman Begins voice. Every time I go back and watch BB I'm always surprised by how good he sounds there. I don't think his bat-voice was ever as effective as Keaton's, Kilmer's or Affleck's, but it was perfectly serviceable in his first outing. Particularly when compared to the voice he used afterwards.


Another thing I'll say for Bale in BB is that he had the best physique of any live action Batman actor. West and Affleck are closer to the comic book Batman in terms of height, facial features and overall look, but Bale definitely had the best proportioned balance of muscle mass and body fat relative to his height and frame.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  3 Oct  2017, 13:06
But I do wish he'd stuck with his Batman Begins voice. Every time I go back and watch BB I'm always surprised by how good he sounds there. I don't think his bat-voice was ever as effective as Keaton's, Kilmer's or Affleck's, but it was perfectly serviceable in his first outing. Particularly when compared to the voice he used afterwards.

I agree. He took the concept he established in Begins and took it a little too far. His whole speech to the Joker while he's dangling from the wire is a good example. Begins featured a clearer voice and still achieved what Bale was looking for.

Yes. This is why if he kept the Begins voice and the growl was used sparingly, only in certain moments (i.e. when he grabs and terrorizes a crook to get answers, like with Flass and Maroni) it would be effective, and not too over the top.

For me Keaton played it perfectly because his voice was so low key as Batman it was barely part of his makeup. With Bale he projected so much, it felt like a performance. I think that really shows when he's lecturing the Joker near the end of Dark Knight. I think him gasping for air kind of exposes that. Here he's gassed and he's still trying to put on this voice to give a lecture that he's clearly not physically equipped to be doing at the moment. As Keaton always said,"He should be seen, not heard." That's kind of the point to the outfit. The Batman persona and outfit are a state of mind, not an evening out on the town.