What are your thoughts on Jim Carrey's portrayal of The Riddler?
Im pretty mixed on him. I've never hated it, but i thought it could have done better, but it did fit with the tone of the movie.
Riddler is my favourite Batman villain, so I'm a bit easy on him. He did fine with what he was given, and given the tone of the film I think.
I love Carrey and in 1995 he was the perfect choice.
In retrospect some of his stuff was campy and OTT. Yes he did steal the screen from TLJ but only because he was entertaining.
He was hired to do a specific job - be himself and homage Frank Gorshin to an extent.
Exactly.
I'm glad he wasn't killed off either.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 4 Nov 2008, 11:08
Exactly.
I'm glad he wasn't killed off either.
Can you image the outrage if he was? People loved the Riddler!
Yeah, they did. He was a funny, eccentric guy. Who managed to break into the batcave and destroy it. One of the biggest impacts made on Batman in the series. Don't under-estimate Riddler!
I'm mixed. On the one hand I really dug the obsessive WE Employee, on the other hand the constant one liners and overall attempt to treat it like one of his comedy vehicles drives me insane. That and I think Carrey's overall acting method of going big (over acting) all the time unless his director keeps him under control makes me ultimately feel like he shouldn't have been even considered for the role unless Shumacher was going to keep him from bouncing off the walls.
Hated it. It was Jim Carrey being Ace Ventura in green spandex. Didnt like the lipstick and makeup. Didnt like the hair. The animated series made Riddler a serious villain. Forever tore that down.
"Was that over the top? I can never tell."
Yes, Jim, it was. >:(
Yeah Riddler is also my favorite Batman villain so that or call it abit of nostalgia or whatever you want, but i just can't hate him.
But i was never big on the spandex or the way his hair kept going from long to short to long to short lol. But all in all i agree im glad he didn't die and i did love his ending "IM BATMAN".
Overall, I thought he was Jim Carrey, not the Riddler. The only part of the film that I liked alot was at the end in his lair. He seemed somewhat scarry, demented and dangerous. I loved Frank Gorshin's version but I would've preferred to see a professional cheater like in the comics or a serious intellectual like the animated series. I also didn't care for the spandex either, even if that was the first costume that he wore in the comic book. The tie, jacket and bowler hat is how he should have been. I think that image of him was started by the Adam West show.
The only thing I really did like about Carrey's Riddler was his Gorshin homage, which was pretty evident other than that I didnt really enjoy his portrayal of the character that much at all!
I don't really like the spandex he wears, I like my Riddler to be in a smart suit. That's one of my few criticisms.
Yea i agree, he was wearing a pretty good suit at the start, but then the spandex just came out of nowhere.
I think Carrey's crappy Riddler might've aged better if Jones had given a more nuanced and menacing performance instead of trying to out-goofy Jim Carrey. (A) Nobody can out-goofy that dillhole and (B) even if they could, Two Face ain't the character to try it with.
This is one reason why, in some ways, B&R is actually a better movie than BF. B&R knew it was a stupid, pointless movie and never tried to be anything but that. BF, on the other hand, harbored superficial ambitions towards a more serious type of filmmaking... starring two idiotic clowns as the villains. Pathetic...
Indeed, I did not understand why Tommy Lee was trying to compete with Carrey in the lunacy stakes just for the sake of it. That just is not Two Face at all.
Same, Tommy Lee Jones is a fantasic actor that could have been one of the best Two-Face's, but for some reason he acted like that. Carrey was already doing the silly Villian there was no need for him to do it aswell.
And this was after BTAS so it's not like he didn't have a good Two-Face to study off.
The real character of Two-Face would not have fit in Scumachers bright and colorful Gotham at all, we saw the real TF in TDK and im glad we finally got a real accurate portrayal!
Well i don't know how "accurate" he was to the orignal, but he has got to be nolan's best villain..thus far.
Sure it was a action/family movie it doesn't mean Two-face has to jump round and yell like a kid on a suger rush. He still could have been an angry evil Two-face without breaking the type of movie they where making.
Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 6 Nov 2008, 22:13
Well i don't know how "accurate" he was to the orignal, but he has got to be nolan's best villain..thus far.
Sure it was a action/family movie it doesn't mean Two-face has to jump round and yell like a kid on a suger rush. He still could have been an angry evil Two-face without breaking the type of movie they where making.
Agreed it could've worked, but not anywhere as good as what Eckhart did, IMO he is the definitive Two-Face!
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 7 Nov 2008, 18:50Agreed it could've worked, but not anywhere as good as what Eckhart did, IMO he is the definitive Two-Face!
That isn't saying much though. His competition if Jones.
I always got the feeling that Jones was trying to compete more with Nicholson than Carrey in BF. But it just came off cheap ,silly and goofy. He should have approached it fresh and not try to compete or outdo anyother Batman actors.
That said, I cant see how B&R is a better film than BF. Thats inconcievable. Jones just fitted into that lighter tone of the whole film. He couldnt have played it darker.
Arron Ackhart is a different case all together in a different type of film in a different era, just like ledger. Ackhart you could say played Harvey Dent more than Two-Face. I thought his perfomance was well over looked and stood up strongly with the rest of the actors. But because of the final third of the film, which I feel is very weak and crowded and rushed, his character suffered. He should not have died either.
Tommy Lee Jones had no idea as to what Two Face's character was. He was playing the Joker, not Two Face.
In the special features, he said that he did not research the character at all, and the only thing that he needed to use was the theme of duality. So, in his case, the dark side - which he plays to the hilt as goofy over the top, and the light side which is pretty much the same.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 8 Nov 2008, 05:13
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 7 Nov 2008, 18:50Agreed it could've worked, but not anywhere as good as what Eckhart did, IMO he is the definitive Two-Face!
That isn't saying much though. His competition if Jones.
Whats your point? If you read comics and recent graphic novels and cant say that Eckhart is the best definitive version, then theres something wrong!
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Sat, 8 Nov 2008, 19:06
then theres something wrong!
Not really. While the best made so far (On Film, with only Jones' as competition), I found Eckhart's Dent stiff and trying too hard for the 'off the cuff' charm. Personally I think the Definitive Harvey Two Face was on the Animated Series.
Eckhart's Two Face was brilliant. Very close indeed to the graphic novels. Lucky he died, because he wouldn't have been able to hold a story on his own once he got his revege for Rachael.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 8 Nov 2008, 13:28
Tommy Lee Jones had no idea as to what Two Face's character was. He was playing the Joker, not Two Face.
I don't know about that Jack played a perfect Joker not a goofball, And i have heard people say that he didn't like being upstaged by Carrey.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 8 Nov 2008, 13:28
In the special features, he said that he did not research the character at all, and the only thing that he needed to use was the theme of duality. So, in his case, the dark side - which he plays to the hilt as goofy over the top, and the light side which is pretty much the same.
How could he do that what a utter fool, he had perfect and still so far most accurate Two-Face on a little show called BTAS.
Quote from: Sandman on Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 23:47
How could he do that what a utter fool, he had perfect and still so far most accurate Two-Face on a little show called BTAS.
Bingo. In terms of adaptations, BTAS's Two Face remains top dog.
Quote from: Sandman on Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 23:47
I don't know about that Jack played a perfect Joker not a goofball
I wasn't talking about Nicholson, I was talking in general terms.
And yes, I agree that BTAS has a killer Two Face.
QuoteI wasn't talking about Nicholson, I was talking in general terms
Oh my bad.
I think Jim was a good fit for the character. That being said I still think the character could be done better, however I think Jim was a good fit for Forever. I would admit that Jim Carrey was pretty much playing typical Jim Carrey as far as the over the top thing goes, but in my opinion it's kind of like a Nicholson's Joker situation, where the actors persona and style seems to just fit the character.
Overall, I liked his version of the character, however I think the character could be done better, and given the right material I think Carrey could have been even a tad bit better.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 08:12
Quote from: Sandman on Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 23:47
How could he do that what a utter fool, he had perfect and still so far most accurate Two-Face on a little show called BTAS.
Bingo. In terms of adaptations, BTAS's Two Face remains top dog.
IYO that is, its not a fact, I also like the Two-Face from BTAS, but I hate how he was drawn and looked kinda fat in the face, it wasnt as impressive as most make it out to be, which isnt saying it isnt good either. Eckhart is the best for me, he has the look and the feel for how I feel TF should really be.
Yes there is no fact that TAS was more accurate, just like there's no fact that TDK was more accurate. Although TAS did look abit odd, he was prob more close (imo) because he actually was a Badguy, while TDK Two-Face was more a vigilante.
Anyway where getting off topic again this is about Riddler not Two-Face, Love Carrey's Riddler or Hate it, but be glad Schumacher choose him, Michael Jackson did everything possible to try and get the role, but Schumacher just ignored him.
Michael Jackson, thats frickin weird!
Took you this long to figure out Michael Jackson is weird lol.
Michael Jackson in a Batman film?! That could actually be inspired casting, since the guy is already a freak. There'd be no acting required.
Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 06:53
Took you this long to figure out Michael Jackson is weird lol.
No I actually love Michael Jackson to be honest, I thought it was weird he was trying to get into being in a batman film I never heard that before, Jacko was really good in The Wiz even though that film is really out there.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 14 Nov 2008, 02:43
Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 06:53
Took you this long to figure out Michael Jackson is weird lol.
No I actually love Michael Jackson to be honest, I thought it was weird he was trying to get into being in a batman film I never heard that before, Jacko was really good in The Wiz even though that film is really out there.
Moonwalker is a great movie.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 14 Nov 2008, 02:43
Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 06:53
Took you this long to figure out Michael Jackson is weird lol.
No I actually love Michael Jackson to be honest, I thought it was weird he was trying to get into being in a batman film I never heard that before, Jacko was really good in The Wiz even though that film is really out there.
Strange enough wasn't The Wiz made by Joel Schumacher?.
Quote from: Sandman on Fri, 14 Nov 2008, 22:21
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 14 Nov 2008, 02:43
Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 06:53
Took you this long to figure out Michael Jackson is weird lol.
No I actually love Michael Jackson to be honest, I thought it was weird he was trying to get into being in a batman film I never heard that before, Jacko was really good in The Wiz even though that film is really out there.
Strabge enough wasn't The Wiz made by Joel Schumacher?.
No actually it was made by Sidney Lumet
Oh your right, i got confused since JS wrote the "screenplay".
Quote from: Sandman on Sun, 16 Nov 2008, 04:20
Oh your right, i got confused since JS wrote the "screenplay".
Crazy Crazy stuff!
I didnt care much for his Riddler, But his Edward Nygma was awesome....Aside from the man crush for Bruce Wayne.
Quote from: Proximo on Sat, 13 Dec 2008, 21:34
I didnt care much for his Riddler, But his Edward Nygma was awesome....Aside from the man crush for Bruce Wayne.
haha he acted like a fruitcake, Nygma always seemed to me more like a deep dark depressed intelligent kinda guy, not a bright loud eccentric guy.
True, I should been more specific.
The scene where Bruce walks away and they show a crazy close up of Jim and he says.... "You were supposed to understand.......I'll make you understand."
That was the only time i think he nailed it, Riddler was obviously not potrayed as he should. But in some scenes i think he did a great job, Mostly as he was Edward.
I can somewhat agree with that!
I wish Carrey had played the insane yet smooth Riddler that was in recent comics & in B:TAS. It seemed like he was playing Frank Gorshin's Riddler, Ace Ventura, & the Mask combined. I also hated how he wears that white spandex outfit toward the film's end. He should've worn the formal suit with the bowler hat.
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Fri, 16 Jan 2009, 06:10
I wish Carrey had played the insane yet smooth Riddler that was in recent comics & in B:TAS. It seemed like he was playing Frank Gorshin's Riddler, Ace Ventura, & the Mask combined. I also hated how he wears that white spandex outfit toward the film's end. He should've worn the formal suit with the bowler hat.
Well he did nwear an outift similar to that, when he breaks into Two-Faces hideout.
the riddler was always one of my favorites as a kid, and this movie turned me off to anything Riddler for a very long time. Thank you, Jim Carrey, for destroying my childhood.
Quote from: gordonblu on Tue, 3 Mar 2009, 15:32
the riddler was always one of my favorites as a kid, and this movie turned me off to anything Riddler for a very long time. Thank you, Jim Carrey, for destroying my childhood.
It's really the script's fault. Carrey was just doing his job. I wish he would have portrayed a serious Riddler (like in B:TAS) instead of a zany Riddler, but again, it's the script's fault, not his.
I think Carrey's casting had to do with the success of the Mask (1994) and his zany comedy style at the time, in those pre-Truman days. Hell, I am one of those that embrace the notion that Forever's success is in large part due to the movie being not only a "new Batman", but an unofficial Jim Carrey comedy vehicle - I think he was big in the mid-90s, and he simply eats the scenery every time he appears.
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 3 Mar 2009, 23:40
I think Carrey's casting had to do with the success of the Mask (1994) and his zany comedy style at the time, in those pre-Truman days. Hell, I am one of those that embrace the notion that Forever's success is in large part due to the movie being not only a "new Batman", but an unofficial Jim Carrey comedy vehicle - I think he was big in the mid-90s, and he simply eats the scenery every time he appears.
Wasn't BF already in production when the Mask come out? I would think Carrey likely nabbed the part because of Ace Ventura.
Maybe, but what I want to say is that Carrey's casting for BF and his succesful in the mid-90s comedy style are inseparable. The same could be said about the movie's success. One of the factors that played a large part in Batman Forever's success was Carrey doing his comedy. Many people were entertained by him. Wishing for a different portrayal with more depth is maybe taking into account the films he did much later, like Truman Show. I think that back then, with Carrey in the cast, nobody even considered a Riddler portrayal (or even a movie, for that matter) different than what we got. It was not in their intentions. It's obvious in most interviews and articles.
If Carrey had played a professional cheater/smooth intellectual instead of a "zany cheeseball", then perhaps it would've lowered the financial success Forever had back in 1995.
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 3 Mar 2009, 20:43
It's really the script's fault. Carrey was just doing his job. I wish he would have portrayed a serious Riddler (like in B:TAS) instead of a zany Riddler, but again, it's the script's fault, not his.
The way the Riddler was written in the script was very interesting and if they had someone who was unfraid to be evil and scary in the part, The Riddler would have been awesome, instead we have Jim Carrey and his "love me, love me, aren't I funny, in case you'll miss it, I'll OVDERDO it", style of performing.
If Robin Williams had played the part, the spazzy humor would have been there, but there would be definite malice in the performance as well. We would have been deranged AND obsessive, and that would have been really freaky.
Quote from: gordonblu on Sat, 7 Mar 2009, 16:43
The way the Riddler was written in the script was very interesting and if they had someone who was unfraid to be evil and scary in the part, The Riddler would have been awesome, instead we have Jim Carrey and his "love me, love me, aren't I funny, in case you'll miss it, I'll OVDERDO it", style of performing.
If Robin Williams had played the part, the spazzy humor would have been there, but there would be definite malice in the performance as well. We would have been deranged AND obsessive, and that would have been really freaky.
See, a "deranged & obsessed" Riddler for this film would've probably been denied by Warner Bros. Why? Because there were characters in Returns who were deranged & obsessive.
So it seems that WB didn't want to take any risks w/ another film that had a Returns tone, so they told Schumacher to stay in a light-hearted direction, thus leading the Riddler to be a "goofy cheeseball" (along w/ Two-Face).
Jim Carrey was just going by the script. And if his behavior was similar to his other roles, then there's two people to blame for casting him & allowing him to act like the way he did - the casting director & film director, resepectively.
But a more skillful performer would have been able to sastisfy Warner Brothers desire for a light hearted Batman AND make the Riddler believable and menacing. The Riddler could have still worked in this film, but Carrey was absolutely wrong in the part, never mind his physical appearance. He didn't even try to be true to any emotion the character was scripted to have. He treated every scene as though it was part of his normal schtick. I'm not asking for dark, I'm asking for truth of performance.
Quote from: gordonblu on Sat, 7 Mar 2009, 18:48
But a more skillful performer would have been able to sastisfy Warner Brothers desire for a light hearted Batman AND make the Riddler believable and menacing. The Riddler could have still worked in this film, but Carrey was absolutely wrong in the part, never mind his physical appearance. He didn't even try to be true to any emotion the character was scripted to have. He treated every scene as though it was part of his normal schtick. I'm not asking for dark, I'm asking for truth of performance.
Carrey did what he was directed to do. The company's concerns are their concerns, not his. Carrey's reputation preceded him by that point. Hiring him meant hiring an insane goofball. You don't hire Jack Lemmon, dress him in drag and try to direct him to perform as though he's Megan Fox. Likewise, (at least back then) you didn't hire Jim Carrey to give a nuanced, dramatic, serious performance. You brought in Carrey for cartoon performances. I'm not defending the choice to hire the guy, I'm just saying he did what he was supposed to do. Take it or leave it.
Me? I leave it.
Quote from: gordonblu on Sat, 7 Mar 2009, 18:48
But a more skillful performer would have been able to sastisfy Warner Brothers desire for a light hearted Batman AND make the Riddler believable and menacing. The Riddler could have still worked in this film, but Carrey was absolutely wrong in the part, never mind his physical appearance. He didn't even try to be true to any emotion the character was scripted to have. He treated every scene as though it was part of his normal schtick. I'm not asking for dark, I'm asking for truth of performance.
If WB had wanted a "skillful" actor to portray the Riddler, then they would not have approved of Jim Carrey. They knew that he was a comedian, & not a "serious" actor.
So, if anything, it's
their fault, not his.
Quote from: Dark Knight DetectiveIf WB had wanted a "skillful" actor to portray the Riddler, then they would not have approved of Jim Carrey. They knew that he was a comedian, & not a "serious" actor.
So, if anything, it's their fault, not his.
Exactly.
Jim Carrey was red hot at the time with films like The Mask, Dumb and Dumber, and Ace ventura. WB knew EXACTLY what they wanted when they hired him. Which was obviously something akin to those performances. And Carrey delievered just that.
And I have no doubt Carrey's participation with FOREVER also played a hand in it being such a box office success in 1995.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 24 Mar 2009, 15:38
And I have no doubt Carrey's participation with FOREVER also played a hand in it being such a box office success in 1995.
Absolutely
Correct me if I am wrong, but Burton originally wanted Robin Willaims....... ::)
Was he not a comedian?
Good Morning Vietnam!
Michael Keaton was a comedian as well, but he wasn't cast to play like in Beetljuice ;D
I think that if they chose Robin Williams, they may have done the same thing.
So, I don't think it's Jim's fault. You have to look at his serious films. I still would love Robin to play him too, however. With CatWoman and Penguin being more serious, I would hope he would not have over used his funny side if he ever made 3.
THe only thing I like about Carrey's Riddler is his Gorshin influence and thats about it.
I've always had a thing for Carrey's style, so his Riddler is pretty cool IMO.
IM really excited to see a darker more sadistic Riddler in the possible third film.
Quote from: TheBatMan0887 on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 19:12
I think that if they chose Robin Williams, they may have done the same thing.
I agree. WB sincerely wanted a lighter approach with the Batman franchise, and Joel delivered just that.
I dont care what anyone says I still enjoy BF for what it is, a fun summer batman film.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 17:59
I dont care what anyone says I still enjoy BF for what it is, a fun summer batman film.
I agree with you 100%, my friend! ;)
Im glad someone understands and agrees with me! :)
I?m a fan of Jim Carrey. Still one of the funniest men alive. The man was a superstar and drew crowds to cinemas. He had a really solid run. A really solid era. Film after film for four years, he worked hard. Take a look, pretty iconic films now.
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994)
The Mask (1994)
Dumb and Dumber (1994)
*Batman Forever (1995)
Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995)
The Cable Guy (1996)
Liar Liar (1997)
The Truman Show (1998)
*Batman Forever is NOT a good film, but it was made in his heyday. And as I explain in previous posts in this thread, I?m not as down on his performance as much as other aspects. Jim Carrey was merely doing what Jim Carrey does.
I think his golden age has pretty much disappeared, though. And the iron has since gone cold. And that?s a shame. I think he has always been consistent. It?s just the quality of the productions waned.
I liked his role in The Grinch. Me, Myself and Irene was alright. Bruce Almighty was a step in the right direction to recapture the old magic. I liked A Series of Unfortunate Events, but not on the same level as the films in his four year run. And Fun with Dick and Jane was passable, sort of going through the motions.
I don't think Carrey is a complete spent force but I do agree he hasn't done anything amazing since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. My other favourites of his are The Truman Show (probably his best film), The Mask, the underrated The Cable Guy and Man on the Moon.
However, I thought Dumb and Dumber was overrated, The Grinch was a bit of a mess and Me, Myself and Irene was atrocious.
His other films have been more hit and miss, including Ace Ventura which can be spectacularly funny on occasions, but more often than not leaves me going "what the heck was that?"
As for Batman Forever, I still maintain that he was one of the best things about that film and probably the main reason to watch it. Although I don't dislike it as much as Dark Knight, I agree that the film was a let-down but Carrey still made it watchable for me.
I was looking forward to seeing Robin Williams as The Prince of Puzzlers. But he took too much time deciding so they gave the role to Carrey...Robin would have made the character more psychological rather then comical.
I thought he was great. Still like him. I know everybody wanted Robin Williams at the time but the way Jim Carrey moves as The Riddler twirling his cane and such was great stuff. Never boring to watch. I doubt Williams could've done that kind of thing.
I also liked they made him into a stalker type character. I felt he was a real maniac type. A lot of comic writers script The Riddler as a B-list villain these days because of the so called "silly riddles and puzzles". I don't think they regard him as a serious major Bat villain anymore. Which is why we often get the boring physical bad guys who are mutated freaks poppin up more. At least the filmmakers attempted to try and make him a viable threat again.
But both Carrey and Richard Pryor (Superman III) suffer the same issues. Both are quite great with acting seriously. I still wouldv'e liked to have seen a lot more of this in either film.
I said in this thread that I had a soft spot for this Riddler, and I pretty much still do. I appreciated the energy Carrey lent. Whether or not he went overboard with it (this is Jim we're talking about), I think characters that lend colour are a good thing, especially in comic book based films. Characters with a spark to their personality.
His performance was perfect for the style and tone of this film. I also like his interplay with Jones' Two Face. If one accepts that this was never meant to be a "dark" Two Face, their scenes together are pretty funny.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Tue, 14 Aug 2012, 12:18
His performance was perfect for the style and tone of this film. I also like his interplay with Jones' Two Face. If one accepts that this was never meant to be a "dark" Two Face, their scenes together are pretty funny.
It's not my favourite interpretation of two face but it does represent a version of him; maniacal and joker-like. And Carrey is a hoot as the Riddler.
Carrey recently said that he'd love to return to the Batman film franchise if he were given the chance. I believe he is capable of playing Riddler again, but one who is more obsessive compulsive than being a cartoonish stalker. He can play in more serious roles and still come across as a little amusing without going over-the-top like he normally does.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Dec 2014, 12:33
Carrey recently said that he'd love to return to the Batman film franchise if he were given the chance. I believe he is capable of playing Riddler again, but one who is more obsessive compulsive than being a cartoonish stalker. He can play in more serious roles and still come across as a little amusing without going over-the-top like he normally does.
The truman show is the only time he's ever mixed drama with comedy. Though Bruce Almighty is the best example of him playing a character which he could channel into the riddler (other than Batman Forever) his character had obsessive traits while remaining humorous and did have a vengeful side (he was the protagonist but he did antagonize other characters).
The number 23 he was good as a borderline insane character if they went the serious route.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Dec 2014, 00:02
The truman show is the only time he's ever mixed drama with comedy. Though Bruce Almighty is the best example of him playing a character which he could channel into the riddler (other than Batman Forever) his character had obsessive traits while remaining humorous and did have a vengeful side (he was the protagonist but he did antagonize other characters).
Carrey also mixed comedy and drama in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Man in the Moon and I Love You Philip Morris.
He'd be my top pick for a new Riddler, to be honest. If we continue on with Affleck's Batman, Carrey's actually still a good age compared to Batman. Age aside, he still looks good and hasn't shown signs of slowing down. I'd like to see him evoke a different characterization, though. Didn't have a problem with him in '95, but that worked for that particular movie. I think we'd all like to see something more of a serious and cerebral Riddler.
It wouldn't be unheard of if he came back; DC has actually listened when fans are receptive to a certain actor. That's how Kevin Conroy explains staying in the role for so long. More similar to this situation is Mark Hamill reprising his role as The Trickster. Not related by continuity, and playing a different mannered character altogether, it's entirely possible that the same could work for Carrey.
^Exactly. I for one think that Carrey would pull off an Arkham-styled Riddler very well. I can see him getting arrogant when he constructs a complicated riddle, only to panic obsessively when Batman puts him in his place.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fbatman%2Fimages%2F4%2F43%2FRiddler-character.png&hash=3d26ccbc96ab91dad1fce263265fa7545a8f39d3)
"No, you cheated! How did you do that?!".