Messages

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

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

My greatest concern with a standalone Joker film is whether they can construct a narrative that holds the viewers interest without any great payoff at the end (except the obvious approach of Batman). As interesting as his origin is, there's a decidedly anti-climatic quality to it without Batman trading wits with him in this cat and mouse chase. The old saying that you can't root for a hero without a great villain seems to still be in play here (only in reverse). How do we embrace the Joker if the only end game is to see him deliver revenge on those who contributed to his origin? It seems painfully predictable if not derivative of what has already been told in both movie and television (Gotham). To use a Star Wars analogy, it feels a bit like hearing Disney wanting to make a Boba Fett movie to which I ask, "Why?"

I was looking forward to this, but based on the trailer it looks like a CW show trying too hard to be a Marvel Netflix show. That "eff Batman" line screams adolescent edgelord. A very disappointing preview IMO.

Yeah, it appears they're aiming for a teen demographic here. I've never viewed the DC streaming service, but perhaps that is the profile of the standard consumer. I like Hawk and Dove. Not feeling the Starfire character. She doesn't really look all that much like the comic interpretation. I'll give it a shot though. You never know until you get in and watch these to see how it all plays out.

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

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

I think the only elements that seem particularly like parody/deliberate parody are Batman saying "Good night" to a thug after punching him through something, having his credit card and Robin being frozen in place after having a kiss blown and Batman carrying him off. Maybe Batman and Robin using doors as air-gliders and having skates on their boots (and how matter-of-factly they activate them) and Poison Ivy coming out of a gorilla. But the rest seems pretty much like trying to be a relatively to-be-taken serious action-adventure blockbuster, to follow and pretty much fit in with the predecessors, just very light and with more comic relief.

I agree. B&R on it's face is just a more colorful dive into the comic book realm that tries to exploit the more visual cues from that industry. It's doing essentially what a cartoon like Brave and the Bold was doing a few years back. There was this light hearted, yet thematic, treatment celebrating a simpler time without all the trappings that color him as dark and depressed. It certainly steps into those solemn areas briefly, but it's mission is crystal clear. It's a park ride in a comic book. I think it was offering some nods to the '66 show, but it was not trying to compete with the wit of that show so much as embrace what the comic book looked like during that whole period.

For myself, it has been a tremendous source of enjoyment when I need to throw in a movie that allows me to escape for a moment and just take a brief detour from the more complicated and serious aspects of life. It's pure escapism and I respect it for maintaining that kind of focus throughout the whole film. It serves its purpose well for me. I don't need my heroes brooding all the time.

I think the very idea that any rational human being can go into a comic book movie and find contempt for the human body as an exploitative tool for the superhero experience is getting to the party a little late with little to no understanding of context. Those critics must live under a rock. I guess they find the cable series "Naked and Afraid" a more noble pursuit? I'm to the point of believing the "PC culture" is a result of ignorance born from the inability of some to understand concepts on a broad level.

Political correctness has indeed gone mad, but we shouldn't underestimate the other agendas at hand here. If there's anything the media has taught me over the years - last year more so - is people will do anything to slander a person or a brand for the sake of clicks.

For example, that pile of garbage website AV Club ran a headline claiming Snyder's live action adaptation of 300 was foreshadowing the rise of the alt-right. I don't like 300, but even I can see how that claim is ridiculous and baseless. Another example is a hack journalist for the Wall Street Journal who wrote an article painting a bad light on the whole fan movement supporting the release of Snyder's real vision of JL. This lead to Jay Oliva, who did storyboard work for the film, calling out the "journalist" for conveniently leaving out information he shared with him, which didn't support the article's agenda.

Oh without question. Hollywood is one of many high profile industries being used as a platform to push hidden agendas and make people quake with fear. Sadly what is missing in these industries and in many segments of society is strong leadership to stand up to these public shame campaigns that are little more than shakedowns. People need to quit fearing criticism because that fear is allowing those who complain to make decisions for all of us. In this instance, these are movies and if people can not watch these films without feeling compelled to be "offended", then they need to stay in bed. There's allot worse out there to bother them.

I think the very idea that any rational human being can go into a comic book movie and find contempt for the human body as an exploitative tool for the superhero experience is getting to the party a little late with little to no understanding of context. Those critics must live under a rock. I guess they find the cable series "Naked and Afraid" a more noble pursuit? I'm to the point of believing the "PC culture" is a result of ignorance born from the inability of some to understand concepts on a broad level.

Personally I think this movie would carry an entirely different reputation had Schumacher given Batman the same duality the previous ones had.  There was never any transformation from Bruce Wayne to Batman when he donned the cowl and I think that was jolting to audiences. In Batman Forever you had Val Kilmer giving a pseudo-Keaton performance in the beginning before he started finding his own take on the role. I think that was done purposely to allow audiences to transition from Keaton to Kilmer.

But in B&R there was no transition at all. He was just Clooney masked with no distinguishing qualities to differentiate himself from the role. And given Clooney has such a distinct vocal quality, that made the concept of no one recognizing Wayne and Batman as the same person well past absurd. I know we give Clark Kent and Superman an easy pass for co-existing under more absurd reasons, but Batman has always had a theatrical presence that allowed audiences to except the outfit he wears (excluding the obvious comedic intent of Adam West). So to just suddenly strip the character of that quality, especially in the 90's when so much was riding on films like this, was a costly decision for Schumacher.

But even with all that being said, I am totally fine with the film as presented. Visually the movie holds up exceptionally well. In some cases even better than later entries. If there is a happy consistency to a film that remains blacklisted by some fans, it's that Schumacher never strayed from giving the movie the visual appeal that distinguishes his movies from the rest. Without question both of his films scream a comic book quality that many of the others can't achieve because they're too busy being " serious" and "dark".  And, for me, that gives his movies more watch-ability than say BVS or Justice League.

In fact I find considerably more camp in those last two entries than I do in the Schumacher films, because they take the concept to ridiculous levels of seriousness that ultimately undermines the story. That's why it's become the butt of jokes in films like Deadpool 2. Wade Wilson says, " Sorry I was late. I was fighting a caped bad-ass, only to discover his mom was named Martha too." CLASSIC.

At the end of the day, I think some fans need to take a step back and give a closer examination to themselves than some of these films they bash with bizarre levels of resentment. Because no matter how you color it, the concept weighs on the idea of a man dressing up to look like a bat with a ton of style points a bat doesn't have. While that notion certainly offers a wide canvas to explore a number of psychological and social themes, there is also an inherent fantasy quality that is likely more universal to it's appeal. No one will care what his personal struggles are if there is not a visual payoff in the form of his costumed presence.

Batman & Robin certainly speaks to many of those qualities that cater to the inner child in all of us that watch these movies. Perhaps the Joker was right when he said, " Why so serious?" Sometimes I think it's healthy to drop that veil of pretentiousness and just let these character breath on a very primal level that services the inner child and nothing of greater pursuit.  Perhaps the day has finally arrived to cut the shackles from this film and let it be said nothing is truly wrong here.

Personally I think they did about as much with that movie as they could based on WB's decision to make it. Of all the heroes, only Wonder Woman and Superman had stand alone films with an ongoing narrative. Batman is thrown in from BVS while the others have cameos so brief you would miss them if you blinked. That's absolutely zero backstory for most of the principle players versus a movie like the Avengers where you already know them and are looking forward to seeing how they gel against a bigger threat which the writers can focus on for an entire film.

With Justice League, the writers were burdened with the weight of having to explain these heroes and gauge what was "enough" backstory to justify their presence. Only THEN could they start mapping out some kind of reason to have them show up together. It was a daunting task at best and could NEVER play out like a film that didn't have those considerations. When you add in the two hour limit (and correct me if I'm wrong) that includes the credit scroll, then you're telling allot of these origins AND trying to build a conflict to resolve all in UNDER two hours. I'm sorry but that is allot of information to dissect and correlate into a story people could walk out and feel satisfied. By it's very blueprint, the story was going to have to be paper thin. Add to that all of the variables of what people will like or not like and that doesn't leave you with allot of room to come out with a winning hand in the bigger picture.

Let's be honest. This project was rushed. WB was slow to get going with their endless gallery of heroes and by the time they were making Man of Steel, Marvel product was already setting the pace. Justice League was their attempt to catch up at the expense of good story telling and it shows. No one needed a ensemble piece at this stage, but WB felt they had to since Marvel was in the midst of making their third Avengers film. I think they saw the big money and that's why they made it.

Ben Affleck will likely go down as the first actor in modern times to play Batman in three films but NOT get his own movie. I think that influenced how people saw him and why he's lost support by so many. Personally I like him better now. But it took all of that exposition to get me there. In an ideal situation, I could have made that assessment with one film dedicated to his character. So those are the sacrifices WB has made in trying to mimic the pacing that Marvel has gotten to by putting in the time. Sadly people are clamoring for a complete reboot of the DC universe already. That just goes to show you if you want to do something well, do it right.

I don't like comparing Marvel and DC, because the argument should never settle on something that simple. But I'm left with that consideration more than I want BECAUSE of the way WB rushes to make projects that the Marvel license has spent years and countless movies getting to. THAT is the rub and THAT is why it gets compared. Sure there will always be the natural compare that comes from sharing the same genre. That's unavoidable. When I was a kid, I did that with the comics. But that doesn't mean you can't be expressive in your own way to the story you tell. And quite honestly being that kid that read comics in the early 70's when Neal Adams was penciling Batman and John Romita Sr (along with Gil Kane) were illustrating Spider-man, I just feel like the people on the projects for Marvel heroes have a better understanding of what their making than Warner Bros. My God. Look at Black Panther. What an amazing film! Look at Ant Man, Dead Pool, Dr Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy. All very different films with different sensibilities yet all under the Marvel Universe (and by different studios). No one can question the clear love that goes into crafting those characters and that world. And that seems to be missing at Warner Bros. They're simply trying to create a cash cow, instead of embrace the material.

Do I like Justice League? Yeah I do. But for me (and I know I'll be scorned for saying this) it plays like a slightly more serious version of Batman & Robin. It's like watching the SuperFriends if I have to place a value on the weight of story. But that does'nt make it a bad film for coming out that way. I think that's the best they could do with all of that information they chose to juggle and this is the end result.

Maybe the extended cut will break enough ground for a better rating? I guess we'll see.

Don't expect an extended cut. WB want Snyder dead and buried.

If there's any truth to the story that Snyder was fired, I don't know if there would be any legal ramifications if they reversed position and released everything he shot. Because I'm sure in firing him, he lost income in some aspect of that deal. So releasing his vision for which the studio fired him might be a sticky situation. That might be why there are hardly any deleted scenes. I could see that being a significant issue in court. At the very least it might be a face saving gesture for the studio, because in the end it would show they have no idea what they're doing. Like most things, they would be the last to figure that out.