TMC
2012-10-08 07:36:09 UTC
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=451916&page=1
« Thread Started on Oct 5, 2012, 9:41pm »
BF basically did everything B&R did and got a much nicer, if still
lukewarm reception from the public. Hell, Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee
Jones chewed scenery so much that IMO some of the movie is flat out
unwatchable. Now, I'm not saying B&R is some kind of masterpiece, but
what was the straw in it that broke the camel's back, so to speak?
« Reply #4 on Oct 5, 2012, 10:11pm »
A pointless Bane, a terrible Mr. Freeze (Though one of Arnold's few
roles where his accent makes perfect sense), an apathetic Batman, a
fight scene with ice skating and spotlights in a museum, an
afterthought Batgirl, and a TERRIBLE Poison Ivy all added up to be a
waste of everyone's time. Batman Forever is a bad movie, but it has
some kernels that work. Batman and Robin fails on just about every
front.
So which is worse to you: a movie with wasted potential or a total
dud? It really is a case of which bothers you more.
« Reply #9 on Oct 5, 2012, 10:59pm »
Oct 5, 2012, 10:54pm, YAK MAN, Attorney at Law wrote:
Probably because given the approximate demographic around here, most
of us were young enough to not give a s*** that Batman Forever was a
terrible movie. By the time Batman and Robin came out we were a little
older, a little more refined in our tastes, and couldn't stomach it.
That's what I was about to say. I was still young enough to enjoy
Batman Forever without questioning how over the top and ridiculous
parts of it were. But I was a teenager who thought things out more by
the time of Batman & Robin.
And there's also the fact that Val Kilmer was more brooding and had a
bit of a mystique to him at the time that Clooney lacked.
« Reply #13 on Oct 5, 2012, 11:33pm »
I think it's because Batman Forever came out first, Kilmer was a
better Batman, and Jim Carrey was HUGE back then and people pretty
much loved him in everything he did from 1993-1998 (except Cable Guy).
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=451916&page=2
« Reply #20 on Oct 6, 2012, 3:46am »
B and R was just too wacky.
Forever also had decent performances from all involved, B and R... had
Drag Queen Mae West Poison Ivy.
« Reply #22 on Oct 6, 2012, 4:15am »
You had to love Forecer just for the fact that you had two villains,
one played by Jim Carrey, the other by Tommy Lee Jones, one of whom
ate scenery like there was no tomorrow, overacting and mugging all
over the place, and generally being as broad and cartoony as possible.
Then you had Jim Carrey.
Who wouldn't love a movie where TOMMY LEE JONES, Mr. Taciturn himself,
outhammed Jim friggin' Carrey.
Someone needs to find TLJ a role like that again, homeboy's looked
like he's been about to fall asleep in his movies the last several
years.
« Reply #23 on Oct 6, 2012, 5:57am »
The villians were less cheesy. That says a lot because the villians in
Forever were pretty cheesy. However, I think Carrey made the Riddler
work though. He was Jim Carrey but the character was still menacing
and fairly dark. Two Face was kind of half assed and extremely cheesy.
Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane did nothing for me in Batman and
Robin.
Val Kilmer was a better Batman than Clooney IMO.
Robin had a fairly good storyline in Forever. He was annoying as hell
in B & R.
No Batgirl.
Cool soundtrack.
« Reply #27 on Oct 6, 2012, 10:07am »
Forever was definitely campy, but B&R took the cartooniness to
incredible degrees. Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones were both wacky as
their charactrs, but you could still tell they were giving it their
all, while in B&R I got the impression that most of the actors were
sleepwalking their way through the parts, and from what I have heard
about what a mess the filming of that movie was I suspect they just
reached a point where they all wanted to just collect their checks and
go home. B&R screwed up the story of Bane, turning him into a dumb lug
instead of a challenging villain. I was no fan of the Batman and Robin
suits in Forever, but at least they did not have visible nipples and
over-exxaggerrated cod pieces.
Is that enough reasons for you?
« Reply #29 on Oct 6, 2012, 10:12am »
Batman Forever at least had some decent moments and a good Bruce Wayne/
Batman thanks to Val Kilmer. Had they gone with the original script,
it would've been a much better movie, but too late for that. I read
that Joel Schumacher wanted to do a director's cut for the 10th
anniversary, which would've been closer to the original script (to be
released on the 2 disc special edition that all 4 films received), but
WB decided against it. What a shame.
Batman & Robin was destined to be crap from the very beginning. Unlike
Forever, which had a different script initially, Batman & Robin's
script was more or less the same. It was just a stretched out and
overblown toy commercial. No redeeming moments, and plenty of
silliness that would even make Adam West and Burt Ward question
"why?". Mind you, I like the 1966 series...at least it was campy in a
fun way. Although I can look back at Batman & Robin and laugh at some
of the ridiculousness of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze.
« Reply #31 on Oct 6, 2012, 10:38am »
Forever just doesn't hold up anymore for me. Jones's Two-Face was
godawful in retrospect, Nicole Kidman was hardly allowed to do
anything, and Kilmer was a solid Batman but his Bruce was way too
brooding and that cancelled out the contrasts between the two
identities. Unlike B&R which I can just sit back and laugh at how
stupid and goofy it is, BF tried to take itself way too seriously and
it failed.
Although Forever had a far superior soundtrack. Seal, PJ Harvey, U2,
Method Man, Massive Attack, Nick Cave, Offspring and even Brandy all
brought it.
« Reply #34 on Oct 6, 2012, 11:32am »
Batman Forever did have somewhat of a story to it, and the whole theme
of Bruce Wayne not wanting Robin to become like him was interesting.
In Batman and Robin, the whole thing was a disaster.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=451916&page=3
« Reply #40 on Oct 6, 2012, 2:23pm »
Oct 6, 2012, 2:15pm, Krimzon wrote:
Oct 6, 2012, 3:17am, Terroriffic wrote:
And they didn't even get her origin right. Alfred's niece? Come on.
She was supposed to be English, yet had ZERO accent whatsoever.
Yup, you know thinking this topic over there's just some director's
styles who don't fit the franchises. Bryan Singer did great with the X-
Men franchise, but that style didn't translate well to the superman
mythos. Joel Schumacher has directed some good films, but Batman
really didn't fit his style.
« Reply #45 Yesterday at 12:05am »
I find B&R far more entertaining than BF. It's far more fun for me and
it is the most honest adaptation of the 60s series, which was just as
much a staple of my childhood as TAS. It is most assuredly flawed, but
I love cheesy films like it.
And let's be honest for a moment here: B&R is actually the most
internally consistent of that series of Batman flicks. It doesn't
pretend to be a serious take on the character and then have an overly
long barreled pistol take down a plane. It doesn't try to pass itself
off as dark and brooding before unleashing rocket penguins and CD
scratching. It embraced the goofiness that preceded it and established
it from the beginning. And unlike Forever, B&R had the actors far more
in synch with each other. In Forever, you have Kilmer and Kidman more
or less acting like they are in a serious movie while Carrey and Jones
chew so much scenery that there are bite marks in scenes they don't
even appear in.
« Thread Started on Oct 5, 2012, 9:41pm »
BF basically did everything B&R did and got a much nicer, if still
lukewarm reception from the public. Hell, Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee
Jones chewed scenery so much that IMO some of the movie is flat out
unwatchable. Now, I'm not saying B&R is some kind of masterpiece, but
what was the straw in it that broke the camel's back, so to speak?
« Reply #4 on Oct 5, 2012, 10:11pm »
A pointless Bane, a terrible Mr. Freeze (Though one of Arnold's few
roles where his accent makes perfect sense), an apathetic Batman, a
fight scene with ice skating and spotlights in a museum, an
afterthought Batgirl, and a TERRIBLE Poison Ivy all added up to be a
waste of everyone's time. Batman Forever is a bad movie, but it has
some kernels that work. Batman and Robin fails on just about every
front.
So which is worse to you: a movie with wasted potential or a total
dud? It really is a case of which bothers you more.
« Reply #9 on Oct 5, 2012, 10:59pm »
Oct 5, 2012, 10:54pm, YAK MAN, Attorney at Law wrote:
Probably because given the approximate demographic around here, most
of us were young enough to not give a s*** that Batman Forever was a
terrible movie. By the time Batman and Robin came out we were a little
older, a little more refined in our tastes, and couldn't stomach it.
That's what I was about to say. I was still young enough to enjoy
Batman Forever without questioning how over the top and ridiculous
parts of it were. But I was a teenager who thought things out more by
the time of Batman & Robin.
And there's also the fact that Val Kilmer was more brooding and had a
bit of a mystique to him at the time that Clooney lacked.
« Reply #13 on Oct 5, 2012, 11:33pm »
I think it's because Batman Forever came out first, Kilmer was a
better Batman, and Jim Carrey was HUGE back then and people pretty
much loved him in everything he did from 1993-1998 (except Cable Guy).
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=451916&page=2
« Reply #20 on Oct 6, 2012, 3:46am »
B and R was just too wacky.
Forever also had decent performances from all involved, B and R... had
Drag Queen Mae West Poison Ivy.
« Reply #22 on Oct 6, 2012, 4:15am »
You had to love Forecer just for the fact that you had two villains,
one played by Jim Carrey, the other by Tommy Lee Jones, one of whom
ate scenery like there was no tomorrow, overacting and mugging all
over the place, and generally being as broad and cartoony as possible.
Then you had Jim Carrey.
Who wouldn't love a movie where TOMMY LEE JONES, Mr. Taciturn himself,
outhammed Jim friggin' Carrey.
Someone needs to find TLJ a role like that again, homeboy's looked
like he's been about to fall asleep in his movies the last several
years.
« Reply #23 on Oct 6, 2012, 5:57am »
The villians were less cheesy. That says a lot because the villians in
Forever were pretty cheesy. However, I think Carrey made the Riddler
work though. He was Jim Carrey but the character was still menacing
and fairly dark. Two Face was kind of half assed and extremely cheesy.
Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane did nothing for me in Batman and
Robin.
Val Kilmer was a better Batman than Clooney IMO.
Robin had a fairly good storyline in Forever. He was annoying as hell
in B & R.
No Batgirl.
Cool soundtrack.
« Reply #27 on Oct 6, 2012, 10:07am »
Forever was definitely campy, but B&R took the cartooniness to
incredible degrees. Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones were both wacky as
their charactrs, but you could still tell they were giving it their
all, while in B&R I got the impression that most of the actors were
sleepwalking their way through the parts, and from what I have heard
about what a mess the filming of that movie was I suspect they just
reached a point where they all wanted to just collect their checks and
go home. B&R screwed up the story of Bane, turning him into a dumb lug
instead of a challenging villain. I was no fan of the Batman and Robin
suits in Forever, but at least they did not have visible nipples and
over-exxaggerrated cod pieces.
Is that enough reasons for you?
« Reply #29 on Oct 6, 2012, 10:12am »
Batman Forever at least had some decent moments and a good Bruce Wayne/
Batman thanks to Val Kilmer. Had they gone with the original script,
it would've been a much better movie, but too late for that. I read
that Joel Schumacher wanted to do a director's cut for the 10th
anniversary, which would've been closer to the original script (to be
released on the 2 disc special edition that all 4 films received), but
WB decided against it. What a shame.
Batman & Robin was destined to be crap from the very beginning. Unlike
Forever, which had a different script initially, Batman & Robin's
script was more or less the same. It was just a stretched out and
overblown toy commercial. No redeeming moments, and plenty of
silliness that would even make Adam West and Burt Ward question
"why?". Mind you, I like the 1966 series...at least it was campy in a
fun way. Although I can look back at Batman & Robin and laugh at some
of the ridiculousness of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze.
« Reply #31 on Oct 6, 2012, 10:38am »
Forever just doesn't hold up anymore for me. Jones's Two-Face was
godawful in retrospect, Nicole Kidman was hardly allowed to do
anything, and Kilmer was a solid Batman but his Bruce was way too
brooding and that cancelled out the contrasts between the two
identities. Unlike B&R which I can just sit back and laugh at how
stupid and goofy it is, BF tried to take itself way too seriously and
it failed.
Although Forever had a far superior soundtrack. Seal, PJ Harvey, U2,
Method Man, Massive Attack, Nick Cave, Offspring and even Brandy all
brought it.
« Reply #34 on Oct 6, 2012, 11:32am »
Batman Forever did have somewhat of a story to it, and the whole theme
of Bruce Wayne not wanting Robin to become like him was interesting.
In Batman and Robin, the whole thing was a disaster.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=451916&page=3
« Reply #40 on Oct 6, 2012, 2:23pm »
Oct 6, 2012, 2:15pm, Krimzon wrote:
Oct 6, 2012, 3:17am, Terroriffic wrote:
And they didn't even get her origin right. Alfred's niece? Come on.
She was supposed to be English, yet had ZERO accent whatsoever.
Yup, you know thinking this topic over there's just some director's
styles who don't fit the franchises. Bryan Singer did great with the X-
Men franchise, but that style didn't translate well to the superman
mythos. Joel Schumacher has directed some good films, but Batman
really didn't fit his style.
« Reply #45 Yesterday at 12:05am »
I find B&R far more entertaining than BF. It's far more fun for me and
it is the most honest adaptation of the 60s series, which was just as
much a staple of my childhood as TAS. It is most assuredly flawed, but
I love cheesy films like it.
And let's be honest for a moment here: B&R is actually the most
internally consistent of that series of Batman flicks. It doesn't
pretend to be a serious take on the character and then have an overly
long barreled pistol take down a plane. It doesn't try to pass itself
off as dark and brooding before unleashing rocket penguins and CD
scratching. It embraced the goofiness that preceded it and established
it from the beginning. And unlike Forever, B&R had the actors far more
in synch with each other. In Forever, you have Kilmer and Kidman more
or less acting like they are in a serious movie while Carrey and Jones
chew so much scenery that there are bite marks in scenes they don't
even appear in.