Now i know there's heaps and everyone has there 1 thing they dislike most about his movies but i have to say my biggest beef has to got be he had such talented actors for his movies and turned them into jokes.
Tommy Lee Jones: Oscar winning actor that could have made a deep, dark, depressing Two-Face and NO we got a guy in half a pimp suit with jelly on his face on a sugar rush.
Jim Carrey: Although he does play alot of the same roles he could have made a good Riddler had he not acted like a effeminate weirdo.
But that was NOTHING compared to what came next.
Uma Thurman: Half okey for the most part over the top part to say the least though, toned down and been darker it would have worked.
Jeep Swenson : Could have been a great villian had he had another actor dub the voice but no all we got was a retard Baaaannnnnneee.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: No need to even explain this one everything about him was wrong thank GOD Anthony Hopkins didn't take this role.
this is something people will never let go and I understand why, but we all know WB was shoving money down Joel's throat, so he did what he was told, dont blame Joel blame Warner Bros. they're the ones that initially wanted a lighter film.
Do you remeber the term "Make the film sorta toyetic"?
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 05:19
this is something people will never let go and I understand why, but we all know WB was shoving money down Joel's throat, so he did what he was told, dont blame Joel blame Warner Bros. they're the ones that initially wanted a lighter film.
Do you remeber the term "Make the film sorta toyetic"?
Totally agree. Each Batman film's quality is a reaction to the previous one. Shumacher gets grilled a lot for this and anyone could tell that B&R was just meant to sell merchandise. Not to sound like a Returns hater but I think that if Sam Hamm's screenplay for Returns was used, the quality of the other films could have been saved. Think about it--Forever was light because of the backlash against Returns which was too dark. Forever was a big hit so WB decided to purge the series by whoring it to the toy market. So now WB is playing it DEAD serious with this new series because of their self inflicted wounds, not that there's anything wrong with that. BTW, did WB sell enough toys after B&R came out? Did their plan work?
Quote from: batass4880 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 05:45
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 05:19
this is something people will never let go and I understand why, but we all know WB was shoving money down Joel's throat, so he did what he was told, dont blame Joel blame Warner Bros. they're the ones that initially wanted a lighter film.
Do you remeber the term "Make the film sorta toyetic"?
Totally agree. Each Batman film's quality is a reaction to the previous one. Shumacher gets grilled a lot for this and anyone could tell that B&R was just meant to sell merchandise. Not to sound like a Returns hater but I think that if Sam Hamm's screenplay for Returns was used, the quality of the other films could have been saved. Think about it--Forever was light because of the backlash against Returns which was too dark. Forever was a big hit so WB decided to purge the series by whoring it to the toy market. So now WB is playing it DEAD serious with this new series because of their self inflicted wounds, not that there's anything wrong with that. BTW, did WB sell enough toys after B&R came out? Did their plan work?
your totally right!
Never heard the Hopkins bit. I remember reading that Patrick Stewart turned down the role as well but that may have been just a rumor.
What is definitely true however is that Arnold couldn't do the role because he was signed up for another movie. His wife talked him into backing out of that role so that he could do Batman. While this whole thing was going on, Sylvester Stallone made it known that if Arnold couldn't do that he would've taken the role.
I wonder what the film would've been like if Stewart did do the film.
Patrick Stewart is just and exellent actor and is fit as hell for his age he would have been THE choice for Freeze, provided it had no Schumacher.
I feel that he would be the choice for most everyone for Freeze if we could go back and change things or possibly see Mr. Freeze in a new future installment, Im pretty sure Nolan wouldnt use Freeze even though he could do things to make him fit into his Gotham!
Batman is so popular at the moment WB will try and make more movies even if Nolan doesn't want to make anymore, if there is a next directer and they use Freeze i hope that he will use Patrick Stewart.
Quote from: Sandman on Fri, 17 Oct 2008, 05:02
Batman is so popular at the moment WB will try and make more movies even if Nolan doesn't want to make anymore, if there is a next directer and they use Freeze i hope that he will use Patrick Stewart.
I agree if they do use him I would love to see Stewart do it, though I would probably rather see some villains that havent been used yet, or villains that could have new fresh interpretations!
Quote from: batass4880 on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 05:45
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 05:19
this is something people will never let go and I understand why, but we all know WB was shoving money down Joel's throat, so he did what he was told, dont blame Joel blame Warner Bros. they're the ones that initially wanted a lighter film.
Do you remeber the term "Make the film sorta toyetic"?
Totally agree. Each Batman film's quality is a reaction to the previous one. Shumacher gets grilled a lot for this and anyone could tell that B&R was just meant to sell merchandise. Not to sound like a Returns hater but I think that if Sam Hamm's screenplay for Returns was used, the quality of the other films could have been saved. Think about it--Forever was light because of the backlash against Returns which was too dark. Forever was a big hit so WB decided to purge the series by whoring it to the toy market. So now WB is playing it DEAD serious with this new series because of their self inflicted wounds, not that there's anything wrong with that. BTW, did WB sell enough toys after B&R came out? Did their plan work?
Actually now that I think about it, if Burton went ahead and used Sam Hamm's story it probably would have gotten soccer mommies mad too. >:( There was alot of Catwoman violence such as stabbing and cutting like in the final film, plus there was some kinky and sexually suggestive stuff too. Also, the Penguin had his birds doing things that probably would make kids terrified of them after seeing it.
One thing that bugs me about Schumacher's cast is Clooney. Some people say "if Clooney had a better script, he could've been an awesome Batman!" Or some such stupidity. I mean, seriously, what in Clooney's body of work suggests that the grinning tool could ever be anything except a grinning tool? He never should've been Batman. No way, no how. Not even the goofy, campy Batman, who at least had some drama going, thanks to Adam West's portrayal.
"Hi Freeze. I'm Batman."
No. No you're not.
Quote from: batass4880 on Wed, 26 Nov 2008, 05:09Actually now that I think about it, if Burton went ahead and used Sam Hamm's story, it probably would have gotten soccer mommies mad too. >:( There was alot of Catwoman violence, such as stabbing and cutting like in the final film, plus there was some kinky and sexually suggestive stuff too. Also, the Penguin had his birds do things that probably would make kids terrified of them after seeing it.
I dunno, in retrospect BR has quite a few lurid moments.
Dude again, pure ignorance!
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Thu, 27 Nov 2008, 08:34Dude again, pure ignorance!
Quoting the text you're referring to would've been helpful. Nevertheless, I assume you're referring to my Clooney remarks. Fair enough. What movie has he done which suggests he's got the chops to pull of someone like Batman? From Dusk Till Dawn? I wouldn't say he was particularly "Batman'ish" in that one. He was bewildered and a little aggressive but nothing that a lot of other Hollywood bigshots couldn't do better. Is it his looks? Granted, he does have a sort of blustery "public" Bruce Wayne demeanor and he did those scenes well enough in B&R. Even so, either his repotoire up to now is very limited... or he as an actor is very limited. At this point, I'm more likely to believe the latter.
Personnally, i think with better direction Clooney would have been decent.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 28 Nov 2008, 22:13
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Thu, 27 Nov 2008, 08:34Dude again, pure ignorance!
Quoting the text you're referring to would've been helpful. Nevertheless, I assume you're referring to my Clooney remarks. Fair enough. What movie has he done which suggests he's got the chops to pull of someone like Batman? From Dusk Till Dawn? I wouldn't say he was particularly "Batman'ish" in that one. He was bewildered and a little aggressive but nothing that a lot of other Hollywood bigshots couldn't do better. Is it his looks? Granted, he does have a sort of blustery "public" Bruce Wayne demeanor and he did those scenes well enough in B&R. Even so, either his repotoire up to now is very limited... or he as an actor is very limited. At this point, I'm more likely to believe the latter.
I agree. He is a much better director than actor, however when he plays his type, he's very good. I think he makes a great Bruce under any direction, but as Batman there is something too boy next door about his presence that doesn't hold water for a dark Batman.
Quote from: raleagh on Sat, 29 Nov 2008, 21:13
Personnally, i think with better direction Clooney would have been decent.
Maybe, but I just don't like Clooney and don't see him as Batman. He didn't change his voice in the suit, he could have done that himself, but didn't. For shame Clooney.
I didnt like Clooney at all, and I know that many people say he coulda pulled off a "The Dark Knight Returns" older veteran batman very well, but I very much disagree. Theres nothing at all I like about his portrayals of either Bruce Wayne or Batman in the film, it is so stale, personally I think Arnolds performance no matter how cheesy is still alot better than what George did.
Val Kilmer was no Keaton or Bale but he was alot better than what Clooney did. I agree that George didnt even change his voice when in the suit, im pretty sure that wasnt a decision Joel made either, Clooney didnt even try. Probably the only thing about him was that his jawline was very close looking to batman from the comics and he looked decent in the suit lol except for this god awful thing.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi530.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd343%2Fmoguerametal%2Fbatman_gc1.jpg&hash=f617efe5920165366cf924ac31c2b3afb606a2b6)
I agree Clooney is an alright actor, but just because you look the part doesn't mean you'll be perfect for it. Look at Michael Keaton he didn't have the look people wanted but he ended up being the greatest Batman yet.
Mabye Clooney could have done better without Schumacher but i seriously doubt it. They should have stuck with Val Kilmer sure he wasn't the best but aleast he tryed, but i guess he knew better.
Kilmer decided to not return and do "The Saint" instead we all know that people have said that Val and Joel conflicted on the set quite a bit, either career move woulda been bad for his career.
Clooney played the Batman he wanted to play. His Batman wasnt "dark". Wasnt depressed. Wasnt brooding. He was the 60's Batman. He didnt want to do what Keaton did, he didnt want to do what Val did. If anything, he did what Adam West did.
Quote from: shadowbat69 on Fri, 12 Dec 2008, 03:21
Clooney played the Batman he wanted to play. His Batman wasnt "dark". Wasnt depressed. Wasnt brooding. He was the 60's Batman. He didnt want to do what Keaton did, he didnt want to do what Val did. If anything, he did what Adam West did.
Shadow how dare you, West is one million times better than Clooney!!
Quote from: shadowbat69 on Fri, 12 Dec 2008, 03:21
Clooney played the Batman he wanted to play. His Batman wasnt "dark". Wasnt depressed. Wasnt brooding. He was the 60's Batman. He didnt want to do what Keaton did, he didnt want to do what Val did. If anything, he did what Adam West did.
Sad this is, he did it unintentionally. West wins by a mile.
Adam West is still the frickin man!!!
Schumacher would be the first to admit that Batman and Robin particularly was partly his fault. However, one look at the special features for each of his respective films and it becomes pretty obvious that WB is the one to blame for the downfall of the franchise. Maybe Schumacher wasn't the best choice, but apparently he originally wanted to do Batman: Year One with Michael Keaton, and I can't imagine even Schumacher would butcher a classic like that with neon lights and corny one-liners.
As far as Batman and Robin goes, though he is partly responsible undoubtedly, it was WB's idea to make the film more toy friendly.
Clooney was excellent in 'O Brother Where Art Thou?', 'Syriana,' and 'Good Night, and Good Luck.'
I'm sure he could do Batman justice with the right director.
Quote from: Batmoney on Sun, 4 Jan 2009, 04:06
Schumacher would be the first to admit that Batman and Robin particularly was partly his fault. However, one look at the special features for each of his respective films and it becomes pretty obvious that WB is the one to blame for the downfall of the franchise. Maybe Schumacher wasn't the best choice, but apparently he originally wanted to do Batman: Year One with Michael Keaton, and I can't imagine even Schumacher would butcher a classic like that with neon lights and corny one-liners.
As far as Batman and Robin goes, though he is partly responsible undoubtedly, it was WB's idea to make the film more toy friendly.
WB made the decision for the films to be more "toyetic". Shlockmaker made them suck. A gifted storyteller can work within the parameters he's given. WB wanted lighter, more kid-friendly films for merchandising purposes. Nobody forced Shlockmaker to throw in bat credit cards, one liners so stupid that even David Goyer blushes and a goofy wannabe Two Face.
WB should be blamed for the decision. Shlockmaker should be blamed for the films that we got.
Quote from: greggbray on Sun, 4 Jan 2009, 06:08
Clooney was excellent in 'O Brother Where Art Thou?', 'Syriana,' and 'Good Night, and Good Luck.'
I'm sure he could do Batman justice with the right director.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. Even if, as in this case, they're totally wrong. :)
Long time, no see. Where you been keeping yourself, Bray?
I've been hybernating. :) It's been an intense semester, and I've had a number of professional developments, both in terms of productions and in terms of academic papers, etc.
Things are well. :) Gearing up for January 15th, of course!
In terms of Clooney, I recall several interviews (they're archived on BOF), that included statements of remorse from Clooney. That he really wanted to do a grounded, Frank Miller style Batman, and he felt he had let the fans down.
Yes, he bears responsibility for his performance, but we must remember that there was a maestro and a composter for this orchestra--a Schumacher film has little collaboration or direction with in it. I have a friend who is a professional art director, and he worked with Clooney on 8MM. He said the man was drunk every day, and what he was looking to express in the film altered from scene to scene without consistency. Sometimes from take to take.
Clooney, as far as I'm concerned has redeemed himself. And I'm right. Absolutely right. :)
Quote from: greggbray on Sun, 4 Jan 2009, 17:43
I have a friend who is a professional art director, and he worked with Clooney on 8MM. He said the man was drunk every day, and what he was looking to express in the film altered from scene to scene without consistency. Sometimes from take to take.
Don't you mean Joel Schumacher?
^ Whoops! Yep. My typing fingers moved faster than my brain. :)
Quote from: raleagh on Sun, 4 Jan 2009, 23:49
Quote from: greggbray on Sun, 4 Jan 2009, 17:43
I have a friend who is a professional art director, and he worked with Clooney on 8MM. He said the man was drunk every day, and what he was looking to express in the film altered from scene to scene without consistency. Sometimes from take to take.
Don't you mean Joel Schumacher?
Nice Avvie, Raleagh
It's hard to critique Clooney's acting in B & R because, well, he wasn't acting.
Sure, he was reading lines from a script but at no point throughout the movie does he do anything even resembling acting. He pretty much just played himself.