Messages

Oswald may exist in this series but for all intents and purposes this woman is The Penguin. Which is foreign to franchise history, thus definitely not "something from the Batman comics." Being 'original', especially these days is more likely to produce alienating slop that is different just for the sake of it. That's how I feel about this Penguin. I'm more inclined to want something more straight down the line with the characters now. Being a Sopranos style gangster is still something new cinematically while not being a huge diversion from the norm. But this is just one character - I've liked the look and sound of the footage I've seen overall. I wasn't expecting to like everything from this. Just as long I like most of it.

Just accept that the name Penguin can be used for anyone. Makes more sense to make certain characters legacy ones than just the same person over and over that often stretch the believability. Admittedly, it's rather unoriginal to go with Oswalda for the character's name but this particular incarnation has interesting qualities than just something lifted from a 80 year old comic. If you want something "down the line," just read that old stuff again. It's easily accessible and it's a backhanded comment to other creators who have contributed to the character's history instead of just doing what was already done. Sure, some of it doesn't stick in the long run but it's still a contribution. One of the chief reasons DeVito wasn't keen on the idea of being The Penguin when he was rumored to be was that he didn't just want to be Burgess Meredith going QUACK QUACK or just a gangster version of Louie from Taxi. Once he was shown what they were getting into, he was convinced. Sometimes it's best to take another interpretation than just rise and repeat. Timm has said on the subject:

"You might think that we're changing something just to change it, but it was never about that; it was more about where will it lead us? Will it lead us to do something new?"

They just can't help themselves

I don't understand the logic of this decision. Kudos to Minnie Driver for going out there and being a good company man about this. But it's kind of an incomprehensible creative choice.

Nothing is gained with this. It just blemishes what otherwise looks to be a decent show and puts a sizeable segment of the fanbase offside unnecessarily. Instead of creating a new female villain they hijack an existing iconic villain? Harley Quinn wouldn't exist at all if that was the modus operandi back in the 90s. Minnie Driiver says "That's what's so brilliant about what he's reimagined. The expansion of this particular character feels so timely. For such a vintage noir show, it's incredibly modern." No, Minnie. That's exactly what makes this so awful. The 1940s time period doesn't mesh with wokeism. Either go full 1940s or don't do it at all. Thankfully the Colin Farrell Penguin show seems to be giving the character exactly the type of portrayal he deserves.

I'm more intrigued with this notion of character than wanting to reject it. The Penguin has always needed radical reworkings to keep him being just a funny looking character. He was treated pretty eloquently in the Animated Series and this series doesn't simply want to repeat what's already been done.

I believe this Penguin will be more of a Ma Barker type of criminal with her sons, one likely Oswald, being her henchmen. That perfectly fits the whole 30's/40's vibe they're going for and it's a unique visual to see a mama penguin with her chicks in tow. It's certainly no less worthy than Farrell's incarnation of the character that was just a repeat of Pacino's Big Boy Caprice performance. There's also criticisms of the new Max series is more akin like the Bob Hoskins crime movie The Long Good Friday. I'll bet the storyline in Caped Crusader will be like The Godfather with Penguin being a monicker for the gang's leader and she'll be killed with the least likely member of the family will take over the mantle.

This likely wouldn't have gone over well if this was a contemporary set series, but the 30's/40's setting with inspirations from Ma Barker make this acceptable. The initial series bible had a detail about Cobblepot being a Norman Bates mama's boy type and this definitely feels like an extension of that notion.

Just like the 1940s comics

Along with the African American Gordons and Alfred, Asian American Dr. Harleen Quinzel and villains like Natalia Knight and Onomatopoeia. Obviously they're taking some liberties. Despite the creators making an effort to be different and constant criticisms of shows and movies using the same characters over and over, people are still complaining over the lack of familiars like The Joker and others. I've waited so long for a series like this to come to fruition and I'm willing to accept some differentiations as long as it's in good spirts. I want this to go beyond just the two season order totaling just 20 episodes.

What does everyone expect from the Joker/Harley partnership? Is it real, or do you think there'll be a twist at the end where it turns out Arthur imagined it all and she's really just his therapist?

I hope it's not that deceptively easy. Phillips has to know that's the easiest deduction to make for this sequel. Hope we don't hear that as an excuse to why this sequel that nobody planned for got made.

The only ones I haven't seen theatrical screenings of are B66 and B89.

Yesterday I attended a theatrical screening of Walter Hill's The Warriors (1979), which was one of my favourite movies when I was a teenager. Now I have a ticket booked for a theatrical screening of another classic film tomorrow night: Batman: The Movie! I'm finally going to see Batman fight the exploding shark on the big screen!

Please report on how the audience reacts to West's reaction to Batman learning Catwoman's true identity. Have fun!

Laughter, followed by compassionate silence for the Dark Knight's broken heart. There weren't many people at the screening – fewer than a dozen – but the audience were laughing throughout the film. The biggest laughs were during the bomb scene. The 'C for Catwoman' line got a huge laugh as well. It was great seeing it with other fans. I love this movie so much. It's pure joy from start to finish.

Whenever I see a familiar film on the big screen I always spot little details I've not noticed before, and there were a couple of things that caught my eye at this screening. Firstly, when Batman and Robin first board the Bat-boat and speed away from the shore if you look at the top of the screen you can see the rotor of the helicopter on which the camera is mounted.

Secondly, when the heroes are reviewing the data on escaped super criminals in Gordon's office the picture of Catwoman shows her standing in the library at stately Wayne Manor, whereas the other villains are all shown posing in front of a different backdrop.

Meriwether ranks alongside Pfeiffer for sheer beauty. She's a great Catwoman. Definitely among my top three.

Seeing the film on the big screen was a terrific experience. The movie holds up as one of the greatest comedies of the sixties. Now I just need to see Batman '89 on the big screen.

Next month my theatre's hosting an eighties movie season that'll include screenings of RoboCop, Predator and Beverly Hills Cop. All the Spider-Man films are getting re-released as well, but I'm not too bothered about those. But seeing RoboCop and Predator on the big screen? Hell yes!

Thank you very much for reporting back. I definitely wouldn't pass up an opportunity to see this one if I could but I always wondered how the audience would react to that scene. Something like this could easily get too rowdy but that is such a layered and poignant moment that it could be ruined with too much laugher. I saw The NeverEnding Story and someone behind me kept giggling when the oracles were on screen. They were also ruining the emotional crux of the whole thing when the Empresses is pleading to Bastian to give her a name. I had to shush them to not ruin it any further.

Not sure if you were aware, but the screengrabs of the villains were taken from the trailer. Good eye on noticing Catwoman was in Wayne Manor while the others were in front of the United Underworld logo.

Meriwether was certainly great for this incarnation of the character that was deceiving Bruce Wayne. I believe this one of the first times this Dating Catwoman trope was played out. Newmar definitely would have been different. She would have towered in stature over the rest of the villains, even the 6'3 Romeo as Joker. Meriwether returned as love interest for Bruce Wayne who gets kidnapped by King Tut in a second season episode. The chemistry between her and West makes me wish that she had a recurring role as Julie Madison.

The only ones I haven't seen theatrical screenings of are B66 and B89.

Yesterday I attended a theatrical screening of Walter Hill's The Warriors (1979), which was one of my favourite movies when I was a teenager. Now I have a ticket booked for a theatrical screening of another classic film tomorrow night: Batman: The Movie! I'm finally going to see Batman fight the exploding shark on the big screen!

Please report on how the audience reacts to West's reaction to Batman learning Catwoman's true identity. Have fun!

Eeek. That panel was rough to watch. Makes you yearn for a decent 4K release of the three films from Shout Factory with decent interviews where there's none of that "play up to the crowd" mentality these actors take while addressing  the audience. This is one of those bad examples of when you try to shove everyone into one room and tell them to talk. It's like The Goonies commentary where everyone was just talking over each other, like in the film, and you can't pick up on their anecdotes. One comment on the video said it best that they were disappointed that Elias Koteas wasn't there and grateful that Corey Feldman wasn't there.

Am I the only person who doesn't love this movie?

I thought I was the only one who didn't love it. I figured it was due to me overhyping Fury Road when it first came out by watching the first two before going in.

The whole George Miller unrestrained feeling felt just like when George Lucas felt unbridled to his vision for the Star Wars prequels. It seemed like everything I loved about the films were ignored for this new film. I never needed to see someone bite the head off of a two-headed lizard or flames shoot out of a guitar in a world where gas is supposedly a precious commodity.

It was also rather unintentionally comical to see Immortan Joe unleash all of that water to everyone with flat pans attempting to collect it, along with the women being rather wasteful with it posing for a wet t-shirt contest. It also frustrated me to see them stupidly place a mask over Hugh Keays-Byrne'a highly expressive face. The few traces of plot reminded me of National Lampoon's Vacation where the quest for the Green Place turns out to be a lost cause.

It might well be the case that most of the stunts were done practically, but a lot of it still looks computer animated in the final film. Because of this the action scenes lack the bone-breaking impact that made the stunts so impressive in the earlier movies, like when the guy gets hit in the head by his own bike in Mad Max 1, or when that gang member goes spinning through the air in The Road Warrior. You've also got to assess these films in the context of when they were made, and Mad Max 1 and 2 were simply more significant contributions to Australian cinema IMHO.

After seeing Furiosa this summer, I have a greater affinity for Fury Road looking much more realistic looking than Furiosa's obvious use of green screen. This was highly obvious when Furiosa ended with scenes from Fury Road. It is a shame when amazing practical effects like the ones in Fury Road get diluted with CGI add-ins and the yucky color pallet.

I often feel terrible praising the stunt work in these films, because they unfortunately caused a lot of pain for those who suffered from them. That's exactly why you won't see something like that with today's films so it shouldn't be considered a detriment to films today for wanting to avoid serious accidents or long term injuries. For example, they can't fly actors playing Superman like they did for Christopher Reeve anymore due to the back problems he later suffered from. It may look better, but it all comes at a price.

There's something to that. The theater experience does play a factor in how someone thinks of, or remembers a movie. Simply due to their own personal experience with seeing the film in a theater for the very first time. I mean, there are movies that I don't believe are particularly great movies, but did have a good theater experience with, and as a consequence, have since had some partiality towards ever since.

"The Haunting" from 1999 is one of these. Not something I've honestly had any interest in rewatching over the years, but I did have a very good theater experience with. Truth be told, the entire night after seeing the movie was fun as well, but the night got kicked off by that movie. So, subsequently, whenever I've seen something about that film pop up, I can't help but think about that night/theater experience. Definitely influencing my opinion about the movie for sure. I definitely can't deny that.

This part stood out for me. It makes me wonder if we should kick off a Fun Moviegoing Thread.

Not necessarily movie theater experiences. But positive experiences had while watching a film for the first time, whether it was in a theater or at home (or wherever).

One question I've always grappled with is to what degree is my affection for a given movie about the film itself and how much is it to do with the circumstances under which I saw the movie.

There's a lot to say, frankly. But before starting a Fun Moviegoing Experiences thread, I thought I'd at least float a trial balloon and see if anyone has any kind of interest in that.

To be clear, the criteria would be:

1- First time seeing a movie (theater or not)
2- What a positive experience that was
3- Is the movie objectively good? Or do you like it because seeing it that first time was such a vivid experience?

It could be that this is only interesting to me. But even so, I thought I'd ask.

That's a terrific idea! During COVID, I got bored one day and decided to make a complete list of every movie I ever saw at the theater by going through year by year on Wikipedia and compiling every movie ticket I've kept since I turned 20. Would be fun to reflect on them and hear from others.

It's time to return to Genesis. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is getting a 40th anniversary theatrical rerelease on June 14th. A new poster has been created by artist Matt Ferguson.

Here's the quad poster for UK cinemas.

I'm definitely going to catch a screening. I've always liked The Search for Spock, ever since I first saw it on TV back in the early nineties. Hopefully this rerelease will encourage more sci-fi enthusiasts and cinephiles to give it another chance. It's badly underrated IMO.

I wonder if this means we'll be getting a theatrical rerelease of The Voyage Home in 2026.

So far, there have only been indications of the UK getting this theatrical rerelease and none of the kind for an American release. I do hope that changes because this is my favorite of the trilogy of Star Trek films. There have been numerous rereleases of Wrath of Khan over the years and there was an opportunity to see Voyage Home back in 2021 in theaters, but to my knowledge, that hasn't been the case for Search for Spock.

The purple cowl, dress and cape ensemble has always been my favourite Catwoman costume. I don't know if it'd work in live action, but it looks good here.

I've always been a fan of this cosplay of this iteration that brilliantly used Yvonne Craig's Batgirl cowl for the mask.

https://pin.it/4nV55lvxl