Robin and his desire for revenge

Started by The Laughing Fish, Sat, 6 Dec 2014, 05:27

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: riddler on Sat,  6 Dec  2014, 21:00
-I definitely did like Dick not killing two face when he had the chance. There was quite a bit of character development in Batman Forever (heck way more than the nolan films)

:o How dare you question the cerebral genius of the Nolan films....bahahahahaha who am I kidding?  ;D

Cheap jokes aside, this is yet another reason why Batman Forever and even Batman & Robin were great missed opportunities. Each movie had a lot of good narrative ideas, but sadly they were marred by the execution. None of these movies would have the negative reputation they have today if, once again, the lame jokes, bad costumes and bad acting never existed. The fact that Batman continues his crusade by turning a new leaf and prevented his sidekick from falling into the abyss is worthy of any Batman movie. I'd say that Batman Forever could have potentially been the best Batman movie ever made if it weren't for studio interference and bad directing choices.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

I wonder if part of the reason those films have such a negative rep is that not too many fans have horses involved;
Tim burton, Michael Keaton, Pfeiffer, Devito, Walken, and Nicholson all have loyal fan bases who fight to bump up the rep
likewise for fans of Nolan, Bale, Ledger, and Oldman

Silverstone, Kilmer, Schumacher, and O' Donnell are all but forgotten. Schwarzenegger fans don't exactly prop this one up since it wasn't his vehicle and since Clooney himself denounced his film, his fans dont need to defend his performance.

Now part of the above is a reason you can blame the producers; the burton and nolan films had established good people who were right for their roles while the Schumacher films simply put the biggest people at the time in those roles without giving consideration to how they could perform. O' Donnell and Silverstone were teen fads at the time whos careers fizzled out due to lack of talent (though you could argue O Donnells career failed due to this film). Schwarzenegger and Jones had successful careers but neither were right for their roles (though both were poorly written). Actually most of the things which made us mad about the criticisms of the 89 film on its latest DVD (attempting to make a big blockbuster instead of a film) do apply to the schumacher films.