Batman (1989) vs Batman Returns

[Azrael]

I didn't know that either. DeVito for a Razzie? F**k, I wonder what kind of stupid people make these decisions.

[The Dark Knight]

It?s like they didn?t take his performance seriously just because it featured in a comic book film. They just laughed it off and dismissed it. But they go ahead and praise Ledger to the skies 16 years later despite that. You could say that?s an evolution of the genre and the judgment of it, but I?m of the opinion something else majorly factored into it. And we all know what I?m talking about.

DeVito did not deserve a Razzie nomination, and he didn?t merit an Oscar. Ledger didn?t warrant an Oscar either. But if Ledger recieved an Oscar for his performance, DeVito should have as well. They are seriously not much different at all, especially in their aims and execution. With Ledger, I believe people were quite simply swept up in the hysteria and empathy of the moment.

DeVito descended into the character too. Everything in his performance was tailored to the character he created, be it his animalistic grunting, voice, his walk, the lot. He was in essense playing an animal, which would be harder to do in my opinion.

If you said this to the Nolan crowd, you?d be shouted down and claims of conjecture would be leveled. It is absurd. It?s called acting. Ledger didn?t reinvent the wheel there. Not trashing Ledger, I love what he did, but you know what I mean. I find it frustrating.

[The Joker]

If you said this to the Nolan crowd, you?d be shouted down and claims of conjecture would be leveled. It is absurd. It?s called acting. Ledger didn?t reinvent the wheel there. Not trashing Ledger, I love what he did, but you know what I mean. I find it frustrating.

Loud and clear.

I'm also another one that absolutely loved Ledger's performance as the Joker. However, I am certainly not one of those who have this ridiculous belief that his performance as the Joker was the end all, be all. Which is taking being a complete mark waaay too far in my estimation.

As far as Danny Devito goes, yeah ... it's VERY perplexing to think he was nominated for a razzie following his very entertaining, and memorable performance as the Penguin. I never really hear anyone say anything bad about Devito's performance to be honest, and only began hearing disparaging remarks about Nicholson's performance as the Joker after the whole Nicholson vs. Ledger fanboy debate got underway. Which is really a damn shame since comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Anyways, Devito being nominated for a Razzie most definately belongs under that catagory of;

Just what the **** were they thinking?!?!?

     
 

[thecolorsblend]

I never really hear anyone say anything bad about Devito's performance to be honest, and only began hearing disparaging remarks about Nicholson's performance as the Joker after the whole Nicholson vs. Ledger fanboy debate got underway.

I remember Harry Knowles weighing in on this at some point waaaay before TDK.  Maybe even before TDK.  It was the first time I can remember anyone saying "that's just Nicholson being Nicholson".  Well, um, that's sorta the entire reason he was cast.  It's not like the Joker sits around reading Shakespeare and making political speeches all day in the comics.

It never ceases to amaze me how "the fans" can get the point but end up running the completely wrong direction with it.  If this was the only example, I wouldn't say that.  But, to say the least, it's not.  Not by a long shot.

Anyways, Devito being nominated for a Razzie most definately belongs under that catagory of;

Just what the **** were they thinking?!?!?

Comics adaptations have cred now that they didn't back then.  When you come down to it, a Razzie is just the flip side of an Oscar.  Both are awarded by groups of braindead neanderthals blinded by their own (though different) expectations and prejudices.

And they're worthy of just about the same amount of intellectual input (which is to say not much).

[burtongenius]

The Dark Knight
Love The Joker, but in this case, however, judging strictly as a character, I do find Burton?s Penguin more interesting and fascinating in the context of the film. He just works. The Catwoman union also elevates things to a higher level.

[/quote]
I don't understand.  Are you differentiating between the comic book villain and the burton villain?  Doesn't an artist interpretation of a character change the character and thus your opinion of the character?

Also, their are different aspects of a villain.  How bad they are, their personality, whater appeals to the viewer.  But in the end you're still using the villain as the crux of your choice right?

[The Joker]

I remember Harry Knowles weighing in on this at some point waaaay before TDK.  Maybe even before TDK.  It was the first time I can remember anyone saying "that's just Nicholson being Nicholson".  Well, um, that's sorta the entire reason he was cast.  It's not like the Joker sits around reading Shakespeare and making political speeches all day in the comics.

Ah, yes. Harry the Hutt and his lovely opinions.

That's interesting that he may have indeed been one of the first to have this belittling stance of, "Jack Nicholson as the Joker was just Jack Nicholson as the Joker" though. Especially if this statement was made well before Batman Begins. Unfortunately, this so-called argument completely falls apart upon close examination. Nicholson was chosen not only because of his status as a big name movie star that could get any film he starred in much media attention, but also due to the simple fact that he is an actor who has completely excelled in over-the-top roles numerous times. With the Joker, there was no top, and what we are left with is a very memorable and extremely entertaining performance.

Comics adaptations have cred now that they didn't back then.  When you come down to it, a Razzie is just the flip side of an Oscar.  Both are awarded by groups of braindead neanderthals blinded by their own (though different) expectations and prejudices.

And they're worthy of just about the same amount of intellectual input (which is to say not much).

It's just a sign of the times. Comic adaptations 15-20 years ago were definately a mixed bag. Some good and successful at the box office (Superman, Batman. The Crow), some not being well received at the box office, but decent (The Shadow, The Phantom), and some that were made for typical hollywood fare or should have never been made in the first place (Judge Dredd, Tank Girl). These days, the internet plays a large role in what becomes of comic movies, because "fans" (such as Harry the Hutt and the like) demand that the film not take too many liberties with the source material if possible. Which is exactly why a JJ Abrams Superman film was never produced.

Over the past decade, we have seen quite a number of comic adaptations come down the pike and become quite successful franchises. Naturally, the credibility that alluded comic book adaptations 15-20 years finally came to pass as well. With Devito being nominated for a Razzie in 1992, even despite the time frame, is nothing more than a "WTF" moment. Because clearly the decision makers in that call were jumping on that 'angry parent' bandwagon that was anything but positive for the film itself, or Tim Burton being unequivocally trusted with the franchise by WB.   

[burtongenius]

In a nutshell, devito got the razzie because he was too weird.  He wore that pajama outfit most of the time, he had pointed teeth, a black tongue, he lived in a sewer, he was abnormally obese his skin was bleached, and he would talk in grunts and eat fish.

Basically what a razzie means is is that they give it to a movie or actor who they think made a joke out of themselves.  They thought that of devito.  Whether you can blame them is another question.  Whether they were right is another question.  Neither of which I am willing to answer.

As far as nicholson's reason for doing Batman 89, he did it because he really liked what burton's idea was for batman and specifically the joker.  He didn't do it because it was going to be a big name movie.  Give Nicholson a little more credit than that. 

[The Dark Knight]

Basically what a razzie means is is that they give it to a movie or actor who they think made a joke out of themselves.  They thought that of devito.  Whether you can blame them is another question.  Whether they were right is another question.  Neither of which I am willing to answer.

I am willing to answer it. They must have been smashed off their head to nominate DeVito. And anyone who is sitting on the fence about whether or not he should have been is as well. I don't think DeVito looked goofy. Far from it. I think he looked unsettling. He was weird and alien to the viewer because he successfully presented that. He was totally in character. That's the whole point. If these Razzies are based just on appearance alone, they're absolutely stupid. Not even penetrating the topsoil in terms of what the actor gave us.

[The Dark Knight]

But in the end you're still using the villain as the crux of your choice right?

No, I'm not. You are. While I think The Penguin is better, he is only one aspect. Like I said before, picking a favourite film based soley on the villain ignores everything else a film offers. I prefer the tone, soundtrack, production design, you name it, over the Batman (1989) counterparts. Talking villains, as I said, The Joker is my favourite Batman villain and he was pretty fun in Batman (1989). But how The Penguin was presented in Batman Returns is superior for me. Not hard to understand.

That makes perfect sense for everybody else, right?

[The Joker]

In a nutshell, devito got the razzie because he was too weird.  He wore that pajama outfit most of the time, he had pointed teeth, a black tongue, he lived in a sewer, he was abnormally obese his skin was bleached, and he would talk in grunts and eat fish.

LMAO

He was too 'weird' huh?

Whoever walks into a Tim Burton movie expecting something mainstream?

Now I can't help but wonder why Johnny Depp didn't get the nomination for Edward Scissorhands?  

Basically what a razzie means is is that they give it to a movie or actor who they think made a joke out of themselves.  They thought that of devito.  Whether you can blame them is another question.  Whether they were right is another question.  Neither of which I am willing to answer.

I've seen films and performances that are, "so bad their good", and "so bad that their ... bad". I am very willing to say neither Batman Returns, or Devito's performance falls under those categories. Though I will concede that Danny Devito's Penguin was an easy target for negativity (such as the illustrious Razzie) due to the grotesqueness of the character. Which was, needless to say, intentional!!!

As far as nicholson's reason for doing Batman 89, he did it because he really liked what burton's idea was for batman and specifically the joker.  He didn't do it because it was going to be a big name movie.  Give Nicholson a little more credit than that. 

Who is suggesting that he did?

Let's be clear, Nicholson had starred in numerous high profile mainstream films by 1988. Starring in yet another wouldn't exactly be breaking new territory for him as a actor would it? No. There's a reason why he was courted so heavily by Peter Guber, Jon Peters, Tim Burton, ect ect. They knew he was just the right actor for the job. It's very obvious, especially from the Batman 1989 SE interviews as well as various magazine interviews, that Nicholson was a fan of Batman comics as a kid, and holds alot of affection for the Joker. Which I think is great.

Batman 1989 was anything but a sure box office hit. Actually, some of the gambles taken with the project were considered especially risky by a number of fans. However, gambles do, and in this case, did pay off very well.