What's the better film: Forever or Returns?

[thecolorsblend]

Hopefully it's going to a Mexican food restaurant cuz I could really go for some burritos right about now...

[Tarzan1941]

I have no idea where this thread is going either.  Therefore, here is my opinion.  Not fact, but opinion.

Simply put, I don't hold Returns as a masterpiece as some of you do.

We can all blame Schumacher for ruining the Batman franchise, but I feel that is too simple.  If you really want to point the finger and get at it from the view point of ground zero then one really has to blame Tim Burton.  Yep I said it.  Tim Burton ruined the Batman Franchise.  

I have no idea what possessed Burton to put in three major villains in one two hour movie along side an iconic hero such as Batman.  It just doesn't make sense from a storytelling stand point, a screen time stand point or a future film stand point.  You have three major players that you have to take the time, give them proper introductions and have their stories played out to the end.  And somehow manage to squeeze in the main character along with his story and how his life interacts with all three villains.  Tim Burton did not pull this off one bit.

I could point out all of the problems that Returns has from a story point of a view, and most of them have been discussed over the years, so I see no point in going into that again.  What I want to discuss is the over-load of villains.  Ever since Returns (not including the 1966 Batman movie), the Batman movies have suffered from over-load of villains.  In BATMAN you get The Joker, that is it (Carl Grissom wasn't in the picture long enough to cause damage in my opinion, so no, I do not count him.).  There is no one else to fight and to save the city from.  In BATMAN Returns we get The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Schreck.  In BATMAN FOREVER we get The Riddler and Two-Face.  In BATMAN & ROBIN we get Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane.  In BATMAN BEGINS we get The Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul.   And of course, coming to their senses, and using the only real character they could, we get The Joker once again in THE DARK KNIGHT. That is just way too many villains in only four movies.  What is the reasoning of passing on this many characters that couldn't possibly be fully developed to us, the viewers?

Could it be shotty story telling?  Yes.  Could it be, possibly, Warners wanted something more so they could put just that many more faces on toys and beach towels?  I could buy that.  In fact, I did!  Could it be that Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker was so great that no one had any idea on how to even come to par with such a performance, so they had to over-compensate with villains?  Absolutely.  However, with all of that going on, what gets the short end of the stick is the story, the script and we are left with only mediocre movies.  Yes, Returns had a decent production design (I still prefer Anton Furst's vision to Bo Welch's) and it may have fit into more of the Tim Burton universe, and hell it had penguin pallbearers, but it opened up the hole of cramming in too much to do in too little time.  Is there any reason The Penguin's and Max Schrex's characters could not have been combined into one?  No.  It would have made for a better story and I still wouldn't be asking, "What about the power plant?  I thought this thing was all about a power plant Schreck wanted to build so he could steal the energy from Gotham so he could re-sell it back to the city for a hefty profit."

Does Schumacher handle the overload any better than Burton does with BATMAN FOREVER?  Nope.  Not one bit.  See, I don't think Joel Schumacher is the devil.   In fact I happen to like a lot of his films.  The Lost Boys anyone?  What about Flatliners?  8MM?  Phone Booth?  And what about Tigerland, a personal favorite?  Despite what you may feel for the crime of BATMAN & ROBIN (that is a totally different topic anyway) Schumacher is indeed a talented film maker.  Yes he has some films that didn't work as did Tim Burton.  Planet of the Apes anyone?!  If you have not seen anything other than his Batman films or have totally boycotted his other works, than I suggest you stop being a one sided individual and expand your horizons and experience his other works.  And to those who already have and hated his other works, well then, that is your problem.  Could better screen writers and producers have been brought in to given us a better and fresher approach with BATMAN FOREVER?  Sure,  but by that time, greed had encased the executives on the Warners lot and all they wanted to do was sell as many crystal McDonald's glasses as they could.  I think Schumacher was never given a real chance to execute his vision for a Batman movie but merely carried out the marching orders for a studio that only saw dollar signs and didn't give two hoots about story.  Come on, it was the 1990's.  If you wanted story you had to go so see a Miramax film.  Not a film by a major studio.  So with that being said, are we really mad at Schumacher?  Or are we mad at Warners?  Do you blame the assassin for killing his target, or do you blame the person who hired the assassin in the first place and who's only desire is to move up the food chain and take as much money with him as he can?

Even with the rumors going around for the third installment of the Nolan franchise, there are reports going around that both Penguin and Riddler are going to make appearances.  Yes, I know these are only rumors, but still one can't help but ask yet again, "Why does there have to be so many damn villains in a Batman movie?"  Perhaps Tim Burton could enlighten us all.  And maybe he does, in the commentary for BATMAN RETURNS on the expanded 2-Disc version, I honestly don't know.  I haven't seen it.  But I'd be willing to wager a round or two with Joker's acid spitting orchid that the subject is never brought up.  Call it a hunch.

Tim Burton with BATMAN RETURNS opened up a can of sandworms that nobody knows how to close.  He had a shot at creating a masterpiece with either Catwoman or Penguin, but instead deiced to do something that nobody else has been able to pull off.  Mixing a cat and a bird.  And as we learned, they still don't mix.  In the end, BATMAN RETURNS is a good movie, not a great movie and far from a masterpiece.

[johnnygobbs]

Thanks Tarzan.  This is exactly the kind of response I was holding out for.  I know it's a bit rude of me, among others, to hold you Forever fans on the spot, but since you're in a minority around here I guess we were simply hoping you'd be able to give some reasons for your opinion.

I realise that it's still pretty unfair of me to hold 'minority opinions' to higher account, but since I don't often hear from people who prefer Forever, especially around these parts, I was curious to get an elaboration.  Thanks anyway.

I may not agree with you on this one, but I respect your opinion, especially now you've eleborated on your reasons.  By the way, I don't mind if any of you hold me to the same account as to why I prefer Returns to Forever, although I've got to dash soon so I don't have much time to do that right now.

[Sandman]

Some people think Van Halen was better then Hagar

Ah hummm Eddie was the guitarist, The beef is between Hagar and Lee Roth.

[thecolorsblend]

Some people think Van Halen was better with Hagar

Ah hummm Eddie was the guitarist, The beef is between Hagar and Lee Roth.

I'll just be honest and say that I have no idea what your point is.

[Sandman]

No reason it just had to corrected.

[Seantastic]

I picked Returns, however I do really like Forever, I just like Returns better due to the darkness of it

[Paul (ral)]

Some fair points raised by Tarzan - however I think it should be noted that penguin was forced on Burton by WB

[Grissom]

I voted for Returns but I do enjoy Forever. I remember the first time I saw Forever I really liked it. I knew from watching it that it strayed somewhat from what Burton had done and what became sort of what Batman should be, dark and mysterious, but I still enjoyed it, it was fun.

[Gotham Knight]

All fair points to some degree...even If I don't agree.