What's the better film: Forever or Returns?

[thecolorsblend]

No reason it just had to corrected.

Correct what exactly?  The band is named after Eddie and Alex; everybody knows that.  Among fans of VH, there is sometimes debate over whether Roth or Hagar is the better frontman.  The majority seem to prefer Roth; everybody knows that too.

So again, I have no idea what your point is.

[Gotham Knight]

Lets take it easy, people.

[johnnygobbs]

I agree with Trazan with regard to Joel Schumacher.  IMO he has made some very good films (Flatliners; Tigerland; Phone Booth; St Elmo's Fire; The Lost Boys; A Time to Kill; Falling Down), so I am by no means a hater.  However, I don't think his respective Batman films can be added to the above list.

Batman Returns is highly imaginative - although the main characters are by Burton's own admission very exteme, it's possible to read so much into the story's themes.  The art direction, cinematography and costumes are beautiful in some cases.  The humour is very dark and twisted, and the film never feels like an overblown childrens pantomime.  Although I first saw and enjoyed the film as a child, this is most definittely not a childrens' film.

[Joker81]

Tarzan, I think you went off the point in your post. i respect your views, and opinions. But some of it was off the point. All directors, even the great ones have flops, and misses. Being part of a Burton-Batman forum it is most likely most people are going to favour Returns over Forever. One definative reason being the tone.

The general opinion of the mass movie going public, in hindsight also prefer Returns over Forever. I agree that the studio had a lot to do with the lightening up of the franchise, merchandising is probably part of the reason for this and aiming at a younger audience. But like you say, Schmacher was a fairly successful director by the mid 90's, he didnt have to take the project. Also there was many important and good story driven movies made by the big studios in the 90's, just because Mirmax made Pulp Fiction doesnt make them the representatives of smart movies of the 90's! Difference is the big studios could afford to make blockbusters as well a smaller budget movies with some substance. The summer blockbuster is a business, but no summer film has ever matched up to the film that started it all in 1975 - Jaws.

Anyhow you asked about why Burton put the cat and the bird into Batman Returns. As a matter of fact it is mentioned on the DVD. Warners wanted Batman 2 to be about the Penguin. Burton wanted to do Catwoman. So they came to agreement that they would do both. Max Schrek I believe was originally supposed to be Harvey Dent and he evolved in to Schrek. At one stage he was Oswald Cobblepots long lost brother but that plot was soon dropped because of to much story. I for one like the character of Schrek. He brings some real human villainy to the Cat, Bat and Penguin scenario. And Christopher Walken is amazing in the role. An overlooked villian of the movie Batman world. To me Schrek is the real villian of Batman Returns. He makes Selina the Catwoman, minipulates the Penguin to get his own way for his power plant and bullies and kills anyone who tries to get in his way! Showing that the human villain is a lot worse than the animal ones. Just like in real life.

[Tarzan1941]

Tarzan, I think you went off the point in your post. i respect your views, and opinions. But some of it was off the point. All directors, even the great ones have flops, and misses. Being part of a Burton-Batman forum it is most likely most people are going to favour Returns over Forever. One definative reason being the tone.

The general opinion of the mass movie going public, in hindsight also prefer Returns over Forever. I agree that the studio had a lot to do with the lightening up of the franchise, merchandising is probably part of the reason for this and aiming at a younger audience. But like you say, Schmacher was a fairly successful director by the mid 90's, he didnt have to take the project. Also there was many important and good story driven movies made by the big studios in the 90's, just because Mirmax made Pulp Fiction doesnt make them the representatives of smart movies of the 90's! Difference is the big studios could afford to make blockbusters as well a smaller budget movies with some substance. The summer blockbuster is a business, but no summer film has ever matched up to the film that started it all in 1975 - Jaws.

Anyhow you asked about why Burton put the cat and the bird into Batman Returns. As a matter of fact it is mentioned on the DVD. Warners wanted Batman 2 to be about the Penguin. Burton wanted to do Catwoman. So they came to agreement that they would do both. Max Schrek I believe was originally supposed to be Harvey Dent and he evolved in to Schrek. At one stage he was Oswald Cobblepots long lost brother but that plot was soon dropped because of to much story. I for one like the character of Schrek. He brings some real human villainy to the Cat, Bat and Penguin scenario. And Christopher Walken is amazing in the role. An overlooked villian of the movie Batman world. To me Schrek is the real villian of Batman Returns. He makes Selina the Catwoman, minipulates the Penguin to get his own way for his power plant and bullies and kills anyone who tries to get in his way! Showing that the human villain is a lot worse than the animal ones. Just like in real life.

First off thank you all for letting me know that I was in error on the whole two villain situation concerning The Penguin and Catwoman.  When I get rich, I plan on buying the DVD and finally watching it.  I'll take that acid squirt in the face now.

However, I'll only take one, instead of two because I would like to think with Warners keeping the sets up at Pinewood Studios, knowing full well that they wanted Burton to come back for the second installment, you'd like to think that they wouldn't put too many demands on him.  However, I could see the suits agree to build Tim a whole new city in exchange for The Penguin being brought in.  Either way, it's still too many people on screen.  Once again, just my opinion.

As for a couple of other comments, yeah I re-read some of the other posts and my own post again, and yes I did indeed go "off-topic" but not too far.  Did I defend BATMAN FOREVER in my post?  No, not really.  And I have no plans to write up a post doing so.  I shouldn't have to defend a choice and opinion.  Much like everyone else defending RETURNS to anyone else.  You should not have to do it.  No one is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to do so.  Vote how ever you want and elobrate if you want to.  But because someone voted a certain way or holds a different opinion than you or the masses, don't hold it against them.  It's their right.

I voted FOREVER because I felt it was a good movie from another director with a different tone and a new direction.  I honestly believe that.  Sure with this being pointed out as Burton-Batman forum, I would suspect and expect nothing but most people liking RETURNS.  Hell, even with my little rant, I still like it, but as a sequel, it's only good.  And as far as the masses outside of the Batman movie universe and what they like.... I could not even begin to care what they like.  I seriously couldn't.  These are that same people that saw ARMAGEDDON and TRANSFORMERS and THE MATRIX and THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY.  I don't care for those movies.  Do those people who like those movies care that I don't care for their choices in movies.  I highly doubt it.  A good example of this would be WATERWORLD.  I happen to like the movie for several reasons, and through the ages I have found a few others that liked it as well.  It is true that most of the masses consider it a flop and a bad film.  So be it.  That is their opinion.  That doesn't take any enjoyment I have received from the movie.  Same goes for BATMAN RETURNS AND BATMAN FOREVER.  It's all about choice and free will.  Do with it what you will.

As for Schmacher taking the helm of the Batman Franchise, I am sure he had his reasons.  Whether they be financial reasons or creative reasons.  Maybe he was paid $7 million dollars plus part of the profits.  Sounds good to me, right?  Or perhaps he wanted to do another movie that Warnes owned the rights to or a movie that he wanted to produce and direct, so he told them that he would direct their Batman movie so he could get financing to do his own project.  A good example of this would be Bill Murray in GHOSTBUSTERS.  He told Columbia Pictures that he would be willing to do the film, only if the bank rolled his pet project, THE RAZOR'S EDGE. (Which by the way is not the horribile film that the critics make it out to be!)  They went for it and we got one of the greatest films in the last 30 years!

And who said anything about PULP FICTION? :-)  I personally could take or leave the movie and MIRAMAX was around long before that movie.  Just because Warners put out BATMAN, doesn't mean I think they are gods and that the movie business revolves around them.  I look at the whole picture and know what the studios were putting out in 1990s with a lot of it being garbage.  Why do you think a good portion of the actors began doing indy films?  Because they knew what the studios were putting out wasn't of quality and substance and wanted to be rewarded on the creative side of things.  As an actor and as an artist, that should be your only concern.  Not how many millions am I getting paid, but how will this story reward me creatively.  Oh and yeah STAR WARS (1977) blew that shark movie out of the water.  Spielberg even admits that.

I totally agree with you Joker that Schreck is indeed the real villain of RETRUNS.  No doubt about it.  What I would have liked to have seen though is more plot concerning the power plant that he was coning everyone into.  After the Bruce Wayne/Max Schreck meeting, it's never mentioned again.  Why not?  It's a decent idea.  Not a great idea, because the actual thought is never given time to breath and grow, but an interesting theme on manipulation as you pointed out.  I would have liked to have learn more about his motivation for building such a place, where it was located, how much he was expected to make off the scheme.  What if The Penguin had learned about this power plant and discovered that he was only a pawn in Schreck's wicked game?  That could be a lot of fun, especially if he decided to kill off Schreck and become the new CEO of this little power grab operation.  And what about Catwoman?  She's knows what's going on, but it's never mentioned again that she knows.  She could have easily went back as Catwoman and blackmailed Schreck or killed him off as well, but she never does.  Lots of what ifs and could have beens come to mind about what could have truly been a great, great villain that even Dr. Hannibal Lecter would think twice about double crossing.

[The Dark Knight]

I can't be bothered writing the third testament in response to Tarzan1941's vicious hate speech aimed at Returns, but I may later.

At the moment, all I can say is that I'm seething with coiled rage, and that will explosively erupt on this thread at some stage. I give you the option of either staying away, or ending up as collateral damage. Things will get ugly.

[johnnygobbs]

I shouldn't have to defend a choice and opinion.  Much like everyone else defending RETURNS to anyone else.  You should not have to do it.  No one is holding a gun to your head and ordering you to do so.  Vote how ever you want and elobrate if you want to.  But because someone voted a certain way or holds a different opinion than you or the masses, don't hold it against them.  It's their right.

Yes, you're right.  You shouldn't have to be held to account over your opinion.  However, this is a forum and if someone votes a certain way on a poll (whether for Returns or Forever) we would usually expect them to give reasons for their choice, if only to stimulate discussion.  I have given some of my reasons for voting for Returns, and we all know The Dark Knight's appreciation of the film, so I was simply interested in reading what the Forever fans had to say, since there is very little discussion elsewhere on this site as to the relative 'merits' of this film.

[Paul (ral)]

Some people prefer 89 over returns and vice versa. Some people prefer Forver over Returns...and vice versa.

Tarzan made some good points and while I may not agree with all of them I do respect that is his view.  It certainly wasn't a hate speech.  Besides that, this forum would be a very boring place if we all agreed on every aspect of the movies.

I would not advise that things get ugly.

[Gotham Knight]

Of course no need to reiterate Ral's point of the right to an opinion, but I would like to add, lets not be like the fringe wing of the Nolan group. We must set an example and embrace differing perspectives.

[Joker81]

Sorry Tarzan my friend. I am sorry you are allowd an opinion, but dont be forcing it down peoples throats.

I cant be bothered writing a long winded response. But first I am not a Star Wars fan. I dont understand the fascination with that movie (just like a Star Wars fan may not understand our fascination with Batman). But saying it blew Jaws out of the water just shows how little you knw about film. Star Wars copied a format that Jaws created for all the summer blockbusters you see today. I hate the credit Star Wars gets for something which Jaws created. I agree Star Wars took it to another level with OTT merchandising. But Jaws invented the summer blockbuster and the template for a wide release, marketing and merchandise.

As for artistic reasons Star Wars is too kiddie friendly to me. I think the film is boring, it is average and I feel it doesnt work as a stand alone. It only makes sense if you watch the trilogy - (Empire Strikes Back is a far superior film), it is dated. To me Jaws an adult movie and one of the most perfectly costructed and exciting films ever made, a masterpiece, a perfect example of film making (that every director, including George Lucas! could only dream of) right up there with Psycho. I dont care what Spielberg says or thinks, he snubbed Jaws for years after its success. So I have no time for his George Lucas 4ss licking.

Pulp Fiction? Well maybe you can tell us what you meant by your Miramax comment? What 90's films where your referring to? I for one believe that the 90's was a weak decade for movies. the 60's, 70's and 80's produced far better movies than the 90's. But I dont think Miramax produced the best. i dont think you can say any one studio did. So please elaborate.

I think your taking things a bit too personal concerning your choice of Forever over Returns. I want you to know I have no problem with that. I actually think it ois cool that people prefer Forever over Returns. I for one have problems with Returns just as I have problems with Forever.



As for the power plant. Thats a minor issue, something which Returns was not about or nor should it have been. That was just a small plot device for Schrek and his reason for wanting rid of the Mayor and minipulating the Penguin into running for office.