Pattinson/Reeves Batman Movie (Formerly Affleck Stand-Alone Film)

[Leo656]

Double-standards are the only leg any of your ridiculous points have to stand on.

I hope you love your family as much as you love sh*tty takes on Batman characters.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Double-standards are the only leg any of your ridiculous points have to stand on.

I hope you love your family as much as you love sh*tty takes on Batman characters.

Well, I'm not the first here to say it and I probably won't be the last - you throw logic out the window and get all funky when it comes to Snyder or Superman. It is what it is. Still enjoy reading your more clear-headed posts.

You really got backed into a corner on this one though, gotta admit. "oh ****, I did defend Superman killing Zod, based on comic's canon."

[Leo656]

Because Superman killing Zod is relevant.

Again with the "No, that's YOU" nonsense. You sound like my wife. Don't make me pay the hitman twice, I don't have that kinda cash laying around.

Seriously, with the lengths to which you go to defend stupid sh*t like that Riddler outfit, you don't have a leg to stand on when accusing anyone of not being "level-headed", Stan.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Because Superman killing Zod is relevant.

Again with the "No, that's YOU" nonsense. You sound like my wife. Don't make me pay the hitman twice, I don't have that kinda cash laying around.

Seriously, with the lengths to which you go to defend stupid sh*t like that Riddler outfit, you don't have a leg to stand on when accusing anyone of not being "level-headed", Stan.

How is Superman killing Zod relevant, whereas Riddler trying to kill Batman isn’t? That’s a non-answer and doesn’t really make sense in the context of the question.

Feel bad for your wife if having to abide by your own logic is an issue. Nah, I’m sure your marriage is good, but you seem upset that I’ve placed your Superman logic side by side with Riddler and poked holes in it.

Why are you talking about me going to great lengths to defend the outfit, when you’re the only one bringing up the outfit in our last 3 or 4 posts? Lol
That’s like your safe space away from the topic of Superman killing vs Riddler killing. No one is talking about the outfit anymore. You’re free to, of course, but drop the shtick.

[Leo656]

I'm "upset" that I spend so much time out of my day arguing about things that don't matter with people who rode a considerably shorter bus to school than the one I rode on.

I keep getting roped into this sh*t when I know better and it's aggravating. If more women were willing to swallow cum I wouldn't have to deal with any of this sh*t because the people who vex me with their weapons-grade Retard Opinions wouldn't even exist.

[Coola Yagami]

The Riddler costume is god-awful though.... if you can even call it a Riddler costume. What's so wrong with some sort of fancy suit, maybe not all green, but a little green somewhere and a question mark on the shoulder or something?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Turo602

Not what I was insinuating at all. My point is that The Riddler is in need of reinvention, therefore he isn't as sacred as other more popular and established characters. You change Batman, people will react negatively, you change Riddler, are people really gonna care? The public perception of Riddler is probably still Jim Carrey's Riddler or something close to it. Gotham arguably had the best live action Riddler but that show was niche and the Arkham games reinvented him but in the grand scheme, those games are also niche. People have been waiting to see Riddler on screen ever since Heath Ledger's Joker because the modern audience is ready for a more "grown up" take on the character.

I don't think most people even care about Riddler in the first to have even vague idea of who he is. Even Batman Forever is no longer relevant, me thinks.

And I doubt he needs some sort of "reinvention" - he is a crazy guy obsessed with riddles and his own superiority. What else is there to reinvent? Besides, I think, Arkham games did pretty good job on making Riddler a serious threat without making him to be something completely different.

[Andrew NDB]

Batman Forever was never relevant. Maybe for 2 minutes after we saw it in the theater and thought to ourselves, "Well... it could have been worse, right?"

I honestly think the Arkham games gave almost perfect takes on all of the villains, including Riddler. I'd have taken that Killer Croc down two or three levels, but still neat.

Except for Bane! They doubled down on the worst incarnations of him. Though he's a little better in Origins.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Batman Forever was never relevant.

The soundtrack's a pretty nice little time capsule. It holds up way better than the movie does.

"Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" was one of the last "great" songs U2 ever did, for example.

Sometimes I toy with the idea of using that as my theme music, but nobody has the patience to let guys use theme songs with long intros, anymore. "None of you guys are the f*cking Rock, you don't need a 20-minute ring intro. We only have the building 'til 12, asshole." And they wonder why nobody ever gets over; 99% of your "match" is your ring entrance.

Anyways, yeah, that would be a good theme song. And the soundtrack was easily the best part of the movie, for sure.

I can't remember jack sh*t about the "Batman & Robin" soundtrack, by comparison. I just remember that Smashing Pumpkins did the same song twice at different speeds and inverted the titles, and for some reason that was supposed to be "cool" and not pretentious. Other than that I can't remember anything about the movie's soundtrack. And I can barely comment on that movie because every time it comes on TV I black out and wake up in a blood-soaked alley surrounded by parts of dead homeless people.

Those Schumacher Batman movies are no good for my blood pressure.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Except for Bane! They doubled down on the worst incarnations of him. Though he's a little better in Origins.

You should check him out in the second Telltale Batman game, where he's Harley's little bitch-boy.

Like, he's not a complete idiot for once, and that's nice. BUT, he's still her little sidekick and that's just all kinds of terrible.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I can't remember jack sh*t about the "Batman & Robin" soundtrack, by comparison. I just remember that Smashing Pumpkins did the same song twice at different speeds and inverted the titles, and for some reason that was supposed to be "cool" and not pretentious..

Snyder fans ought to remember "The End Is The Beginning Is The End" for the simple reason the 'edgy' version was used for the Watchmen trailer

Batman and Robin would be a billon dollar movie if made today. It's the MCU formula to an exact science.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Even Batman Forever is no longer relevant, me thinks

Tell that to the 'Schumacher Cut' movement.

Not to mention DC recently made Nicole Kidman's character canon to the comics.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, I loved Seal's "Kiss from a Rose." I recorded it from the radio and would play it back constantly, when writing or otherwise screwing around in my room.

Probably alone on that one. Hah.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Well, I loved Seal's "Kiss from a Rose." I recorded it from the radio and would play it back constantly, when writing or otherwise screwing around in my room.

Probably alone on that one. Hah.

Hell no, I love Kissed by a Rose. Totally takes me back to that small window in time and is a great song on it's own.

Can't sit through a viewing of Forever, but it's one if my earliest memories of going to a theater, or even seeing a movie trailer on television, so it's sort of special to me in that way. Apparently even as a kid, I thought it was boring though. I remember falling asleep and my dad describing the ending to me on the way home.

I still like the title "Batman Forever".

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Snyder fans ought to remember "The End Is The Beginning Is The End" for the simple reason the 'edgy' version was used for the Watchmen trailer

I was not actually watching much TV when "Watchmen" came out. I think I was more aware of the movie from magazines than anything. We also did not have the internet at that time. I have like a huge pop culture blind spot from like 2006 through 2010-ish because all I was doing was working 12-hour shifts at the sh*tty moving job and coming home too tired and pissed off to give a sh*t about anything at all. I used to have a GREAT memory but since pretty much everything in between graduating from high school and getting the wrestling gig was very much not-great for me on a personal level, I can no longer remember much of anything that happened between 2000 and 2010. Kind of scary/depressing.

Anyways, yeah, I'm not sure I ever even saw a trailer for Watchmen. Like to this day, even, I mean. Crazy! Loved the movie in the theater, though. Very fun watching the parents who brought their kids to it squirm once they realized it wasn't some goofy cartoon. I have the extended cut on disc but not the one with all the Black Freighter stuff put back in, I really need to fix that.

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Batman and Robin would be a billon dollar movie if made today. It's the MCU formula to an exact science.

Correct, but that's definitely not a GOOD thing. It just means that people have become comfortable enough with their "nerdish" obsessions that they're a bit more self-aware than they were Back Then, and don't mind someone telling them to their face That Thing You Like Is Stupid And You're Kinda Stupid Too For Liking It.

A Batman movie that makes fun of Batman for two hours should be abhorrent, but you're right, if it had come out in a post-MCU world it would be incredibly successful and beloved. Whew! Glad we dodged THAT bullet.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

I still like the title "Batman Forever".

Oh, definitely, definitely. I'm actually kinda mad that they "wasted" it on such a Nothingburger of a Batman movie.

Like, in a perfect world THAT would've been the title of Nolan's "Batman 3". As it is, "The Dark Knight Rises" sounds more like a prequel title (you just know they would have called the first movie THAT instead of "Batman Begins", if they knew going into it that the theme of the trilogy would end up being focused on the whole "Dark Knight" thing).

The middle movie could still be called "The Dark Knight", since not all three movies HAVE to have the same titular pattern or scheme, after all. But I feel like it would have felt a lot more organic and symmetrical if the three Nolan movies were titled "Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight", and "Batman Forever". Doesn't that flow well? It sort of fits even better than "Rises", I think, metaphorically, with the theme of the third movie as a whole. Like, by the end of the movie you've been beaten to death with the idea that Batman is a symbol; he's "Forever", even if Bruce Wayne "dies". I feel like it's a more fitting title for what the movie is actually about. Whereas "The Dark Knight Rises" feels like they were caught between sticking to the "Dark Knight" motif of the previous film, while wanting to call back to the first movie's title by sticking a verb on the end. Also, while Bruce's "rise" was also a symbolic point of the film... less so, really, than the whole "Batman is eternal" theme, which is much more prevalent. Also, the "rise" metaphor felt labored, and a bit too on-the-nose given that a big part of the climax is him climbing out of a hole. Nolan's not always very subtle, is he?

But anyway, yeah, because of All That I feel like the title was wasted on the original Batman 3. It would have served Nolan's Batman 3 even better. Ah well.
-----------------

I remember being SUPER excited for "Batman Forever" as a kid, even though I did not like Jim Carrey even then. For years I'd been reading that it was most likely gonna be Robin Williams playing Riddler, but then it turned out that was just some WB shenanigans to try and entice Carrey to sign on, and they were never seriously considering Williams for it, and that got me SUPER pissed off because it seemed like a sh*tty thing to do (which Williams, apparently, felt the same way about). Also, he could've been a very good Riddler.

I also vividly remember several interviews with Carrey back then in the lead-up, where he vehemently denied that he was going to base his Riddler on Frank Gorshin from the old TV show; then I saw the movie and was like, "This guy's a f*cking liar!" Not so much that I disagreed with the approach - I find everything he's ever done except "Man on the Moon" to be INCREDIBLY hammy (and even in that one there's a few times when it seems like he forgot he was doing a biopic of Kaufman and not a caricature), but it was a decent enough and "faithful" take on Riddler, so other than the fact they went full-blown Camp Gay with him for the finale I was okay with it, mostly. I was just annoyed that every time someone asked him about it, he was like "No, it's all mine, I went out of my way NOT to watch the show, actually," and it's like, you watch the movie and it's like... yeah, f*ck you, you lying liar.

Two-Face pissed me off, but that was so not Tommy Lee's fault. There was potential there but it was flawed from the start. The studio sabotaged him by insisting he try and out-ham Carrey, when a "regular" Tommy Lee Jones performance could have given us a GREAT Two-Face. But furthermore, "I'm just doing this movie as a favor to my kid" almost never works out well. Sometimes, you get a Frank Langella Skeletor when they're just having the best time of their whole life and you can SEE that onscreen... but most times, you get Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face, and in every scene you can just see he wanted to walk right off camera and blow his brains out every time anyone yelled "Cut!" He was just not the guy for that project. COULD have been great, if his heart was in it and they let him do it his way. But it wasn't, and they didn't. Too bad. Or TWO bad, as the case may be.


It's weird, the hype for that movie was probably even bigger for the hype around "Batman Returns", or at least all the merchandise and marketing stuff was, definitely. I bought in, for sure. Then I saw the movie and I "liked" it, like it was a blast in the theater but it was one of the first theater movies I saw that started to kinda fall apart on the ride home. I saw it a couple times after that on TV and then almost never watched it again. I didn't even bother taping it off cable, like I did with the first two. I felt kinda suckered in by the hype, once I realized just how much of a drop it was from the original, and realizing I had fallen for "the machine" made me feel like a stupid dumb kid, which I'd always kinda felt like I was above.

First time I was vividly aware of the fact that "Everyone screaming directly in your face how incredible something is, does not make it so." So in a way, it was a pivotal moment in my life.

I wouldn't say it's AWFUL, though, although parts of it sure are. I believe the story about how the mythical "director's cut" is better but I'm not sure I'd sit through that one more than once or twice anyway. If anyone ever decides to scrape it together and release it, though, in some fashion, more power to them and I support the effort.

By now, all jokes aside I'm sure I've seen all of "Batman & Robin" just through seeing out-of-order snippets on TV over the years when I'm doing something else and my wife has the remote. She can tolerate that silly horsesh*t more than I can. But never once have I sat down and watched it A to Z in one shot. I did try, once or twice, but I simply cannot do it. It is one of the most infuriating movies I personally have ever seen. That has to be the dirt-worst thing ANY of those people ever starred in, and if it's not then I don't even wanna see what is.

That movie had me convinced for YEARS that Joel Schumacher was the worst director who ever lived and simply got the gig because he had pics of one of the WB execs with a goat or a kid, or something. It wasn't until years later that I saw some of his "real" movies and it was like, "Oh, okay. So he's a good director who got roped into a sh*tty project. Interesting." Again, sort of a pivotal learning experience for me, because until then I wasn't quite aware just how much control studios have over a project, and how they can take an otherwise-competent director and force them at gunpoint to produce something terrible with their heavy-handed oversight. So I did forgive him for those two Batman movies... eventually.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Batman Forever was never relevant. Maybe for 2 minutes after we saw it in the theater and thought to ourselves, "Well... it could have been worse, right?"

I honestly think the Arkham games gave almost perfect takes on all of the villains, including Riddler. I'd have taken that Killer Croc down two or three levels, but still neat.

Except for Bane! They doubled down on the worst incarnations of him. Though he's a little better in Origins.

To be honest, I watched Forever a few months ago and I didn't find it all that offensive. Yeah, it's stupid as hell and far from what a Batman movie should be but...meh. At least it wasn't Batman & Robin.

The thing with Croc that artists do these days is that they tend to draw him with the appearance of a mutant rather than a human with an unusual skin disease. I've seen a lot of versions where they make him look like a T-Rex (especially in Batman Unlimited, yikes!). Granted Croc's sections always made for some interesting moments, I loved the horror suspense sections in Asylum. Still, if there's any Batman villain that gets easily "changed too much", I'd say it's Croc.

Okay, maybe Bane is also easy to screw up since people tend to forget that he is smarter than he looks despite Knightfall being his most notable story.

[Leo656]

I don't even get why that keeps happening, with Bane.

Like okay, no smoke, I like the character a lot, and he's been around a while.

But honestly? In 30 years he's had ONE memorable story, or at least one that's had any penetration and is something even casual fans are aware of, and that was "Knightfall". If people only read ONE Bane story, that's the one. Most people, that IS in fact the only story they read with him in it.

Well, in that story him being super-intelligent is KIND OF important to the entire thing. He speaks often, and eloquently, and if anything OVER-explains himself and his motivations. He's a gorilla, yes, but he's also a genius, not a dumb ape.

So if this character keeps getting adapted into other media, and EVERY version of him in other media leans heavily on "Knightfall" for inspiration, as they all do and have... then HOW the f*ck does he keep getting turned into a grunting Neanderthal? Do the people on the "creative" side just skip to that one page where he breaks Batman's back and ignore every single other thing in the story? That's all I can figure.

And especially in Bane's case, "Reinvention/Shmeeinvention". The entire point of Bane was to have a big jacked-up villain that was NOT a brain-dead chimp. LITERALLY the whole point of the guy. If you make him stupid you're not "reinventing" him, you're literally doing the character all the way wrong. Like, what the f*ck? WHY? Again, if you NEED a grunting simpleton for Batman to fight you have other characters for that role. Someone like Amygdala, for example, might not have a name that carries as much weight with "casuals" as Bane's does, but at least using Amygdala as a giant ball of muscle for Batman to hopscotch over isn't LITERALLY blaspheming against the character's entire raison d'etre.

At least DKR Bane was alright, weird voice aside. Still think they could've made Venom work.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Batman Forever was never relevant. Maybe for 2 minutes after we saw it in the theater and thought to ourselves, "Well... it could have been worse, right?"

It was relevant enough to get a sequel and to be one of the highest grossing movies of its year.
Gladly, culturally it was almost forgotten, because, Carry was playing himself and that wasn't all that memorable, what with his movies being everywhere at that time. Two-Face in this movie was basically Joker 2.0 and this just didn't work.

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Tell that to the 'Schumacher Cut' movement.

Not to mention DC recently made Nicole Kidman's character canon to the comics.

Scraps.
Besides, I've heard about "Burton Cut" of Batman Forever, but what is a Schumacher cut? Is it the same thing or something different?

Robin Williams would've made an excellent Riddler, me thinks.

[MikeandRaph87]

I hate The Riddler's final battle costume, the light up silver onesie and the orange hair. Edward's hair is the same color as Jim's so why change it? In Batman Forever despite everything Edward's goal is to prove he is the smartest in all of Gotham and smarter than Batman. Say what you will about the film itself it had the core motivation of The Riddler down. Something that has been forgotten in the 2010s on. He is not a serial killer yet wearing a question mark on his body and being a murderous Arkham inmate seems to be the go to for his character, yet it does not fit who he is no matter how many times creators try to force it on him to make him relevant. Being above killing is a part of what makes him stand out. In fact Joker wants to kill anyone aside from Batman while The Riddler wants to only kill Batman, the exact opposite. I am sure if Riddler causes a fatal causality along the way he would not shed a tear, it however is not his style.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

He is not a serial killer yet wearing a question mark on his body and being a murderous Arkham inmate seems to be the go to for his character, yet it does not fit who he is no matter how many times creators try to force it on him to make him relevant. Being above killing is a part of what makes him stand out. In fact Joker wants to kill anyone aside from Batman while The Riddler wants to only kill Batman, the exact opposite. I am sure if Riddler causes a fatal causality along the way he would not shed a tear, it however is not his style.

It just depends on which version of the character you are referring to. Just like Batman, there is much less of a definitive version than people generally like to pretend. Sometimes Riddler kills, sometimes he doesn't.

As humans, we are always tempted to put things in a nice little box with a label. We even do this to other people. We like to "pin things down". With comic book characters, it's like trying to wrestle a fish. Different writers and artists come in constantly to put their own spin on the character, and whichever one resonates with the reader, is the one they want to think of as the definitive one.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's totally fair game to critique the elements we don't like, but I don't think we should pretend that we hold some kind of monopoly on who exactly these characters are supposed to be. At least not to such an extent. There are exceptions to every rule and characters can be unrecognizable if you go too far. I certainly wouldn't say the Riddler either killing or not killing, would be too far in either direction, as he has been represented both ways, back and forth, for decades.

And regarding the outfit, people were even more upset when Heath Ledger had scars and makeup, as opposed to a bleached face. The people still complaining about that are an endangered species at this point. Why? Because Heath Ledger blew everyone away with the performance and therefor sold us on the look. Now, what was once sacrilege to internet nerds, is just another trait of one of the most definitive versions of Joker we will ever have.

I do agree that the silver outfit is kind of snazzy, for what it is.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

The thing with Croc that artists do these days is that they tend to draw him with the appearance of a mutant rather than a human with an unusual skin disease. I've seen a lot of versions where they make him look like a T-Rex (especially in Batman Unlimited, yikes!). Granted Croc's sections always made for some interesting moments, I loved the horror suspense sections in Asylum. Still, if there's any Batman villain that gets easily "changed too much", I'd say it's Croc.

Yeah, exactly. At some point writers and artists -- and I blame the editors -- stopped caring or knowing Croc's true origins and just collectively went, "He's like an alligator/human hybrid, right?" and then just kept making him more and more monstrous and mutant-like. But it was a slow movement all built on a big, dumb, easily researchable lie.

Still... he can be pretty terrifying like that.

Okay, maybe Bane is also easy to screw up since people tend to forget that he is smarter than he looks despite Knightfall being his most notable story.

More like, "Creative" people who are only aware of Bane from glancing at his Wiki and maybe "Batman & Robin." Big guy, venom, talks about breaking backs a lot, not that bright, etc..

[AquaParade]

I thought DKR Bane was a really cool villain, but didn’t fully scratch the itch i have to see the Bane I know and love in a movie. It’s sort of faithful and it’s a success overall imo, but it does stretch the character a bit.

I sort of hope Reeves takes a crack at him. I think you could fit him into a realistic world, even with some type of “Venom” element. Just make it some weird offshoot of PCP.
But don’t cast Bautista. Javier Bardem, please.

And speaking of outfits, he has one of the coolest masks in comics. And if the dude is going to be all drugged up, maybe we can forego too much armor/protection and indulge in some alpha male chest hair. Bane’s look is this great mix of badass and sort of off-putting, because you know the dude is sweating hardcore and smells like a beast. I kind of like that for the character. He’s bursting with life and power in an intimidating way.

DKR Bane also has one of the coolest masks I’ve seen, with that spider-like design that sort of resembles Giger’s art. It’s really nothing like the comic mask though, which has those iconic red lenses and white stripes.