FSLAR
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 6,324
- Reaction score
- 47
Probably not a bad view, I can see what you're talking about. The Burton films did have some weird moments, but overall, I think they're at worst, solid films on their own. I just wish Returns didn't become far too Burton like compared to 1989, which had a good balance of Burton, and Batman/comic elements.That's what I'm saying. I look at Forever/B&R as a futuristic version of the '66 show, hence so many gadgets and gimmicks. The nipples are really the least of it's worries. The best part about them was that they were the "necessary evil" that enabled Nolan to be able to give his take on the franchise. Anyway, nostalgia aside, there's actually plenty of eye-rolling moments during the two Burton films, as well.
I don't know about Forever, but WB did force him to make changes. I know that much. That said, Forever was my first Batman film too when I was little. It's not the worst film ever, and it gets points for trying to be decent. Though my next film was 1989 good timesActually it's been said many times that Joel Schumacher wanted to make Batman Forever a dark film... But WB wanted a brighter Batman because of how Returns was reviewed... So I really dont blame Schumacher... I blame WB... Forever still is close to me as that was my first Batman film I saw in theaters...
Yeah that's really weird - did none of the citizens or inmates ever question what drove Harvey over the edge? There were a lot of times where it made no sense not to mention Joker. Every other villain and some other characters like Bruce's parents were mentioned, but no Joker?The thing about TDKR that bothered was no mention of the joker, I think that is actually disrespectful to not even mention him or his work, contrary to Nolan's belief of not mentioning anything for respect.
I'm anxious to see the release of this fig, the farther the preorder window the more crazy I get.
Sent from Le iPhone 5S using Tapatalk - now Free