It was reminiscent of the older silly Batman stuff and I liked it! I’ll die on that hill!
Say what you like of Clooney Batman, but it was the most memorable. I think of the bat credit card more than I would like.
it’s such a fucking good joke too
“good thru: FOREVER”
Gothcard is pretty on point too.
Such a good joke all the Nostalgia Critic could do was repeat “A BAT CREDIT CARD???” like it wasn’t hilarious.
I just want to know who approved nips on the suit
“With Val Kilmer’s suit in Batman Forever, the nipples were one of those things that I added. It wasn’t fetish to me, it was more informed by Roman armor — like Centurions. And, in the comic books, the characters always looked like they were naked with spray paint on them — it was all about anatomy, and I like to push anatomy. I don’t know exactly where my head was at back in the day, but that’s what I remember. And so, I added the nipples. I had no idea there was going to end up being all this buzz about it.”
- Jose Fernandez, costume designer and sculptor
Thanks for the quote. Also from an appropriate user handle haha.
I’ve never seen or heard anyone ever answer for the design choices and this makes perfect sense. Always thought Schumacher was having his fun like Tarantino does with feet.
It’s cool to see the person that made that decision just own it.
“Yeah I like nipples so I put them on there.”
No more ridiculous than abs on the suit.
There were probably long meetings about nip or no nip.
Val Kilmer.
Lmao damn, George Clooney 's son is colder than Mr Freeze
There was something about that movie (uma Thurman) that no Batman movie after was able to do (it was uma Thurman). I haven’t seen the movie in years, but I remember empathizing with the villains in a way that modern movies just don’t want you to (it may have just been uma Thurman but I remember feeling bad for mr freeze too). I might just be queerer than other people but the level of camp felt genuine. I don’t dislike other Batman movies, but that one felt fun to watch the way old comics were fun to read.
Also Jim Carrey having so many consecutive bad days at work he loses his fkin mind, I felt that.
mr freeze and poison ivy are definitely the most sympathetic of the main cast of batman villains. as in, their motivations make more sense than like… calendar man.
I assume Calendar Man had a mental illness like OCD that manifested around dates due to the fact that his parents named him Julian Gregory Day.
And if someone has a mental illness in Gotham, you can bet a billionaire in S&M gear is there to beat the shit out of them.
Funnily enough, out of modern superhero movies, I think MCU got me to empathize with a villain the most. It was Thanos, who had a legitimate reason for reducing the population of the universe and didn’t even want to discriminate.
I’ve grown bored with the MCU and haven’t seen any of the newest films, but Infinity War was actually great.
I think my big issue with the MCU, is that they don’t even try to make the flaws logical. Before the snap, thanos has all of the infinity stones and can bend reality. He could have done any other kind of random macguffin BS other than remove half of all people. If the avengers could look into the future and envision the one reality where they defeated Thanos, Thanos could’ve done the same but for whatever heuristic he was attempting to optimize. I know the villain in Black Panther gets a lot of hate for having an unsympathetic side just tacked on, but unfortunately it’s quite historically accurate to have people pushing for some kind of enlightened revolution that haven’t quite done all of the work to unlearn things themselves. I do think that the fact that he was written that way and isn’t a real person is a valid argument as to why it’s a poor defense, but it’s suggested that MLK cheated on his wife and prominent figures in the Black Panther party did abuse women. So, I’m a bit torn on that, but between Thanos and whatever the hell was happening in falcon in the winter soldier, I still think the villains and the heroes could use some work.
Just to be clear, I don’t think it takes away from the movies being great. I also really like infinity war, I just don’t that I was on board with everyone’s motivations all the time.
Edit: I responded to this comment from my inbox, and now I’m seeing that you already have replies saying that Thanos really isn’t understandable. I wasn’t trying to pile on, I just also believe that.
Hey, I agree that Thanos was stupid as hell. If he really wanted to save the universe, as an all powerful god at the point where he’s got all the infinity stones, he could’ve done something about reproduction rates, or resources being regeneratable… I just meant he’s the only one I’ve been able to empathize with recently. There’s so many villains who just want power for the sake of it, or to end the world. Thanos wanted to do what he thought would save the world. Was it stupid? Sure. But his goal was not.
Legitimate reason? Really?
That was the one thing that removed my ability to even try to suspend any disbelief in the fantasy. Like I couldn’t even think of him as more than a one-dimensional caricature, let alone empathize with him. I was okay with Thanos just being some powerful guy seeking powerful objects to become more powerful. I might even sympathize, not empathize, with that. It was evil to be sure, but understandable. But, as soon as they revealed what he actually wanted to do with that power the whole thing just fell apart completely and became a total farce.
It was just bad logic that doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny. Like why didn’t he just double the resources? Why did he think the universe wouldn’t just eventually return to pre-snap populations, because it’s not like he also slowed population growth?
The thing about Thanos though is that he is also a good example of what happens when a powerful figure is only surrounded by “yes” folks. Because his idea is, ultimately, stupid. Killing half of all life in the universe doesnʻt really change anything substantial because you wind up with the same problems: If you have 100 people and 50 cows or fruit trees or whatever, and you snap half of those, you still wind up with the same ratio. Now itʻs 50 people fighting for 25 cows or fruit trees or whatever.
The Infinity Stones basically make Thanos close to God. He could do anything. He could have doubled the resources of the universe, he could have created an entirely new form of resource.
In some ways this is in keeping with his characterization in the comics, where he has a habit of getting in his own way. But I kinda wish that Endgame, like in the Infinity Gauntlet series, would have revealed that he was actually trying to woo Death (which could have been represented by Hela) and so his supposed altruism is actually self-serving. Regardless, he does stand as a good representative of charismatic villains that garner sympathy while also being singularly focused on a really bad idea rooted in the villainʻs own self-assurance and ability to gather acolytes through a kind of “reality distortion field” effect.
keaton was the best, but clooney was up there.
batman & robin was probably the closest a mainstream comic book movie has ever been to the tone of the source material.
The Schumaker films had good casting. Clooney, Kilmer, Thurman, Jones, and Carrey were all great for their roles. They just happened to be cast in terrible films.
i mean, the films perfectly captures the camp of the batman characters, which i’d say makes the films good.
i hold that the best modern version of batman is The Brave and The Bold.
I saw Batman Forever when I was 6 years old and I loved it. It was made for kids.
I like Pattinson’s Batman the best. Although the movie itself went bad in the second half by resorting to cliche Hollywood spectacle.
I hold to Affleck being the best all around portrayal of the character, just saddled in relatively mediocre films. That said, I really liked Pattinsonʻs take and the film overall (and I do sympathize with your take on the second half; it feels a bit bloated for the kind of “street-level” Batman they had going).
This is the first time I’ve read someone dislike the second half of the Batman. Kinda shocked to hear it reduced to “Hollywood spectacle” given the clear ties to the movies main themes and character arcs. It also was a nearly-perfect final act for a Batman movie imho with it not revolving around one villain Batman needs to physically beat up like most of the previous films.
The problem I had was the entire movie had the Riddler fighting corruption for “the little man” and being a counterpoint to Batman’s work. Then at the end The Riddler, without warning turns into a Marvel Villain ™ where he floods an entire city killing many “little men” he spent his life protecting.
Because the Riddler actually had a valid point regarding the corruption infecting the city’s elites. If the scriptwriter had followed this chain of thought, Batman would have ended up fully siding with the Riddler and potentially giving all his money away to fund social progress and equity.
Obviously instead the Riddler went mental and Batman gets to keep his wee belt.
Christian Bale
Counterpoint: “Batman voice”
Christian Bale is a great actor, but I think he was the worst Batman.
I like Christian Bale’s, Bruce Wayne, I do not like his Batman. If you could take just the Bruce Wayne and combine it with say Clooney or Pattinson’s Batman, that would be ideal.
nah
I think I have a poor view of Christian Bale, not because of his acting but because the 3rd movie was so bad- which doesn’t have anything to do with how he represented Batman.
