Spoiler:
If THAT's the case, then they really need to do some extra work for the blu-ray release. It was awful.
Thor: Ragnarok (November 3rd, 2017)
- Thread starter Johnny Utah
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
If THAT's the case, then they really need to do some extra work for the blu-ray release. It was awful.
Sassafras
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 2,353
For sure 'coz if I didn't pay attention during the film, I will during the blu ray. As much as I like this movie IMO there was just *stuff* I thought where it wasn't so much the available budget, but just stuff where the eccentric Taika just didn't worry about it.
I like to see what the MCU will come up with. 
But, for me, there's so much good here - just stuff like the crowds and their costumes and Sakaar; didn't think I'd fall in love with Valkyrie; and for all the complaints about the comedy think there was some really good *sensitive* moments. Really liked the Doctor Strange scenes. IMO the connections to the Avengers were handled really well without banging you in the head with it.
Really looking forward to the BR esp. since Taika has said he's got no problem at all with folks seeing the scenes he cut. He's said when people see them they will know why he cut them, but he doesn't care if folks see them like some directors.
thedopefreshness
Super Freak
Well, the after-credits seem as if IW will LITERALLY pick up right from that moment. Or one shortly thereafter. Of course, the timeline is all f-d up after Spiderman anyways, though (I mean, did CW pick up so soon after AoU that the hadn't even moved into their new digs yet? Seems....odd).
I hope BP is more grounded, despite the more futuristic/colorful Wakandan setting. I feel like he deserves to be/needs to be in a grounded film. Same with Cap; he could've never driven a film like Ragnarok IMO.
Also, I may be late to the party on this, but
I think BP will make some sort of political statement, it should be a hell of a lot more serious than Ragnarok as well (and I loved Ragnarok). I'm excited to see where they go with it.
When Wile E. Coyote falls from 10 miles and survives, I don't question that he would die.
When Thor loses an eye, I don't question that he really lost an eye. Cartoons don't make me worry.
Perhaps he will take his Father's last good eye. Or maybe Hela just burned his eye closed, that's why you could see it.
When Thor loses an eye, I don't question that he really lost an eye. Cartoons don't make me worry.
Perhaps he will take his Father's last good eye. Or maybe Hela just burned his eye closed, that's why you could see it.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
If you think MCU movies are full of Wil E bouncy rubberized characters wait until you see JL.
WB actually made them look the part and not just act rubbery lol
There’s a scene where the batmobile goes up on 2 wheels I swear it looked exactly like those hot wheels commercials.
Go watch the difference from BB tumbler batmobile action scene to the BvS/JL batmobile action scene.
WB actually made them look the part and not just act rubbery lol
There’s a scene where the batmobile goes up on 2 wheels I swear it looked exactly like those hot wheels commercials.
Go watch the difference from BB tumbler batmobile action scene to the BvS/JL batmobile action scene.
Last edited:
Just like the Batmobile in Batman Forever when it drove up the side of that building?
Can't believe people like that movie. Must have all been 7 years old when you saw it. Clapping your hands and drooling like tiny idiots.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Just like the Batmobile in Batman Forever when it drove up the side of that building?
Can't believe people like that movie. Must have all been 7 years old when you saw it. Clapping your hands and drooling like tiny idiots.
Oh oh you dissing BF you know DiFabio likes that one right and now you went and called him an idiot.
It was nice knowing you Mr. Gar lol
Batman Forever. Pffft! Talk about a cartoon... a big gay cartoon. Joy-gasm! *followed by Har-Har-Har laugh and pelvic thrust*
DiFabio has no excuse for liking that movie except that he was tiny and uneducated and liked the pretty colors.
DiFabio has no excuse for liking that movie except that he was tiny and uneducated and liked the pretty colors.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
I do understand a lot of people "like" BF, but its solely because they were young, like the guys who love Goonies or Krull or Superman 3. You have to be a certain age to enjoy that movie and continue to add it to your pantheon of great films like Jaws and Star Wars and Raiders.
Batman Forever belongs in the "child's plate" division.
Which brings up an interesting question: what is the Greatest 'Child's Plate' movie ever?
Wizard of Oz?
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
Home Alone?
Cars?
I'm going to say: Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)
Batman Forever belongs in the "child's plate" division.
Which brings up an interesting question: what is the Greatest 'Child's Plate' movie ever?
Wizard of Oz?
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
Home Alone?
Cars?
I'm going to say: Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)
Last edited:
DiFabio
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,362
- Reaction score
- 2,834
Forever is harmless and a better popcorn superhero flick than most of the current DC and Marvel **** that's constantly pumped out year after year. You're damn right I liked those pretty colors. Other than the sexual innunedos, those Batflicks are perfect for a kid's introduction to the character (right alongside with the Adam West tv show. They're simple and straightforward. You got Batman and Robin. You got the daring do. The heroes are heroes and the villains are villains.
I never thought they were crap, even if I don't particularly care for Batman and Robin on any level. A crappy superhero movie is something schlocky like Superman 3 or the Quest for Peace where you can tell they cheaped out on the budget just by the look of it. The Salkinds and WB pillaged and raped Superman's corpse just to pump out movies and save a couple of bucks. Can you honestly sit there and say something as bland and lackluster as those later Superman movies are as bad as Batman Forever or even Batman and Robin? Atleast the latter have great campy performances and top notch special effects. They put effort into them, every department put their A game into it, from the sound editing to the costumes.
The Schumacher Batflicks know what they are. They were these big summer blockbuster flicks. You look at them and you can atleast admire the money and talent that went into the sets and look of the film. Very professional and well done. I may not agree with the homoeroticism Schumacher pumped into it, but I can admire that vision for what it is which was basically a cross between the Adam West Batman show meets Saturday Night fever on an acid trip. Forever is a cool movie and the only time you get to see a usually quiet and subdued Tommy Lee Jones with half his face burned running around like he's Mick Jager on crack. All the action scenes are better than anything Burton or Nolan have done with Batman. Before Snyder, Schumacher was the only one that had an active/actiony Batman doing fast athletic fight and stunt work, swinging from helicopters, getting burned and buried alive, swimming in water, etc etc. Everything was done on a grand scale. I don't see how that equates to something like Nuclear Man and Superman fighting against a cheap studio backdrop doubling as the moon.
The Schumacher movies are campy and comic, yeah, but they had effort put into them. They're the least boring of all the Batman movies and a hell of a lot more story and script structure than BvS and Justice League. Is that wrong to claim?
I never thought they were crap, even if I don't particularly care for Batman and Robin on any level. A crappy superhero movie is something schlocky like Superman 3 or the Quest for Peace where you can tell they cheaped out on the budget just by the look of it. The Salkinds and WB pillaged and raped Superman's corpse just to pump out movies and save a couple of bucks. Can you honestly sit there and say something as bland and lackluster as those later Superman movies are as bad as Batman Forever or even Batman and Robin? Atleast the latter have great campy performances and top notch special effects. They put effort into them, every department put their A game into it, from the sound editing to the costumes.
The Schumacher Batflicks know what they are. They were these big summer blockbuster flicks. You look at them and you can atleast admire the money and talent that went into the sets and look of the film. Very professional and well done. I may not agree with the homoeroticism Schumacher pumped into it, but I can admire that vision for what it is which was basically a cross between the Adam West Batman show meets Saturday Night fever on an acid trip. Forever is a cool movie and the only time you get to see a usually quiet and subdued Tommy Lee Jones with half his face burned running around like he's Mick Jager on crack. All the action scenes are better than anything Burton or Nolan have done with Batman. Before Snyder, Schumacher was the only one that had an active/actiony Batman doing fast athletic fight and stunt work, swinging from helicopters, getting burned and buried alive, swimming in water, etc etc. Everything was done on a grand scale. I don't see how that equates to something like Nuclear Man and Superman fighting against a cheap studio backdrop doubling as the moon.
The Schumacher movies are campy and comic, yeah, but they had effort put into them. They're the least boring of all the Batman movies and a hell of a lot more story and script structure than BvS and Justice League. Is that wrong to claim?
Hidden gem of a comment.
You can't rip Marvel junk and say, for instance, that Cap America is rubberized action and then say BF's Batmobile "leaping forward" impossibly and driving up the side of a building is a better action scene than 5 much-better-done Batman films. It's ridiculously silly. As is the entire movie. And yes, it knows it is but that doesn't make it OK. That's like saying Jaws 3D knew it was cheap and horrid so it was OK.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
It really doesn’t take much for this ****er to make epic posts does it.
Oh man Jager on crack lolol my side hurts.
But I agree that BF/BR > WB-Salkinds raping Reeve lol
Damn I may just buy BF and watch it today.
*Saloon clears as patrons scramble for cover*
lolol
I think Jaws 3D would fall under DiFabio’s Superman 4 example of a truly crappy movie.
DiFabs and I are texting while we're doing this.
I wasn't a kid when Batman Forever came out (I was in my early 20's) but I do feel that it has a level of harmless nostalgia that still holds up. I remember it being a fun counterpoint to Goldeneye, Braveheart, and Die Hard with a Vengeance during the summer of '95. Then Heat came out shortly after (ironic considering that that film and not BF would be more of a template for future Batman films to come) so I never really felt that BF was "lacking" in entertainment value that year, even as an adult. It had it's place and at the time really fit (IMO.)
Of course B&R came out which made me (and most others it seems) retroactively write-off *both* Schumacher flicks but I think if there was never a B&R and just the "trilogy" of B89/BR/BF then people would have accepted all three well enough.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
I wasn't a kid when Batman Forever came out (I was in my early 20's) but I do feel that it has a level of harmless nostalgia that still holds up. I remember it being a fun counterpoint to Goldeneye, Braveheart, and Die Hard with a Vengeance during the summer of '95. Then Heat came out shortly after (ironic considering that that film and not BF would be more of a template for future Batman films to come) so I never really felt that BF was "lacking" in entertainment value that year, even as an adult. It had it's place and at the time really fit (IMO.)
Of course B&R came out which made me (and most others it seems) retroactively write-off *both* Schumacher flicks but I think if there was never a B&R and just the "trilogy" of B89/BR/BF then people would have accepted all three well enough.
Great post.
BF was a box office success so yeah you’re probably right.
I hated that movie immediately lol
Who am I kidding I'm still a kid, even today, lol.
DiFabio
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,362
- Reaction score
- 2,834
I'm not stuck on the Batmobile driving up the wall. It's like a 3 second scene paying a dumb homage to the 60s show where they were probably thinking, "hey, Batman and Robin would climb up the side of the wall, wouldn't it be cool to do that trope with the Batmobile". That's about the extent that I've ever thought about it.
Logically, of course it doesn't make sense. I mean, realistically, how would Batman get down from there?
But those movies never concerned themselves with "logic". I'm not fixated on realism for every movie I watch. If we want to get into it, every movie has the Batmobile doing silly ****. The Burton Batmobile has that stupid turn table that somehow pops out from under it to do a complete 180 turn and the Nolan Batmobile has the ability to hop around at will and drive on shingled rooftops. It's all dumb ****. The Schumacher Batman films play out like how we'd play with our toys and action figures as a kid. You better believe my dumb, 8 year old self would take the Batmobile and drive it up walls and floors like a mad man or bash my figures through glass or set them on fire. Hell, even the Elliot Goldenthal themes and soundtrack for those films sounds like an epic orchestral take on a kid humming a superhero theme as he's playing "Batman".When I say action scenes, I'm talkin' fight scenes. Name a Burton or Nolan Batman fight sequence that is better than Batman dropping in on Two-Faces thugs at the bank then hitching a ride around Gotham on the helicopter chain or crashing through the skylight, doing a back flip before round house kicking some goons and smashing two thugs's heads together. That was the best we got before that awesome warehouse sequence in BvS. Nolan and Burton, as good as their films are, can't direct action or fight sequences if it saved their lives. Their Batman stays in place as the enemies run to them and they're slow and sluggish. They take the action out of Batman completely.
You like Indiana Jones (and James Bond, I assume) much like I do. The things they had Batman do in the Schumacher flicks are much more in line with your typical action hero than what others have given us.
I enjoyed BF when it came out. I bought some resin figures to fill out my Batman line. I get it. But I knew it was a crap Batman -- too much wrong with it to undo what was right about it. For every cool moment, it has a terrible cringe-worthy TLJ (not The Last Jedi but Tommy Lee Jones) acting like "Jager on crack" -- not a good thing to me -- or Carrey's baseball pitching or the car driving up the building or Bane "booooooooomb"... I could go on and on.
It's as bad as that Superman movie with Richard Pryor... truly. It's just got better cinematography and prettier colors. I think its the colors that fool most of you, and the toy line that came out of it.
I really can't put Indy or Bond in the same league action-wise as Batman Forever. That's a real stretch. Batman Forever's action scenes are typical over-indulgent 90's action scenes. Over the top as it were.
It's as bad as that Superman movie with Richard Pryor... truly. It's just got better cinematography and prettier colors. I think its the colors that fool most of you, and the toy line that came out of it.
I really can't put Indy or Bond in the same league action-wise as Batman Forever. That's a real stretch. Batman Forever's action scenes are typical over-indulgent 90's action scenes. Over the top as it were.
Similar threads
