I explained that. The Riddler is not a ranting maniac like the Joker. He's sane, cunning, and calculating, aside from his obsession (in some versions) with constantly leaving clues for Batman. I've seen it said that in some ways he's the ideal villain for a master detective like Batman, because he's all about creating mysteries and puzzles to challenge Batman's deductive skills. So Nygma should operate on a more erudite, intellectual plane. He's in it for the challenge, matching wits with the World's Greatest Detective and trying to stump him. There's also a debonair quality to the best Riddlers, like John Glover's B:TAS character or Frank Gorshin in the suit-and-bowler-hat outfit that the actor preferred over the original green tights. After all, the character's design in the comics was (I think) modeled on Fred Astaire, so there's a certain elegance built into him. Granted, Gorshin's Riddler was prone to cackling maniacally and putting on a good rant; indeed, he was an influence on Mark Hamill's Joker. He got a kick out of his villainy, as did most of that show's villains, but there was always a sense of calculating menace and ruthlessness underneath. Carrey would've made an excellent Joker -- certainly a damn sight better than Jack Nicholson, who didn't even try to play the Joker but just played Jack Nicholson in whiteface. But the movie was wrong to reduce the Riddler to just a Joker knockoff. That's not what he is.
I really like the Zero Year Riddler character--I hope to see that version become more of the norm in live action Batman.
IMO The problem with Carrey's performance was that he was playing the Joker's hyperactive second cousin (twice removed from the Trickster) and spouting christmas cracker puns, when he was supposed to be playing the Riddler. Nigma is as his best when he's portrayed as highly cerebral with a massive superiority complex that drives a compulsive need to prove he's smarter than *everyone* else. Indeed some interpretations have him being downright sinister.
I know that. I enjoyed Carrey's impression of Nicholson's Joker. I think that same performance with a stronger script and a better plot would have worked very well. On the other hand, Jones' performance was awful. He should have been the straight man to Carrey's clown. I understand that the Riddler is normally a sane man, but to be blunt, I don't give a shit. In my mind, adaptations should not be beholden to the source material. Use the source material as inspiration, but do your own thing and make as many changes as you want.
Oh, certainly. But that doesn't mean that, well, any of the changes Joel Schumacher made were for the better, or that it's good if Gotham emulates them. Batman Forever's villains were awful, regardless of their fidelity to the source (of which there was none). I'm not at all opposed to changing the source material, as I've made clear in many past threads, but if the new interpretation is manifestly worse than the source material, then I'm not going to praise it just for being different.
Warner Brothers wanted toy commericials, this is made clear from Burton and Schumacher's comments in the commentaries. And Alkiva Goldman wrote the same storyline for Batman And Robin, he just turned the Ridder into Poison Ivy, the problems came from Warners and the writers.
I've always believed that Carrey was channeling Gorshin's performance as The Riddler while simultaneously embellishing said performance to the Nth degree, which is primarily the reason I enjoy that particular take on the character. I think the similarities are particularly strong if you look at the way Gorshin handled the role in the '66 movie.
Compare Carry's delivery of the line "Guess what I did today" from BF with CMS delivery of "Guess what I found" from this weeks Gotham.
It's the embellishment to the nth degree that ruins it for me. Carrey can be good when he shows some restraint, but when he's going all out with his schtick, it's just annoying. Also the script was pretty bad.
IMO, Jim Carrey seems to need iron-fisted direction to keep from going too far. Over the top seems to be his default. The only contrast I can come up with is Robin Williams, who seemed to know when to hold back and when to go "full goose bozo." Maybe it was experience, maybe it was direction, maybe it was instinct. Maybe all three. It would have been interesting to see Robin Williams as Riddler.
Robin Williams' range as an actor was incredible. Watch his first appearance as the helium voiced Mork on Happy Days and then watch One Hour Photo on Netflix. Incomparable talent.
There must be something wrong with my ears. I watched the pilot to Mork and Mindy a few days ago, and I had no idea what the #### Mindy's problem was... Or why the episode had a ten minute detour into Happy Days. I was also amazed that Mindy was supposed to be 21. (The Actress was 27, but my real problem is that I used to watch this show as a 4 year old and she looked fully grown from that perspective.)
21 is a fully grown child. After 21 is various stages of adult hood. A fully grown adult is a dead person.
I was able to catch the first two episodes over the weekend, and I can safely say I'm eager for more. I don't mind seeing less of Bruce Wayne, since the focus isn't on him...but the Gotham officers, criminals, and others who are influenced by both those groups.
It's only been two episodes but I remain hopeful and intrigued, I just hope the show settles on a tone and reigns in some of the "camp" and scenery chewing.
I suspect it will settle into a sustained storyline arc: Penguin's descent into pure villainy. That will be the umbrella story arc.