Would "Batman Forever" have been somewhat better ...

[suarezguy]

If Tommy Lee Jones had just played the Joker, retconned to have survived his fall from B89?

A funny Joker makes more sense, and has more basis in the comics, than a funny Two-Face.
As Jones played Two-Face, there wasn't a whole lot of difference. The only script change you would need would be to have Batman be more angry at him, though the fact that Joker seems immortal would be part of what made him less vengeful, seeing the relative futility.

 

[Praetor]

I think having one villain would have been the best choice. Having TLJ play the Joker as the same character seems like an easy fix, but I think it's actually not so much a fix as a (clever) bit of wishful thinking.

 

[Christopher]

It would've been better if Jones had played the actual Two-Face, the character from the comics (and animation) who is the richest, most complex, most fascinating villain in Batman's entire rogues' gallery, rather than being stuck with a campy caricature like those from the Adam West sitcom.

 

[Aragorn]

Supposedly Jones tried to outdo Carrey instead of being his own character.

 

[BenRoethig]

It would have better if it would have had the same semi-serious tone has the Keaton films (the more kid friendly tone is why he dropped out BTW)

 

[Aragorn]

And the kid-friendly tone is why Adam West praised Batman & Robin.

 

[shivkala]

If anyone character from that movie should have been rewritten as the Joker, it should have been the Riddler. Aside from the lame riddles left and the question mark motif, Carey was playing the Joker (at least an iteration of him). The Riddler should have been played straighter (in fact, my personal favorite interpretation of the Riddler is of a damn good criminal, one who would be a lot more successful were it not for the psychological tic that forces him to leave clues to his crimes) and been there to test Batman's detective skills.

The thing is, I think Tommy Lee Jones could have been a really great Two-Face, but sadly it wasn't to be.

 

[melancholymecha]

Id love Jude Law for Riddler in the next film.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Supposedly Jones tried to outdo Carrey instead of being his own character.

It's certainly how it plays out on screen, I had never heard that but that's what I always figured was going on.

 

[Dream]

I find it hard to watch Batman Forever these days. The movie tries to be both serious and campy at the same time but fails to be good at either.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

If the Joker had been in Batman Forever--having been presumably revived after that fall at the end of the first film--I would have wanted him to be played by Jack Nicholson for the sake of consistency.

But I agree with those who would actually have wanted Two-Face to be played as a complex fascinating villain, rather than a cackling one-note baddie. Also, although I love Jones and think he could be perfect for such a roll, it would have been nice if Two-Face had been played by Billy Dee Williams to also maintain consistency with the first film. Batman Forever was supposed to be a sequel, not a reboot.

 

[Anwar]

You know that Shrek in Batman Returns was supposed to be Dent, and the explosion at the end was supposed to scar him into Two-Face for the third movie?

 

[JacksonArcher]

Batman Forever is a frustrating movie because it could have been so much better. Tommy Lee Jones is really a very good actor and had he played Two-Face as a serious, vicious bad guy, the character could have contrasted The Riddler nicely. Also, had WB not ordered cuts of the film, including a subplot involving Bruce's amnesia, it could have actually added to the Batman mythos rather than detract from it.

I still would have liked to have seen Michael Keaton reprise his role, but not in the Batman Forever that we got. Had Joel Schumacher dictated a more serious and less campy tone in certain areas, and had WB actually wanted to make a good movie verses a lighter movie because of stupid audience reaction to Batman Returns, Keaton would have had a very fascinating character to play with since Forever on some level without the cuts actually explored some interesting areas for the Bruce Wayne/Batman character.

Alas, as is, Batman Forever is a very uneven and imperfect film which could have been so much more. In many ways it's worse than Batman & Robin which seemingly wholeheartedly embraces its campy nature, whereas Batman Forever is indecisive between whether or not it is a serious portrayal of the character or not.

 

[Praetor]

^Brilliantly said, JacksonArcher.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And the kid-friendly tone is why Adam West praised Batman & Robin.

And why he's embraced his part on Family Guy?

 

[marillion]

I find all but the original very hard to watch with the advent of the re-boot.. I find all of them campy and over done at best. I loved the idea of Clooney playing the role and he would have been perfect to follow in Keaton's footsteps.. But alas, by then, Schumacher had destroyed it, removing any kind of real script in favor of puns and in-jokes.

The subplot of Alfred dying from the same disease as Freeze's wife had some legs and had the movie been done more seriously, it would have blended in nicely. All it ended up doing was provide some forced agnst for the leads to deal with when they weren't cracking wise. Ahhhnold made the perfect Freeze.. Oh how I wish they would have given him some decent lines.

Whintah.. Has come at lahhhhhhhst...