Jim Carrey was cast. I've never seen the film. It has poor reviews.
I just think this is an interesting casting choice.
Micky Dolenz as The Riddler?
How do you think he would have done? I think he would be good. According to trivia he was considered for the role.
That's BS. It may be in the trivia section, but it's BS. Only bankable stars were considered for the main roles.
shareFrom trivia:
"While Tim Burton was still slated to direct the film, Micky Dolenz was considered to play the Riddler."
So not BS apparently.
Joel Schumacher replaced Tim Burton as Director. It was not successful. So "bankable stars" did not make a good film.
Tim Burton is a producer, director and writer. He doesn't always think about "bankable stars" when casting a role.
So your elitist post bumped my thread. Thanks for the bump.
Would Micky have been good in the role? I think so.
Anyone with an IMDB account can post in trivia. Find a legitimate source.
Burton's movies are full of bankable stars. Besides the studio would have final decision.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/monkeeland/viewtopic.php?t=1957
He reportedly did a screen test.
You are preoccupied with bankable stars.
Micky would have been a great Riddler imo.
A Monkees fan site is not a credible source.
"He reportedly did a screen test." Supporting documentation from a credible source?
How dare you!
What is a more credible source than monkeeland?
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/monkeeland/?sid=7f034449fea28bff0f68212c69b7a866
Here's another-
https://whatculture.com/film/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-tim-burton-39-s-batman-forever?page=5
"...That's more in line with the Nolan style of Bat-Villain, and they had a similar approach to casting, with the favourite to play the part of The Riddler being either Monkees lead singer Micky Dolenz or the late great Robin Williams. The latter of whom would be perfect but, sadly, ended up turning the part down."
There, you have it now. PROOF that Micky Dolenz was considered for the role.
There are other sources. Run a search. Do your own freaking legwork.
Personally, I think Micky Dolenz would have made an excellent Riddler. Unfortunately, the movie tanked.
Maybe it would have been a little better if Micky was cast. He is probably glad he wasn't cast because the movie was a bomb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnzrGr78Mws&list=RDxnzrGr78Mws&start_radio=1
That is one of my favorite Monkee songs and I always loved the video. That doesn't change that you have no credible sources. Good night.
share>> Jim Carrey was cast. I've never seen the film. It has poor reviews.
Uuuuuh.
"Uuuuuh" what?
Jim Carrey's casting? The film reviews? What?
You've never seen the film because it has poor reviews. That's not a reason to skip a movie. You might love it. Many do.
sharePoor reviews are a reason to skip a movie. One reason. Low IMDB rating too.
"You might love it. Many do."
Do many people love this film?
Maybe it would have better reviews and a higher rating if Micky was cast?
Fine, let others decide what you watch.
>> Maybe it would have better reviews and a higher rating if Micky was cast?
Jim was fantastic in the film, believe it or not. But, as I like Micky Dolenz, I believe he could have done a decent job. If the film been had been made between 1967-1980 that is. By 1995 it was way too late.
There was speculation about Howard Stern potentially portraying Scarecrow in the sequel to Batman Forever (prior to the announcement of Batman & Robin). Now that would have been something.
My opinion is that Batman Forever's worst quality is its middle-of-the-road-ness. It lightens up Burton's tone too much to make it a fun, light Batman movie (like '66) or a psychologically-driven, dark Batman movie. It splits the difference and winds up, frankly, kinda bland.
Carrey's okay as the Riddler, although he feels like he's mostly just doing his '90s Jim Carrey thing (which is why they paid him big bucks). Tommy Lee Jones could've been better as Two-Face, but again, they're getting him to do the role a little too schticky, so instead of hard-boiled TLJ, we get a more milquetoast, "silly" version. Kilmer does a great job with the material, but he's no Keaton and he has a much worse script and direction.
Honestly, Batman & Robin is more worth watching because that film is so goofy and over-the-top it becomes entertaining in a schlocky way.
As for Mickey, I don't know. I think he'd have fit a much sillier Bat-movie yet. Forever was lightened up, but still darker than the movie that Mickey could have done. Dolenz's goofy Monkee persona would have leant itself well to the kind of role/performance we saw in the campy TV series, but in a movie...? I doubt he'd have worked - unless he's got some brilliant performances up his sleeve...
Add Mike Nesmith as Two-Face and I'm on board.
shareNow you're talking
shareDavy Jones is Robin. Peter Tork wouldn't get to be Batman, though. He'd wind up being Alfred while somebody else was Batman.
With that lineup? I'd kinda want to see Adam West back in the cowl.
Nah brah.
No need to include the whole band although Mike Nesmith is an interesting suggestion.
Once christomacin suggested Nesmith as Two-Face, I figured I'd just riff on the Monkees taking over the Batcave. That'd just be for fun, not a serious attempt at a Bat-movie.
This wasn't meant to be something I'd really want them to have attempted (outside of a spoof movie)
Would Micky have been a good choice? As good as Jim Carrey or even better?
shareI don't know. I've only ever seen Micky perform on The Monkees, so I don't know if he would be capable of delivering a full character. Of course, Jim Carrey was basically just doing his schtick, so I'm not sure it would have altered the movie much.
I think Dolenz would've given a "lighter" performance. Probably a little less sinister than Carrey. On the other hand, if Dolenz was on as The Riddler with Burton still directing, I think maybe a funny, but still creepy performance could have come out.
There's also a factor to consider that Dolenz would feel he had something to "prove". Being a former Monkee, he might feel like being a villain in a Batman movie might be a chance to bring up his serious acting cred and have a career Rennaissance. If that's how he felt, he might have pushed himself to give a really nuanced, interesting - if still goofy - performance.
Ultimately, there are a lot of variables and it's impossible to tell. I think I'd maybe have preferred it personally, if only because it'd be kind of interesting to go, "Hey, remember when one of the Monkees was a Batman baddie?" instead of, "Hey, remember the mid-90s when Jim Carrey was in a lot of stuff doing his thing?"