View Full Version : Who else liked 'Batman & Robin' for what it was?
Superman Prime
07-19-2006, 06:04 PM
I went to Amazon.com earlier today and found that most reviewers of the new DVD hated it. There are a few however, who did think it was a fun movie that was entertaining. And I know that most, if not all of you on this forum hate it, but who else, besides myself, actually liked this movie for what it was? As a stand-alone movie seperate from the comics?
Kevin Roegele
07-19-2006, 06:20 PM
I went to Amazon.com earlier today and found that most reviewers of the new DVD hated it. There are a few however, who did think it was a fun movie that was entertaining. And I know that most, if not all of you on this forum hate it, but who else, besides myself, actually liked this movie for what it was? As a stand-alone movie seperate from the comics?
That's an odd phrase in your final sentence. B&R is no more or less 'stand-alone' from the comics than any other Batman movie. It's just as faithful to the comics as any other Batman movie.
I myself hated it until 2003 or so. Until Begins was announced it looked like B&R would be the final word on the Batman movies, which truly would be awful.
In the light of Begins, I can look at B&R and find it amusing with great visuals in some places (and horrible visuals in others). In some still frames, B&R looks like a cool film. The pacing, I have to say, is very good. I also like the cinematography, the Batcave has never looked better. And the scene of Freeze with the ice-sculpture of his wife is touching.
Erm.....that's it with the plaudits. It's still a lame film.
SHADOWBAT69
07-19-2006, 08:43 PM
I dont consider any of the Batman films a part of the comics. I view them as seperate interpretations of the character.
Batman and Robin, to me, was a revisiting of the goofy exploits of the silver age exploits in movie format.
xxshady
07-19-2006, 08:45 PM
I dont really get why so many people hate it that much? IMO it was better than Batman Forever, some of the visuals were great, Mr. Freeze had a good character story but the cheesy puns made him look too campy. Poison Ivy was a psychotic plant lover, no harm there >__>
The only thing i was really mad about was George Clooney... but then again it gave a funnier look to Batman since he made more jokes, which i sort of enjoyed.
Anyways Batman Forever's villains were even cheesier... they acted like a bunch of immmature kids most of the time... what was up with that?
The Chairman
07-19-2006, 08:57 PM
If you look at Batman & Robin as an actual serious Batman movie (like B89, Returns & Begins), then yes it's terrible.
However, I feel you look at it as a spoof of sorts, like Airplane! or Spaceballs, it actually becomes really enjoyable. Try not take it seriously and it beco0mes quite funny and entertaining.
I also rank it ahead of Forever because the mood was consistantly campy throughout the film, whereas Forever kept alternating between camp and an attempt at a serious Batman film, which is what killed it IMO.
BatScot
07-19-2006, 09:51 PM
There is no amount of spin or reinterpretation that can make B&R any less horrible than what it was.
El Payaso
07-19-2006, 10:10 PM
No perspective can make this movie any better, sorry.
CConn
07-19-2006, 11:34 PM
I often say it's a horrible film made by talented people. It's amazing, really. Schumacher - everyone admits - is a good director, Akiva Goldsman (the writer) has been nominated for academy awards, and of course the cast was filled with A-List actors. It's as if they all just decided to make a completely dreadful film.
El Payaso
07-20-2006, 01:15 AM
I often say it's a horrible film made by talented people. It's amazing, really. Schumacher - everyone admits - is a good director, Akiva Goldsman (the writer) has been nominated for academy awards, and of course the cast was filled with A-List actors. It's as if they all just decided to make a completely dreadful film.
Dunno. Schumacher a good director? I mean, popular, successful. But good? I don't think so. Akiva Goldsman is not that good, the fact that he was nominated for an Oscar could be a proof of that. A-list actors; Clooney has had great roles but some poor ones too, Schwarzenegger has no idea of acting even when I like him in many movies, Uma Thurman was the best actress involved (but was utterly bad in B&R) and Silverstone and O'Donell... well...
CConn
07-20-2006, 05:22 AM
I'm sorry...you lost me at your custom title.
Two-Face
07-20-2006, 06:59 AM
No I hate this film it looked 60s Batman show was back in the name of Schumacher, the story was ****e the cast acted badly ( least actors in 60s show were the characters) apart from Michael Gough who was great as Alfred.. It was copy of Batman Forever and different things were villains and new Batman actor, other that it was same ****e was onscreen.
Sloth7d
07-20-2006, 07:12 AM
Reguardless of other opinions, I thoght Batman and Robin was a good movie.
Not the best, but there are several worse.
Joker
07-20-2006, 11:20 AM
it was awful, and quite possibly not only the worst interpretation of batman ever, but a serious contender for worst adaptation of any comic ever
raybia
07-20-2006, 11:37 AM
I went to Amazon.com earlier today and found that most reviewers of the new DVD hated it. There are a few however, who did think it was a fun movie that was entertaining. And I know that most, if not all of you on this forum hate it, but who else, besides myself, actually liked this movie for what it was? As a stand-alone movie seperate from the comics?
You sick perverted ****
the probaly with Batman and Robin, is that it was trying ot be a good movie. The movie was not a parady of anything, it was trying to be a good Batman movie lol. Instead we got that, and thats all i can say about the movie. The general public was smart enough to to go see it, and ofcourse it nearly destroyed Batmans image once again.
Speedball
07-20-2006, 07:35 PM
The first time I saw this film, I was 11.
I LOVED it. I didn't see it as bad, I just saw it as a Batman movie.
When I watch it today, I can sit through it, but I laugh pretty much the whole time. It's not terribly bad, bad, but defiantly not the worst film. Clooney would have made a great Batman, and Uma as Ivy was a good casting decision. It's just everything fell apart because of the WB being greedy moneymongers at the time.
Schumacher is an amzing director. I saw Falling Down the other day for the first time and was completely blown away. From what I've seen, his films are dark and gritty, and very well done.
ReptileOrion
07-20-2006, 07:53 PM
Over the past week I have finally gotten around to watching Batman Forever and B&R with director's commentary. I truly despise Joel Schumacher now. I got so sick and tired of him saying that I wanted to make the movie more family friendly. I can tolerate Batman Forever but any Bat-fan (you know what kind of fans I'm talking about...haha) who likes B&R should be ashamed of themselves. It was truly an updated version of the 60s tv series. George Clooney was a horrible Batman, Chris O'Donnell was worse this time around as Robin, and Arnold was a horrible Mr. Freeze. In many ways B&R is Batman Forever redux. I could go on for hours and hours about this film. I think I may attempt to watch some of the special features on B&R. I think I need to digest it in small doses....lol.
SHADOWBAT69
07-20-2006, 08:23 PM
Over the past week I have finally gotten around to watching Batman Forever and B&R with director's commentary. I truly despise Joel Schumacher now. I got so sick and tired of him saying that I wanted to make the movie more family friendly. I can tolerate Batman Forever but any Bat-fan (you know what kind of fans I'm talking about...haha) who likes B&R should be ashamed of themselves. It was truly an updated version of the 60s tv series. George Clooney was a horrible Batman, Chris O'Donnell was worse this time around as Robin, and Arnold was a horrible Mr. Freeze. In many ways B&R is Batman Forever redux. I could go on for hours and hours about this film. I think I may attempt to watch some of the special features on B&R. I think I need to digest it in small doses....lol.
If you're saying that B&R was an updated version of the 60's Batman, which i also think as well, and that any bat fan should be ashamed if they like it, then, should any bat fan be ashamed of liking the 60's series?
Joker
07-20-2006, 08:44 PM
because unlike Batman and Robin, the 60's series didnt take itself seriously
elorenishii386
07-20-2006, 10:11 PM
B&R was a bad take on Batman...and the worst one in the series. It was very corney...but i do have to admit that it is entertaining. When it comes on t.v. I do watch it and laugh at how corny it was...
and i do agree that some of the visuals were nice like Mr. freeze's wife as the ice sculpture,
and I do have a major crush on George Clooney...even though he looked aweful in the suit.
ReptileOrion
07-20-2006, 11:08 PM
If you're saying that B&R was an updated version of the 60's Batman, which i also think as well, and that any bat fan should be ashamed if they like it, then, should any bat fan be ashamed of liking the 60's series?
That brings up an interesting point. A lot of people have seen the tv series over the years. The people that I worry about are the ones who just like the tv series. The only redeeming quality about it was that it kept Batman in the public eye and also kept the comic from being cancelled (?). The 60s TV series was repetitve and boring. I just hate that the show made a mockery of the character. I guess if someone truly digs that then they are not a true fan.
Spiderman3
07-21-2006, 04:14 AM
the spiderman tv movie was cool though!!!!!
as was hulk!!!!!
Joker
07-21-2006, 11:37 AM
That brings up an interesting point. A lot of people have seen the tv series over the years. The people that I worry about are the ones who just like the tv series. The only redeeming quality about it was that it kept Batman in the public eye and also kept the comic from being cancelled (?). The 60s TV series was repetitve and boring. I just hate that the show made a mockery of the character. I guess if someone truly digs that then they are not a true fan.
the 60's series was brilliant in that it WAS supposed to be a pardoy of the character. in the 50's Batman had been dumbed down horribly, and was turning into a parody of itself all on its own. The 60's tv series people got that, and took everything to the nth degree, pushing it even more over the top, having batman be even more straight faced than he was in the comics, having the villains become even more ludicrous than they already were (seriously, in the comics every joker story seemed to be him robbing things to spell out his name or other lame gimmicks at this point). It pushed Batman back into the public eye, as you said, and was able to make a funny spoof of the entire super hero genre at the same time. Peoples mistake in judging this show today is they seem to think it was meant as a serious attempt at batman, which it never was supposed to be. It was a campy parody, unlike Batman and Robin, which was them actually trying to make a good batman movie, not a parody or spoof.
Joker
07-21-2006, 11:38 AM
the spiderman tv movie was cool though!!!!!
as was hulk!!!!!
Spiderman was f**kin awful, but Hulk was great because of Bill Bixby, a very under-rated actor :o
SHADOWBAT69
07-21-2006, 03:10 PM
That brings up an interesting point. A lot of people have seen the tv series over the years. The people that I worry about are the ones who just like the tv series. The only redeeming quality about it was that it kept Batman in the public eye and also kept the comic from being cancelled (?). The 60s TV series was repetitve and boring. I just hate that the show made a mockery of the character. I guess if someone truly digs that then they are not a true fan.
But it did translate the current state of the comic books of that time. From the mid 50's to mid 60's it was goofy sci fi stories, bad puns, and corny villains. This is comic book history of Batman, it is a part of the lore. If someone doesnt like it, thats fine, i dont like the "camp" that was the 60's show. I dont like the "camp" that was B&R. However, a true fan of the character will acknowledge this era of Batman history regardless if they liked it or not because it was part of the evolution of the character. See, my worry is the opposite of yours. Im concerned about these supposed "new" true fans who suddenly emerged during the Batman Begins hype. They seem to know almost nothing about the long history of the character, they feel that Year One and Long Halloween/Dark Victory is the end all of Batman origins. There is absolutely no appreciation for the comic book history that came 60 years before it.
Batman and Robin should have died on the drawing board, so to speak.
I don't care if it 'represented the 50-60's era Batman' well...
It should have never have been made, period. It destroyed a franchise, for Christ's sake! but we're suppose to take comfort in that it represented an era? No thanks.
SHADOWBAT69
07-21-2006, 08:31 PM
It didnt destroy a franchise. Batman Begins was made wasnt it? There is a sequel being made isnt there? One movie isnt going to kill a licensing giant. It still made money and thats all studios care about. My point is that a majority seem to insult and disregard a very prominent era in Batmans history. And these people critisize others who do accept and respect the entire 60 plus year history of Batman.
Kevin Roegele
07-22-2006, 08:31 AM
the 60's series was brilliant in that it WAS supposed to be a pardoy of the character. in the 50's Batman had been dumbed down horribly, and was turning into a parody of itself all on its own. The 60's tv series people got that, and took everything to the nth degree, pushing it even more over the top, having batman be even more straight faced than he was in the comics, having the villains become even more ludicrous than they already were (seriously, in the comics every joker story seemed to be him robbing things to spell out his name or other lame gimmicks at this point). It pushed Batman back into the public eye, as you said, and was able to make a funny spoof of the entire super hero genre at the same time. Peoples mistake in judging this show today is they seem to think it was meant as a serious attempt at batman, which it never was supposed to be. It was a campy parody, unlike Batman and Robin, which was them actually trying to make a good batman movie, not a parody or spoof.
Well said.
The 60's Batman was a genuinely well made television show. Its surfed the line between over-serious and ridiculous in a way that no other TV show has ever managed. Yes, it's camp, and some people don't like camp, but it is surely the best piece of camp ever and it deserves respect for that. Camp is hard to get right, as Batman & Robin illustrates.
Kevin Roegele
07-22-2006, 08:35 AM
But it did translate the current state of the comic books of that time. From the mid 50's to mid 60's it was goofy sci fi stories, bad puns, and corny villains. This is comic book history of Batman, it is a part of the lore. If someone doesnt like it, thats fine, i dont like the "camp" that was the 60's show. I dont like the "camp" that was B&R. However, a true fan of the character will acknowledge this era of Batman history regardless if they liked it or not because it was part of the evolution of the character. See, my worry is the opposite of yours. Im concerned about these supposed "new" true fans who suddenly emerged during the Batman Begins hype. They seem to know almost nothing about the long history of the character, they feel that Year One and Long Halloween/Dark Victory is the end all of Batman origins. There is absolutely no appreciation for the comic book history that came 60 years before it.
:up: My sentiments exactly. Once upon a time, this is how it was....this is fifty years before Batman & Robin...
http://spider-bob.com/heroes/dc/images/50s_BatFamily01.jpg
El Payaso
07-22-2006, 08:53 AM
Batman and Robin should have died on the drawing board, so to speak.
I don't care if it 'represented the 50-60's era Batman' well...
It should have never have been made, period. It destroyed a franchise, for Christ's sake! but we're suppose to take comfort in that it represented an era? No thanks.
^ Absolutely what this guy said.
CLARKY
07-22-2006, 11:34 AM
I went to Amazon.com earlier today and found that most reviewers of the new DVD hated it. There are a few however, who did think it was a fun movie that was entertaining. And I know that most, if not all of you on this forum hate it, but who else, besides myself, actually liked this movie for what it was? As a stand-alone movie seperate from the comics?
I liked it ... for what it was.
but personally : I dont consider any of the Batman films a part of the comics. I view them as seperate interpretations of the character.
Batman and Robin, to me, was a revisiting of the goofy exploits of the silver age exploits in movie format.
^^ my thoughts exactly. :)
tinister
07-22-2006, 12:41 PM
I think "Batman & Robin" didn't work for me because it tried to be both the new and the old. It tried to keep the dark "serious" mood of the modern Dark Knight - but then tossed in the goofy - don't take any of this seriously - attitude of the 50s/60s.
IMO - any time you try to do that - you're asking for trouble. Unless you get the exact right balance between OLD/NEW. A balance that doesn't cause one side to dominate the other - or result in the two aspects cancelling each other out. In the case of B&R - I think it was the later.
"Batman Returns" was a much more successful balance between the old and the new.
Again - IMHO.
Tin
ReptileOrion
07-22-2006, 02:30 PM
But it did translate the current state of the comic books of that time. From the mid 50's to mid 60's it was goofy sci fi stories, bad puns, and corny villains. This is comic book history of Batman, it is a part of the lore. If someone doesnt like it, thats fine, i dont like the "camp" that was the 60's show. I dont like the "camp" that was B&R. However, a true fan of the character will acknowledge this era of Batman history regardless if they liked it or not because it was part of the evolution of the character. See, my worry is the opposite of yours. Im concerned about these supposed "new" true fans who suddenly emerged during the Batman Begins hype. They seem to know almost nothing about the long history of the character, they feel that Year One and Long Halloween/Dark Victory is the end all of Batman origins. There is absolutely no appreciation for the comic book history that came 60 years before it.
Great post....I accept that part of Batman's history. I agree a true fan needs to know the full picture. I just don't have a desire to read many of the stories from that period. I never thought about the fan kind of jumped on the bandwagon and are only familiar with the Long Halloween, Year One, and Dark Victory. When I first started reading Batman comics the first big storyline was Knightfall. I was familiar with the animated series and that is what made me want to get into the comics. I tried to expand my horizons by reading many different stories from over the years.
Kevin Roegele
07-22-2006, 02:52 PM
This was 50 years before Batman & Robin....notice the ice skates.
http://www.goldenagebatman.com/bat0027a.JPG
http://www.goldenagebatman.com/bat29a.jpg
http://www.goldenagebatman.com/bat39a.jpg
It didnt destroy a franchise. Batman Begins was made wasnt it? There is a sequel being made isnt there? One movie isnt going to kill a licensing giant. It still made money and thats all studios care about. My point is that a majority seem to insult and disregard a very prominent era in Batmans history. And these people critisize others who do accept and respect the entire 60 plus year history of Batman.
We waited...what? 12 years for Begins? Like I said, it destroyed a franchise.
Luckily Nolan has come along and peiced it all back together again. But it was still dead, and thanks to Batman and Robin.
Prominent era or not, it should still never have been made and in my opinion should not be valued in that respect. I see it as a cop-out; a way for an otherwise worthless movie to have atleast SOME worth just because the name 'Batman' is attached.
The 60's was a horrible time for comic books. Is it still a large part of Batman? Yes. Do I need to see ANY of it made into a movie? HELL NO.
ReptileOrion
07-22-2006, 09:49 PM
Maybe we all look at Batman and Robin as a comedy...lol.
Lines like "Hey Freeze, the heat is on"
"Hi Freeze, I'm Batman"
"This is why Superman works alone"
and the scene when Bats whips out the Batman logo credit card are sooooo bad that its funny.
Bat-God
07-22-2006, 10:43 PM
Like many have already said in this thread, Batman and Robin, to ME, was like a modern day 60's Batman.
Just goofy and campy and funny. I like it for that.
Proximo
07-23-2006, 07:04 AM
I like to watch B&R from time to time, Its not my favorite movie of them all.. But i enjoy watching them just like all the other Bat movies.
Kevin Roegele
07-23-2006, 05:49 PM
We waited...what? 12 years for Begins? Like I said, it destroyed a franchise.
12 years? Batman & Robin was released in 1997, Begins in 2005.
Indeed - I was attempting to make light of my point. Ie: An absurd amount of time.
Superman Prime
07-25-2006, 01:48 PM
Of all the camp, Batman & Robin never partook of this level of campiness:
http://www.superdickery.com/images/other/batman16.jpg
batmaluco
07-25-2006, 02:05 PM
B&R was a masterpiece of:
http://www.mom-is-a-terrorist.com/misc/crap.jpg
Arkady Rossovich
07-25-2006, 08:15 PM
It's still a lame film.
Indeed,i now only like it for the music and camera angles.
All of which can be found in Batman Forever, oddly enough.
Bat Attack
07-25-2006, 09:00 PM
I hated every frame of Batman & Robin.
I Am The Knight
07-25-2006, 09:53 PM
It's a horrible horrible movie. It should have never seen the light of day. I don't care if it's 60's Batman, we don't need to see that again.
Bat Attack
07-25-2006, 09:56 PM
Thank goodness we never had to endure this...
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2554/tripresskitp1bh3.jpg
(Manip by me :D)
ReptileOrion
07-26-2006, 10:52 PM
I find it ironic throughout the special features on the Batman and Robin DVD that everyone seems to be apologizing for the film. Poor Clooney sounds clueless on the character in his interview. Everyone kept saying that he played a great Bruce Wayne. That is not necessarily a compliment when the movie is called Batman and Robin.
El Payaso
07-26-2006, 10:59 PM
^ Ironic? It's perfectly natural.
Galactical
07-26-2006, 11:27 PM
I didn't take it seriously and enjoyed soemthing about it at one point in my life. Viewing it now as the wasted opportunity it was though just makes it the worst movie ever that it truly is, indeed.
XCharlieX
07-27-2006, 03:23 PM
Theres going to be the folks who take it like a big dumb spectacle of a movie, but it seems to me theres a thin line between "bad film" and cartoon style. Perhaps thats how Schumacher was able to be so horrible and think nothign of it. Its tricky.
I Am The Knight
07-27-2006, 07:08 PM
It's not good even as a bad film. It's just so lame, it's indescribable. I can't even laugh at how horrendous it is. Of course you could never get me to watch it again so I maybe I will laugh at it's utter crap state if someone or something forces me to watch it.
kooguy911
07-30-2006, 07:47 PM
your right, LordofHypertime, theres actually hundreds of B&R lovers!
Hundreds!
Let me remind you how theres at least 5 billion people on the world.
Bat Attack
07-30-2006, 08:57 PM
There are 6.5 Billion people in the world. And I think like almost 300 million in the U.S.A. and like 3 Billion in China or something.
tinister
07-31-2006, 03:07 AM
Did any of you also find that everything in B&R was LOUD? The colors were loud. All the actors were loud. They couldn't just have normal conversational lines - every line had to be something "comic bookish" (especially Freeze and Poison Ivy). And the sound design was loud - constantly something's exploding, crashing, etc. And the musical score was overwhelming.
Honestly - it gave me a huge headache when I saw it in the theater. lol
Kevin Roegele
07-31-2006, 09:07 AM
Did any of you also find that everything in B&R was LOUD? The colors were loud. All the actors were loud. They couldn't just have normal conversational lines - every line had to be something "comic bookish" (especially Freeze and Poison Ivy). And the sound design was loud - constantly something's exploding, crashing, etc. And the musical score was overwhelming.
Honestly - it gave me a huge headache when I saw it in the theater. lol
Me too, I had a migraine after B&R.
Two-Face
07-31-2006, 09:08 AM
It was too flashy as well speciallly when Freeze uses his gun....
larryfilmmaker
07-31-2006, 10:24 AM
It's not good even as a bad film. It's just so lame, it's indescribable. I can't even laugh at how horrendous it is. Of course you could never get me to watch it again so I maybe I will laugh at it's utter crap state if someone or something forces me to watch it.
Exactly. When I watch the 60's Batman now, I can see that they are completely being sarcastic the entire time and they are actually pretty good at poking fun of the ridiculousness. It's funny stuff (not the villains so much, I'm not sure they got the joke actually). When you watch Batman and Robin, it's hard to figure out exactly what Joel Schu was actually going for. It's not witty camp. It's the most irritating, brightly colored, over acted, noisy 2 hours of all time. It sucks. The ONLY thing I like are the designs for Grayson's different outfits... though they wouldn't make much sense until he became Nightwing. He looks way cooler than Bats in the movies (in costume, out of costume they both look like morons)
larryfilmmaker
07-31-2006, 10:27 AM
But it did translate the current state of the comic books of that time. From the mid 50's to mid 60's it was goofy sci fi stories, bad puns, and corny villains. This is comic book history of Batman, it is a part of the lore. If someone doesnt like it, thats fine, i dont like the "camp" that was the 60's show. I dont like the "camp" that was B&R. However, a true fan of the character will acknowledge this era of Batman history regardless if they liked it or not because it was part of the evolution of the character. See, my worry is the opposite of yours. Im concerned about these supposed "new" true fans who suddenly emerged during the Batman Begins hype. They seem to know almost nothing about the long history of the character, they feel that Year One and Long Halloween/Dark Victory is the end all of Batman origins. There is absolutely no appreciation for the comic book history that came 60 years before it.
I agree 100%. The "true fans" get mad when Batman is either 1)beatable in any way or 2) Not dark and angry
what the hell kind of fan is that?!
batmaluco
07-31-2006, 10:51 AM
Honestly - it gave me a huge headache when I saw it in the theater. lol
Me too, I had a migraine after B&R.
And in spite of the fact that they were (at least) partially responsible for this, it gave to WB lots of migraines and headaches as well.
Metallo22
08-06-2006, 09:53 PM
ERVERBAHDY FREHZEE!:eek:
Sorry about that. At least it's fun to say the one-liners for no reason at times.
Bat Attack
08-06-2006, 10:09 PM
Mr. Freezes rocket going through that hole in the museum ceiling was kinda erotic, IMO.
Batty Belfry
08-06-2006, 10:14 PM
ERVERBAHDY FREHZEE!:eek:
Sorry about that. At least it's fun to say the one-liners for no reason at times.
FOR IT IS THE CHILLING SOUND OF YOUR DOOM!!!!! :woot:
XCharlieX
08-06-2006, 10:19 PM
Im more willing to take Batman Forever for what it was. BnR felt beyond that imo.
El Payaso
08-06-2006, 10:35 PM
Forever I can like it for what it was.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.