The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > Batman World

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2014, 04:25 AM   #801
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Every Batman movie is made to sell toys, Schumacher is the only one with the balls to admit it. He even sends it up in the movie: "That's why every Poison Ivy action figure comes with him".
Bull. Merchandising is the last thing that is on the mind of directors of the good comic book movies. All they care about is making the best movie they can. They don't care about the toys. It's not even on their priority list. Unlike with Schumacher's as per the studio mandate to lighten it up, make it more kid friendly, and sell lots of toys since WB lost out on the Batman Returns backlash like with the killing of the Happy Meal promotion.

All Schumacher's admitting to is what he was told to do. That doesn't take balls. It's just plain honesty. Common knowledge, too. That's why it's called the toyetic Batman. You don't hear the other comic book movies called toyetic because they're not. Selling toys wasn't a priority reason they were made.

There's a big difference between selling toys based off comic book movies, and making a comic book movie so you can sell toys. The good comic book movies are the former, Schumacher's was the latter.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-24-2014 at 04:42 AM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 06:18 AM   #802
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Oh come now, you know merchandising has always been a big part of it. You're right though, Schumacher was just being honest.



If Batman and Robin were a huge critical hit, would it make any difference?

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 09:27 AM   #803
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards 1998

Won
ASCAP Award Top Box Office Films
Elliot Goldenthal

Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA 2006

Nominated
Saturn Award Best DVD Collection
For Batman , Batman Returns and Batman Forever For "Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989-1997".

Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA 1998

Nominated
Saturn Award Best Fantasy Film
Best Costumes
Ingrid Ferrin
Robert Turturice
Best Make-Up
Ve Neill
Jeff Dawn

Blockbuster Entertainment Awards 1998

Won
Blockbuster Entertainment Award Favorite Actress - Sci-Fi
Uma Thurman
Favorite Supporting Actor - Sci-Fi
Chris O'Donnell
Nominated
Blockbuster Entertainment Award Favorite Supporting Actor - Sci-Fi
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Favorite Supporting Actress - Sci-Fi
Alicia Silverstone

Kids' Choice Awards, USA 1998

Won
Blimp Award Favorite Movie Actress
Alicia Silverstone
Nominated
Blimp Award Favorite Movie
Favorite Movie Actress
Uma Thurman

Motion Picture Sound Editors, USA 1998

Nominated
Golden Reel Award Best Sound Editing - Dialogue & ADR
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118688/awards

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 02:31 PM   #804
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Oh come now, you know merchandising has always been a big part of it. You're right though, Schumacher was just being honest.
You're missing the point. Comic books movies always get merchandise based off them. That's a given. Chris Nolan, Sam Raimi, Joss Whedon, Bryan Singer and all the other brilliant CBM directors don't make their movies thinking one of their main priorities is to make a movie that will sell toys. All kinds of movies have kids toy lines based off them, including ones that are not made for kids at all like Robocop:



They even make toys and kids costumes for Horror movie characters like Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers;

http://img.costumecraze.com/images/v...1147-large.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/...e_myers(1).jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_F5LksXe91p...t_squishem.jpg

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0823/2.jpg

Movies are a merchandising kind of business. Like with most comic book movies, the Robocop, and the Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street movies are not made with the intention or priority of selling toys. Unlike with Schumacher's, which were made with the goal of selling toys as being a major priority.

Hence why it's called the toyetic Batman.

Quote:
If Batman and Robin were a huge critical hit, would it make any difference?
Make any difference to what? Whether it was successful or panned, it would still have been a movie made with the intention to sell toys.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-24-2014 at 07:46 PM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 09:04 PM   #805
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
You're missing the point. Comic books movies always get merchandise based off them. That's a given. Chris Nolan, Sam Raimi, Joss Whedon, Bryan Singer and all the other brilliant CBM directors don't make their movies thinking one of their main priorities is to make a movie that will sell toys.
I didn't know you could read minds.

Quote:
All kinds of movies have kids toy lines based off them, including ones that are not made for kids at all like Robocop:

That's based off the Robocop animated show made in the 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop...nimated_Series


Quote:
They even make toys and kids costumes for Horror movie characters like Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers;

http://img.costumecraze.com/images/v...1147-large.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/...e_myers(1).jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_F5LksXe91p...t_squishem.jpg

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0823/2.jpg

Movies are a merchandising kind of business. Like with most comic book movies, the Robocop, and the Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street movies are not made with the intention or priority of selling toys. Unlike with Schumacher's, which were made with the goal of selling toys as being a major priority.

Hence why it's called the toyetic Batman.
Those toys were made years after the original movies came out.



Quote:
Make any difference to what? Whether it was successful or panned, it would still have been a movie made with the intention to sell toys.
So what? So are many movies. Star Wars started this trend.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_%28toy_line%29

By the time of Batman and Robin, toy companies had become more involved. I remember hearing Schumacher say that the toy companies wanted to see the designs so they could have the toys out in time for the movie. This isn't unique to Batman and Robin, though.

I find it funny that the same people who bash Batman and Robin because it was "made to sell toys" probably went out and bought all the toys for all the other Batman movies, including Nolan's trilogy.

Just because Schumacher admits it in interviews and most other directors don't, doesn't mean Batman and Robin is one of the only movies in history made to sell toys.

At the end of the day, despite how artistic you think a film is, a film is made to make money, and this includes merchandising. Especially for big hollywood summer blockbuster films.

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 09:24 PM   #806
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
I didn't know you could read minds.
I just have a gift. It's called common sense.

Quote:
That's based off the Robocop animated show made in the 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop...nimated_Series
No, it's not. Did you even watch the video? It's got footage from the movie in it, not the cartoon show. But thanks for further proving my point by showing they also made a kids TV show based off an adult movie not intended for kids. But knowing how pedantic you can be you're going to need more examples to prove you wrong. Here's a toy commercial for a toy line based on Terminator 2;





Quote:
Those toys were made years after the original movies came out.
No they didn't. For example the Freddy Krueger squirting toy you see that blond kid playing with came out in 1989, in the height of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise popularity: http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0823/

Quote:
So what? So are many movies. Star Wars started this trend.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_%28toy_line%29
'Kenner's original vintage Star Wars toy line ran from 1977 to 1979 in the wake of the immense popularity of the 1977 theatrical release of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The toy line featured a variety of characters and vehicles from the film. It was succeeded by Kenner's vintage The Empire Strikes Back toy line in 1980. '

They released them in the wake of the popularity of the first movie. Meaning the Star Wars movies were not originally intended to be made to sell toys. It was an idea they come up with AFTER they saw how popular the original movie was.

Quote:
By the time of Batman and Robin, toy companies had become more involved.
Because Batman and Robin was made with the intention to sell toys. That was the major game plan. So of course toy companies became more involved. WB would have seen to that.

Quote:
I remember hearing Schumacher say that the toy companies wanted to see the designs so they could have the toys out in time for the movie. This isn't unique to Batman and Robin, though.
I never said it was unique to Batman and Robin. The Power Rangers, He-Man, G.I. Joe, My Little Pony all did it, too.

Quote:
I find it funny that the same people who bash Batman and Robin because it was "made to sell toys" probably went out and bought all the toys for all the other Batman movies, including Nolan's trilogy.
Even if that is true, what's so funny about it? Nobody is knocking movie based merchandise. It's that the primary goal behind the movie was to sell toys when that should not have been a main priority at all. Hence why the movie was so bad. It was like one big toy commercial. A campy cartoon with cartoonish characters all primed to be action figures.

Quote:
Just because Schumacher admits it in interviews and most other directors don't, doesn't mean Batman and Robin is one of the only movies in history made to sell toys.
Nobody said it is the only movie in history to do it. It's one of the few movies that does it as a main priority, instead of an after thought like the good movies do. Schumacher admits it because it's true, it's obvious, and it's common knowledge after the Batman Returns backlash and the whole approach WB took to the franchise because of it.

Quote:
At the end of the day, despite how artistic you think a film is, a film is made to make money, and this includes merchandising. Especially for big hollywood summer blockbuster films.
At the end of the day the good movies are made to be successful by being great movies.

Merchandising is not the primary goal like it was with Schumacher. Again this is obvious based on the movies themselves. They are hollow, campy, cartoonish movies coming hot off the heels of Burton's dark Gothic Batman movies. We don't need Schumacher to tell us that the camp fests that followed were done to draw kids in and sell toys. It's blatantly obvious. Especially in the wake of Returns killing off merchandising deals like the Happy Meal one.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-24-2014 at 09:56 PM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 09:45 PM   #807
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Another example for the Count;

Toy line in 1979 based off Ridley Scott's Alien movie. I'm sure Ridley was really thinking about the kids and the toy merchandise for them when he made that movie;



Are you getting it yet? Merchandise will be made out of practically anything. But that doesn't mean the directors were making the movies with the intention of selling off toys for kids based on the movie.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-24-2014 at 10:02 PM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 10:06 PM   #808
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
I just have a gift. It's called common sense.



No, it's not. Did you even watch the video? It's got footage from the movie in it, not the cartoon show. But thanks for further proving my point by showing they also made a kids TV show based off an adult movie not intended for kids. But knowing how pedantic you can be you're going to need more examples to prove you wrong. Here's a toy commercial for a toy line based on Terminator 2;



They didn't make toys to sell when the original Terminator came out.. Terminator 2 was more 'toyetic'.. IE: a big summer blockbuster that kids are going to see regardless of the rating.

Where are the toys for A Serbian Film?



Quote:
No they didn't. For example the Freddy Krueger squirting toy you see that blond kid playing with came out in 1989, in the height of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise popularity: http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0823/
Original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out in 1984.. and that film was much darker and obviously not made for kids. By 1989, Freddy had become a cultural icon and the sequels turned him into a wisecracking goofball. Hence, the toys.

Quote:
'Kenner's original vintage Star Wars toy line ran from 1977 to 1979 in the wake of the immense popularity of the 1977 theatrical release of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The toy line featured a variety of characters and vehicles from the film. It was succeeded by Kenner's vintage The Empire Strikes Back toy line in 1980. '

They released them in the wake of the popularity of the first movie. Meaning the Star Wars movies were not originally intended to be made to sell toys. It was an idea they come up with AFTER they saw how popular the original movie was.
Kenner signed its contract to produce Star Wars toys just a month before the film's May 25 release.

Lucas had tried to get the toys made before then, but was rejected by other toy companies... he also gave himself the rights to the merchandising.. unusual back then, but he made himself a fortune by doing so... this was all before the film came out.

Quote:
Because Batman and Robin was made with the intention to sell toys. That was the major game plan. So of course toy companies became more involved. WB would have seen to that.
How do you know they weren't also involved in the same way with the Nolan trilogy?

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Dar...Action_Figures

Warner Bros. Consumer Products (WBCP) announced today that it has named Mattel, Inc. as the global master toy licensee for both Speed Racer and The Dark Knight, two of the biggest summer films coming out in 2008 from Warner Bros.

(Article dated 19 June 2007, The Dark Knight was released in 2008)

http://www.superherohype.com/feature...he-dark-knight






Quote:
I never said it was unique to Batman and Robin. The Power Rangers, He-Man, G.I. Joe, My Little Pony all did it, too.
But not The Dark Knight, even though Mattel got the toy license a full year before the movie even opened. (see the above article I posted)


Quote:
Even if that is true, what's so funny about it? Nobody is knocking movie based merchandise. It's that the primary goal behind the movie was to sell toys when that should not have been a main priority at all. Hence why the movie was so bad. It was like one big toy commercial. A campy cartoon with cartoonish characters all primed to be action figures.
That's just your criticism of the movie. Again, I say, if the movie were a critical hit, would it make any difference?



Quote:
Nobody said it is the only movie in history to do it. It's one of the few movies that does it as a main priority, instead of an after thought like the good movies do. Schumacher admits it because it's true, it's obvious, and it's common knowledge after the Batman Returns backlash and the whole approach WB took to the franchise because of it.
Yeah, an afterthought. See the above article I posted.



Quote:
At the end of the day the good movies are made to be successful by being great movies.

Merchandising is not the primary goal like it was with Schumacher. Again this is obvious based on the movies themselves. They are hollow, campy, cartoonish movies coming hot off the heels of Burton's dark Gothic Batman movies. We don't need Schumacher to tell us that the camp fests that followed were done to draw kids in and sell toys. It's blatantly obvious. Especially in the wake of Returns killing off merchandising deals like the Happy Meal one.
Again, that's just your criticism of the movie. The Dark Knight trilogy had the same merchandising type deals as Batman and Robin. I don't know about McDonalds, but they (other companies) sold (and continue to sell) a ton of merchadise, just as much as Batman and Robin (if not more so).

Just because you think one movie is good and the other bad, doesn't make any difference.

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 10:14 PM   #809
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Another example for the Count;

Toy line in 1979 based off Ridley Scott's Alien movie. I'm sure Ridley was really thinking about the kids and the toy merchandise for them when he made that movie;



Are you getting it yet? Merchandise will be made out of practically anything. But that doesn't mean the directors were making the movies with the intention of selling off toys for kids based on the movie.
Kenner, the company that made the models, suggested creating the merchandise following the success of the Star Wars figures - which the company also produced.


Kenner had not seen any footage of Alien and were unaware it was a horror film - and instead thought it would be a family classic like the Lucas enterprise.

However, some prototypes were released in the hope some older fans would perhaps buy them.
But they were universally panned - and written off as a mistake.




Kenny Penman, co-founder of the Forbidden Planet chain of science fiction shops told The Times: 'Kenner's mistake was the result of being too efficient. They thought it was a dead cert and that the alien would be a vilain like Darth Vader.

'When they saw that it received an R rating they knew that would mean no children's audience.
He added there was some backlash when the company released some figures.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ally-sale.html

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 10:27 PM   #810
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
They didn't make toys to sell when the original Terminator came out.. Terminator 2 was more 'toyetic'.. IE: a big summer blockbuster that kids are going to see regardless of the rating.
That doesn't make a jot of a difference. Neither of the Terminator movies were kids movies. They were strictly for adults. That's the point that you keep letting soar over your head. They will merchandise any movies, even ones strictly not for kids.

That doesn't mean James Cameron was making T2 with any intentions of selling toys for kids. Same with Terminator Salvation:



Get the point now?

Quote:
Where are the toys for A Serbian Film?
Is that a rhetorical question or are you trying to be funny?

Quote:
Original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out in 1984.. and that film was much darker and obviously not made for kids. By 1989, Freddy had become a cultural icon and the sequels turned him into a wisecracking goofball. Hence, the toys.
Again so what? The movies are not kids movies. Children were not allowed set foot inside a theater to see a Freddy Krueger horror movie no matter how wise cracking they made him in the sequels.

They were adult graphic horror movies. Nothing to do with kids. But they made merchandise out of it anyway.

Quote:
Kenner signed its contract to produce Star Wars toys just a month before the film's May 25 release.

Lucas had tried to get the toys made before then, but was rejected by other toy companies... he also gave himself the rights to the merchandising.. unusual back then, but he made himself a fortune by doing so... this was all before the film came out.
Of course he did. It's a Sci Fi movie with potential to merchandise. Naturally he's going to do it before he actually releases the movie. Merchandising anything Sci Fi based movies and shows goes way back before Star Wars.

Star Trek was doing that with their TV show back in the 60's;



That doesn't mean Lucas made those movies with the priority being to sell toys like Schumacher.

Quote:
How do you know they weren't also involved in the same way with the Nolan trilogy?
Because Nolan's movies were not made with the primary intention being to sell toys. TDK and TDKR didn't even have any video games based on them.

Quote:
But not The Dark Knight, even though Mattel got the toy license a full year before the movie even opened. (see the above article I posted)
Your article doesn't prove a single thing other than they chose their merchandiser before the movie came out.

Quote:
That's just your criticism of the movie.
No, that's the predominant criticism of the movie. Back then and still is now.

Quote:
Again, I say, if the movie were a critical hit, would it make any difference?
You asked this already. Whether the movie had been a critical hit or not wouldn't alter it was made primarily to sell toys.

You shouldn't need to ask that.


Quote:
http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Dar...Action_Figures

Warner Bros. Consumer Products (WBCP) announced today that it has named Mattel, Inc. as the global master toy licensee for both Speed Racer and The Dark Knight, two of the biggest summer films coming out in 2008 from Warner Bros.

(Article dated 19 June 2007, The Dark Knight was released in 2008)

http://www.superherohype.com/feature...he-dark-knight
Quote:
Yeah, an afterthought. See the above article I posted.
What's this supposed to prove? That they had decided who would do their merchandise before the movie was released? So what? Every comic book movie gets a merchandise line. It has to be ready for worldwide release when the movie comes out.

This proves nothing. Just because they decided on who would do the merchandise well before the movie's release doesn't mean it wasn't an after thought in the grand scheme of making the movie.

Stop and think logically. This merchandise has to be ready to hit the shelves worldwide when the movie comes out. Ergo they have to have the toys both designed and mass produced before the movie's release, so they'd have to have all that sorted well in advance before the movie comes out. None of this is an indicator that selling this merchandise line was a key goal when making the movie. It's just good business to have everything ready for when the movie is released.

That's the common sense gift I mentioned. Try using it.

Quote:
Again, that's just your criticism of the movie.
Again it's the predominant criticism of the movie. Back then and still today.

Quote:
The Dark Knight trilogy had the same merchandising type deals as Batman and Robin.
Batman and Robin was made with the primary goal being to sell toys. The Dark Knight trilogy was not.

Quote:
I don't know about McDonalds, but they (other companies) sold (and continue to sell) a ton of merchadise, just as much as Batman and Robin (if not more so).
McDonalds was just an example of the merchandise killer and money loser Batman Returns was.

What companies and what merchandise are you talking about?

Quote:
Just because you think one movie is good and the other bad, doesn't make any difference.
Of course it does when the movie in question was being used primarily as a toy seller and a draw for kids.

Only you could try and deny that approach was one of the biggest reasons for Batman and Robin being so hated.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-25-2014 at 12:05 AM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 10:42 PM   #811
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Kenner, the company that made the models, suggested creating the merchandise following the success of the Star Wars figures - which the company also produced.


Kenner had not seen any footage of Alien and were unaware it was a horror film - and instead thought it would be a family classic like the Lucas enterprise.

However, some prototypes were released in the hope some older fans would perhaps buy them.
But they were universally panned - and written off as a mistake.




Kenny Penman, co-founder of the Forbidden Planet chain of science fiction shops told The Times: 'Kenner's mistake was the result of being too efficient. They thought it was a dead cert and that the alien would be a vilain like Darth Vader.

'When they saw that it received an R rating they knew that would mean no children's audience.
He added there was some backlash when the company released some figures.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ally-sale.html
And yet the Aliens toy lines kept on coming;





Are you getting it yet? They will merchandise movies and franchises that have nothing to do with kids into kids toy lines. Whether it's Aliens, Terminator, Robocop etc. That's how the movie business works. It doesn't mean they make these movies primarily to sell merchandise. But in Schumacher's case that was the goal. That was his job in his own words;

Quote:
In regards to “Batman and Robin,” Schumacher was convinced he made “the wrong choice” but says, “I did my job. It was more family friendly and it sold a lot of toys, and it supported the Warner Bros. stores. But I did disappoint a lot of fans.”
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli..._batman_sequel

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-25-2014 at 12:21 AM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 11:22 PM   #812
AnneFan
Hathaway #1
 
AnneFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 22,051
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Are you getting it yet? They will merchandise movies and franchises that have nothing to do with kids into kids toy lines. That's how the movie business works. It doesn't mean they make these movies primarily to sell merchandise. But in Schumacher's case he did.
Yep. It's easy to understand. I also saw CountOrlok mounting the case Two-Face could have survived his fall into the deep dark watery grave in BF. But I won't bother engaging in that 'debate'.

__________________
Follow Anne on Instagram and Facebook
AnneFan is offline  
Old 05-24-2014, 11:33 PM   #813
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
Yep. It's easy to understand.
Well that's good to know. Sometimes when I'm talking to this guy I wonder if I'm not speaking plain English. The simplest points fly so far over his head.

Quote:
I also saw CountOrlok mounting the case Two-Face could have survived his fall into the deep dark watery grave in BF. But I won't bother engaging in that 'debate'.
I don't blame you lol. That's just ridiculous. This guy is master of the ridiculous arguments. I've never seen a more pedantic poster before, and I've been here for 10 and a half years.

Sometimes I think he's not serious and is either pulling my leg or trolling. Maybe both.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:31 AM   #814
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
That doesn't make a jot of a difference. Neither of the Terminator movies were kids movies. They were strictly for adults. That's the point that you keep letting soar over your head. They will merchandise any movies, even ones strictly not for kids.

That doesn't mean James Cameron was making T2 with any intentions of selling toys for kids. Same with Terminator Salvation:



Get the point now?
I didn't say James Cameron was making T2 solely to sell toys, although I'm not saying that wasn't part of the motivation, as toys bring in lots of money, an more importantly, the studio are going to be interested in selling toys.

T2 was obviously a big budget, hollywood summer blockbuster, which was heavily marketed unlike the original Terminator. Hell, I had T2 toys, and I don't recall ever seeing the movie in theatres (I was 9-10 at the time).



Quote:
Again so what? The movies are not kids movies. Children were not allowed set foot inside a theater to see a Freddy Krueger horror movie no matter how wise cracking they made him in the sequels.

They were adult graphic horror movies. Nothing to do with kids. But they made merchandise out of it anyway.




Quote:
Of course he did. It's a Sci Fi movie with potential to merchandise. Naturally he's going to do it before he actually releases the movie. Merchandising anything Sci Fi based movies and shows goes way back before Star Wars.

Star Trek was doing that with their TV show back in the 60's;



That doesn't mean Lucas made those movies with the priority being to sell toys like Schumacher.
Didn't say it was Lucas' number one priority. But he obviously knew that's what he wanted to do, as he sealed the deal before the actual release. And film merchandising was much rarer back then.



Quote:
Because Nolan's movies were not made with the primary intention being to sell toys. TDK and TDKR didn't even have any video games based on them.
So you think Warner Bros didn't have this as at least one of their priorities? Why? Because Christopher Nolan took the reins? It doesn't make any difference. Part of the reason these films are made is to sell toys. Has been since Batman '89. This doesn't change all of a sudden just because Christopher Nolan takes over the franchise.

Quote:
Your article doesn't prove a single thing other than they chose their merchandiser before the movie came out.
"It's all part of the plan".... to sell toys.

Quote:
No, that's the predominant criticism of the movie. Back then and still is now.
An unfair criticism. Besides, Schumacher was honest about it, and even sent it up in the movie with the line "Every Poison Ivy action figure..". Just because Nolan doesn't talk about it (apparently), doesn't make the 'toyetic' value of his Batman movies any less so.

Quote:
What's this supposed to prove? That they had decided who would do their merchandise before the movie was released? So what? Every comic book movie gets a merchandise line. It has to be ready for worldwide release when the movie comes out.
Yes. So how is Batman and Robin any different? Why is it so bad that it sells toys just like every other comic book movie that sells toys (including the Nolan trilogy)? How is that a criticism of the movie?

Quote:
This proves nothing. Just because they decided on who would do the merchandise well before the movie's release doesn't mean it wasn't an after thought in the grand scheme of making the movie.
The grand scheme being what?

"It's all part of the plan.." And they planned it WELL in advance. At least the studio executives did.

Quote:
Stop and think logically. This merchandise has to be ready to hit the shelves worldwide when the movie comes out. Ergo they have to have the toys both designed and mass produced before the movie's release, so they'd have to have all that sorted well in advance before the movie comes out. None of this is an indicator that selling this merchandise line was a key goal when making the movie. It's just good business to have everything ready for when the movie is released.
And this is different to Batman and Robin, how?

You're trying to say that Batman and Robin was made solely (or mostly) to sell toys, aren't you? Yet the 'toy factor' is exactly the same in both cases. The only difference is the tone of the movies. Batman and Robin is much more colourful and camp. But both B&R and TDK trilogy are rated the same (in the US) - PG-13.

So your case - one was made for kids and to sell toys while the other is a serious film which only incidentally sold toys as an afterthought..... just entirely your opinion. In reality, they were both made to sell toys (not as the number one priority, but a priority all the same), they're priorities were no different (just because Christopher Nolan does not admit so, doesn't make it any less so).
Quote:
Batman and Robin was made with the primary goal being to sell toys. The Dark Knight trilogy was not.
Schumacher said something along the lines of "I was told to make it more toyetic".... not that the PRIMARY goal was to sell toys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
And yet the Aliens toy lines kept on coming;





Are you getting it yet? They will merchandise movies and franchises that have nothing to do with kids into kids toy lines. Whether it's Aliens, Terminator, Robocop etc. That's how the movie business works. It doesn't mean they make these movies primarily to sell merchandise. But in Schumacher's case that was the goal. That was his job in his own words;



http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli..._batman_sequel
In his own words, he said (from the article above):

“I was supposed to do a fifth one,” Schumacher says. “I was talking to Nic Cage about playing the Scarecrow. I had begged the studio for [the Frank Miller comic] ‘The Dark Knight [Returns],' but they wanted a family friendly, toyetic thing.”

Doesn't mean he made the movie PRIMARILY to sell toys. He is saying the studio wanted it family friendly and toyetic. Quotes like this should always be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe Schumacher was just being cynical. Doesn't mean Batman and Robin was just one big, long toy commercial. That's a cynical way of looking at it. At the end of the day, all of the Batman movies sold toys, what's the difference? The only difference, is Schumacher had talked about the mechandising side of the business (actually, Tim Burton mentioned it too, but said he was too focused on making the movie to deal with it). You really think the 'toy factor' would all of a sudden disappear? It's a major part of the Batman franchise, now even more so than back in 1997.

Quote:
I don't blame you lol. That's just ridiculous. This guy is master of the ridiculous arguments. I've never seen a more pedantic poster before, and I've been here for 10 and a half years.

Sometimes I think he's not serious and is either pulling my leg or trolling. Maybe both.
In the future, could you please refrain from making childish accusations of "trolling". Thank you.

I am sure the mods are smart enough to differentiate between intelligent/civil discussion/debate and trolling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
Yep. It's easy to understand. I also saw CountOrlok mounting the case Two-Face could have survived his fall into the deep dark watery grave in BF. But I won't bother engaging in that 'debate'.
No, I just put it as a question. I wasn't claiming anything.


Last edited by CountOrlok; 05-25-2014 at 03:01 AM.
CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 09:51 AM   #815
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
I didn't say James Cameron was making T2 solely to sell toys, although I'm not saying that wasn't part of the motivation, as toys bring in lots of money, an more importantly, the studio are going to be interested in selling toys.

T2 was obviously a big budget, hollywood summer blockbuster, which was heavily marketed unlike the original Terminator. Hell, I had T2 toys, and I don't recall ever seeing the movie in theatres (I was 9-10 at the time).
Then again the point of this discussion has flown way over your head. You keep saying ad nauseum that other movies merchandise and sell products and toys. Nobody is denying that. It's obvious. Movies are merchandise business.

The difference between movies like T2, Robocop, Aliens, the other comic book movies etc and Schumacher's Batman is they were not made with the primary goal of selling toys. That's why they're not called the toyetic Robocop, or Aliens, or Dark Knight trilogy etc. I don't know how many times that has to be said to you before that simple point sinks in.

Quote:
Is there a point you're trying to make posting that?

Quote:
Didn't say it was Lucas' number one priority.
So why are you bringing him up? Unless his attitude was I was making this to try and sell toys, he has no place in this discussion.

Quote:
So you think Warner Bros didn't have this as at least one of their priorities? Why? Because Christopher Nolan took the reins? It doesn't make any difference. Part of the reason these films are made is to sell toys. Has been since Batman '89. This doesn't change all of a sudden just because Christopher Nolan takes over the franchise.
Obviously it's for the same reason any movie gets merchandise. It's to make money. But for the umpteenth time the difference is selling merchandise is not the primary goal behind making those movies. Unlike with Schumacher's.

Even R rated comic book movies get toys and video games based off them like Blade. That doesn't mean that was priority goal when they made the movie. Again unlike Schumacher.

Quote:
"It's all part of the plan".... to sell toys.
No, it's not.

Quote:
An unfair criticism.
A fair and valid criticism. That's why it's the majority one, and it's stuck around as the majority one 17 years.

Quote:
Besides, Schumacher was honest about it, and even sent it up in the movie with the line "Every Poison Ivy action figure..". Just because Nolan doesn't talk about it (apparently), doesn't make the 'toyetic' value of his Batman movies any less so.
No comic book movie director, or any director that gets merchandise based off their movies talk about it because unlike with them they didn't go into these movies thinking my main objective here is to sell toys. That was Schumacher's plan. Not Nolan's, or Raimi's, or Singer's, or Whedon's or any other director who makes great CBMs.

Quote:
Yes. So how is Batman and Robin any different? Why is it so bad that it sells toys just like every other comic book movie that sells toys (including the Nolan trilogy)? How is that a criticism of the movie?
BECAUSE THE MOVIE WAS MADE CAMPY AND SILLY AND CARTOONY SO THEY COULD SELL TOYS. THAT WAS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE. NOT TO MAKE THE BEST MOVIE THEY COULD MAKE BUT TO MAKE ONE THEY COULD SELL LOTS OF TOYS OFF!

Quote:
The grand scheme being what?
To make the best movie they could make.

Quote:
"It's all part of the plan.." And they planned it WELL in advance. At least the studio executives did.
Because all comic book movies have merchandise lines. As well as many non comic book ones. Unlike with Schumacher's though that was not a main goal for making the movie.

I feel like a broken record telling you that over and over.

Quote:
And this is different to Batman and Robin, how?
I'm not repeating that for the 89564785247th time to you. You know the answer to that.

Quote:
You're trying to say that Batman and Robin was made solely (or mostly) to sell toys, aren't you?
No I'm not trying to say it, I am saying it. Because it's a fact.

Quote:
Yet the 'toy factor' is exactly the same in both cases. The only difference is the tone of the movies. Batman and Robin is much more colourful and camp. But both B&R and TDK trilogy are rated the same (in the US) - PG-13.
Wrong. The toy factor is not the same in both cases because Schumacher is the only one who turned his movies into campy cartoons so they would be more toyetic and child friendly because selling toys was his main goal. His "job" as he put it.

Quote:
So your case - one was made for kids and to sell toys while the other is a serious film which only incidentally sold toys as an afterthought..... just entirely your opinion. In reality, they were both made to sell toys (not as the number one priority, but a priority all the same), they're priorities were no different (just because Christopher Nolan does not admit so, doesn't make it any less so).
Schumacher said something along the lines of "I was told to make it more toyetic".... not that the PRIMARY goal was to sell toys.
Wrong again. My case is one was made to make the best movie they can make, and making them to sell merchandise off the movies was never one of the main objectives. They did not go in with the mind set of making it in a way that would allow them to sell lots of toys. Schumacher did.

The only thing you got right is they had different priorities. One wanted to sell toys most, the other wanted to make a great movie. The results prove which approach was the right one.

Quote:
In his own words, he said (from the article above):

“I was supposed to do a fifth one,” Schumacher says. “I was talking to Nic Cage about playing the Scarecrow. I had begged the studio for [the Frank Miller comic] ‘The Dark Knight [Returns],' but they wanted a family friendly, toyetic thing.”

Doesn't mean he made the movie PRIMARILY to sell toys. He is saying the studio wanted it family friendly and toyetic.
What are you talking about? He's talking about a potential fifth movie there, and saying the studio still wanted the toyetic family friendly movie. Meaning movies that are more kid friendly and able to sell lots of toys. That was the main goal.

That's why he said he did his job with B&R. It was family friendly and sold lots of toys.

Quote:
Quotes like this should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Why because they shoot apart your whole argument? Yeah sorry but that's the second quote from him where he admits it was about selling toys.

Quote:
Maybe Schumacher was just being cynical.
On two separate occasions? Get out of your denial state.

Quote:
Doesn't mean Batman and Robin was just one big, long toy commercial. That's a cynical way of looking at it.
No it's the honest way of looking at it. That's what it was. One big toy commercial made to sell toys. Straight from the horse's mouth. Twice.

You can live in a state of denial and think Schumacher was being cynical.

Quote:
At the end of the day, all of the Batman movies sold toys, what's the difference? The only difference, is Schumacher had talked about the mechandising side of the business (actually, Tim Burton mentioned it too, but said he was too focused on making the movie to deal with it). You really think the 'toy factor' would all of a sudden disappear? It's a major part of the Batman franchise, now even more so than back in 1997.
At the end of the day all of the Batman movies sold toys. The only difference is Schumacher made his ones primarily to sell toys while Burton and Nolan didn't.

Who said the toy factor would disappear? You keep going off on these tangents that nobody has said, or even implied. I have said numerous times from the get go all comic book movies get merchandise and toys, and even showed you many examples from movie franchises that have nothing to do with kids that got toy lines, too.

Repeating one last time those comic book movies don't get made with the frame of mind that we're making this to sell lots of toys. That was Schumacher's frame of mind.

Quote:
In the future, could you please refrain from making childish accusations of "trolling". Thank you.
I'm not accusing you. I said maybe you are. I never outright said you were. I think it's possible you are because of how you are consistently ignoring basic simple points and making up arguments that have no relevance. Clearly I'm not the only one who's noticed it.

It's like you're trying to create disagreements for the sake of it.

Quote:
I am sure the mods are smart enough to differentiate between intelligent/civil discussion/debate and trolling.
What makes you think the mods have been reading this discussion?

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-25-2014 at 10:35 AM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:04 AM   #816
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

I'm sorry but your chief argument holds no water. You say that Batman and Robin was made primarily to sell toys. This was indeed part of the plan, but not the number one priority in making the movie. You have no proof otherwise, and Schumacher has not said that the reason he made the movie was primarily to sell toys. He was told to make it "toyetic" and "family friendly", according to his words, but he never said that was his primary goal in making the movie.

You argue that just because the movie is campy and silly, and more family friendly, that proves it was made with the intention of selling toys. If that's the case, you could also argue that the 1960s Batman tv show was made primarily to sell toys, just because it was campy, silly and family friendly:

Starting in 1966, an enormous amount of Batman merchandise was manufactured and marketed to cash-in on the TV show's vast popularity. This includes trading cards, scale model kits of the Batmobile, coloring books, and board games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_...9#Collectibles

In fact, Batman and Robin was partly based on the 1960s Batman tv show, and the comics of the 50s and 60s, which are a part of Batman's history whether you like or not. Making false accusations isn't going to change anything.

If you could ever make a case for a movie that is one big long toy commercial, it would have to be The Lego Movie, as that features the actual toys. But that was a critically acclaimed movie, Batman and Robin wasn't. So let's say your argument is true, if Batman and Robin were basically one long toy commercial, yet was critically acclaimed like The Lego Movie, would it make any difference? Would you be condemning the movie for obviously being about selling toys, even though it was actually a good movie?

The Dark Knight may as well have been one long toy commercial, because at the end of the day.. it sold a hell of a lot of toys (given its popularity, probably even more so than Batman and Robin). Does that make it nothing but a toy commercial, though? Your argument is just because you claim that wasn't the primary intention of making the movie, doesn't make any sense, because you have yet to prove that the primary intention for Batman and Robin was to sell toys. You are simply making up facts to support your view.

You think that just because a movie is campy and family friendly, that it's only to make toys, but this isn't true either. Aren't you a fan of the Batman 1960s tv show? If so, what is the difference between the 60s show and Batman and Robin? To me, it sounds like the only difference you can muster is Joel Schumacher's "toyetic" comment.

I rest my case.

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:05 AM   #817
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

From Michael E. Uslan, the producer of the Batman movies;

Quote:
"Sometimes, in the industry, corporations lose sight of the filmmaking part and become too enamored by the merchandising part. When the concentration shifts to merchandising, toys and Happy Meals, to the point where movies are being made that are to be light and bright and kiddy friendly and family friendly, catering to the licensees so that as many heroes and as many villains as possible or not possible are shoehorned into the movie with the commandments that each one must have at least two vehicles and two costume changes, then, to me, the tail is wagging the dog."

The abundance of characters, gadgetry and flashy outfits didn't leave room for Batman & Robin to actually tell a story, leaving audiences with nothing to swallow. "What is being produced are two hour infomercials for toys, not films. There's no room for character development or plot. That's sad. I believe that if filmmakers are found who love the characters, have the passion for the character, have a vision for the character, know how to execute that vision, and you let them go out and make great films, you're going to sell toys anyway."
http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies...olan-s-trilogy

I especially like the bold part. Now that's Schumacher and Uslan confirming something we all already knew anyway, but you know some people try and deny the obvious facts.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:22 AM   #818
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
From Michael E. Uslan, the producer of the Batman movies;



http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies...olan-s-trilogy

I especially like the bold part. Now that's Schumacher and Uslan confirming something we all already knew anyway, but you know some people try and deny the obvious facts.
He's entitled to his opinion, though I disagree. There was plenty of character development and plot in Batman and Robin. I never denied that the toy factor wasn't part of it. That's most likely why there were so many costume changes and vehicles (not that it really matters, anyway, because they have produced toys in the past which weren't even in the movie:



Now Uslan is saying this years after Batman and Robin was released, maybe as part of his promotion for The Dark Knight trilogy, as Batman and Robin is yesterday's news.. and it's popular to bash on it now. I will take his comments with a grain of salt. I doubt he said the same thing back in 1997, when Batman and Robin was being released.

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:25 AM   #819
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
I'm sorry but your chief argument holds no water. You say that Batman and Robin was made primarily to sell toys. This was indeed part of the plan, but not the number one priority in making the movie. You have no proof otherwise, and Schumacher has not said that the reason he made the movie was primarily to sell toys. He was told to make it "toyetic" and "family friendly", according to his words, but he never said that was his primary goal in making the movie.
Yes he did. He said his job was to sell toys and make it family friendly. Those were his instructions. Or his job as he called it.

“I did my job. It was more family friendly and it sold a lot of toys, and it supported the Warner Bros. stores. But I did disappoint a lot of fans.”

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli..._batman_sequel

Quote:
You argue that just because the movie is campy and silly, and more family friendly, that proves it was made with the intention of selling toys. If that's the case, you could also argue that the 1960s Batman tv show was made primarily to sell toys, just because it was campy, silly and family friendly:

Starting in 1966, an enormous amount of Batman merchandise was manufactured and marketed to cash-in on the TV show's vast popularity. This includes trading cards, scale model kits of the Batmobile, coloring books, and board games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_...9#Collectibles
No you couldn't argue that because the merchandise that came from it came because the show was so popular and successful. But that came after the show was such a surprising mega success.

They didn't make the show campy because it was more likely to sell toys.

In the early 1960s, Ed Graham Productions optioned the television rights to the comic strip Batman and planned a straightforward juvenile adventure show, much like Adventures of Superman and The Lone Ranger, to air on CBS on Saturday mornings.

Former American football linebacker and actor Mike Henry was originally set to star as Batman in a more dramatic interpretation of the character. Around this same time, the Playboy Club in Chicago was screening the Batman serials (1943's Batman and 1949's Batman and Robin) on Saturday nights. It became very popular. East coast ABC executive Yale Udoff, a Batman fan in his childhood, attended one of these parties at the Playboy Club and was impressed with the reaction the serials were eliciting. He contacted ABC executives Harve Bennett and Edgar J. Scherick, who were already considering developing a television series based on a comic strip action hero, to suggest a prime time Batman series in the hip and fun style of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. When negotiations between CBS and Graham stalled, DC Comics quickly reobtained rights and made the deal with ABC, which farmed the rights out to 20th Century Fox to produce the series.

In turn, 20th Century Fox handed the project to William Dozier and his "Greenway Productions." ABC and Fox were expecting a hip and fun--yet still serious--adventure show. However, Dozier, who had never before read comic books, concluded, after reading several Batman comics for research, that the only way to make the show work was to do it as a pop art camp comedy.

Dozier didn't set out to sell toys and merch. He researched the comics and decided on the best style to do this show. The show has been out decades. It's as iconic and successful as it's ever going to get. In all the years have you ever seen anyone associated with the show say they had a merchandising in mind when they decided to make the show?

Quote:
In fact, Batman and Robin was partly based on the 1960s Batman tv show, and the comics of the 50s and 60s, which are a part of Batman's history whether you like or not.
I love the 1966 Batman show. It is leaps and bounds better than Batman and Robin because it was a show that set out to be a great campy pop art type of show based of the campy Batman comics. It was made to entertain. Not to sell toys. Batman and Robin was just a cash cow to sell toys because WB got their panties in a bunch after the Batman Returns backlash. They lost sight of making good movies and cared more about merchandise just like Uslan said. He should know. He was there. He was the producer. He's manning up and admitting how they screwed up.

Not to mention Schumacher's movies also suck because they turned a dark and serious toned Batman franchise into a campy joke.

Quote:
Making false accusations isn't going to change anything.
I'll remember that if I ever get desperate enough to make one.

Quote:
If you could ever make a case for a movie that is one big long toy commercial, it would have to be The Lego Movie, as that features the actual toys. But that was a critically acclaimed movie, Batman and Robin wasn't. So let's say your argument is true, if Batman and Robin were basically one long toy commercial, yet was critically acclaimed like The Lego Movie, would it make any difference? Would you be condemning the movie for obviously being about selling toys, even though it was actually a good movie?
No because The Lego movie is a obviously a toy based movie based off a toy line. It isn't hiding what it is. It made a funny charming movie based off a famous toyline. It is what it is and it was made with love and care. The story has great emotional heart.

Lego is like one of the most famous and successful toy lines in history. It doesn't need a movie to sell (whereas Batman lost money and merchandise thanks to Batman Returns backlash). Not to mention the movie has been in development since 2009. It was a labor of love to make a great funny movie based off a famous toyline using famous DC characters in Lego form.

Movies made just to make a quick buck off toys like B&R was don't take years to make, and have as much effort put into the script

Quote:
The Dark Knight may as well have been one long toy commercial, because at the end of the day.. it sold a hell of a lot of toys (given its popularity, probably even more so than Batman and Robin). Does that make it nothing but a toy commercial, though? Your argument is just because you claim that wasn't the primary intention of making the movie, doesn't make any sense, because you have yet to prove that the primary intention for Batman and Robin was to sell toys. You are simply making up facts to support your view.
You are living in a fantasy land. What kind of stupid logic is that? The Dark Knight was made to be a great movie. It was not structured or engineered to make merchandise. The fact that it managed to sell a lot of merch anyway is just a testament to how brilliant it is and the fact that you don't need to camp up a movie to sell toys.

But then the Aliens, Robocop etc merch also showed that.

Quote:
You think that just because a movie is campy and family friendly, that it's only to make toys, but this isn't true either.
No I don't. I never ever said that one. Quote me where I said that.

Quote:
Aren't you a fan of the Batman 1960s tv show? If so, what is the difference between the 60s show and Batman and Robin? To me, it sounds like the only difference you can muster is Joel Schumacher's "toyetic" comment.
I love the Batman 1960's show because it's a great show that was made to be a great fun campy show. The best it could be. To entertain and honor the comics of that time. They didn't make it with a primary goal to sell lots of merch. That's why it works. That's why it's so iconic, successful and popular. Unlike B&R.

Quote:
I rest my case.
I doubt it. You're too much in denial over this.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-25-2014 at 11:59 AM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:34 AM   #820
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
He's entitled to his opinion, though I disagree.
What a shock.

He's the producer of these movies. He knows what he's talking about.

Quote:
There was plenty of character development and plot in Batman and Robin. I never denied that the toy factor wasn't part of it.
No, you're saying all CBMs are out to do what B&R did; sell lots of toys. As I've told you more times than I care to remember, only Schumacher had that primary goal. His job as he put it.

Quote:
That's most likely why there were so many costume changes and vehicles (not that it really matters, anyway, because they have produced toys in the past which weren't even in the movie:

A great example of how Burton didn't cater to this rubbish. He didn't have that costume in his movie because the story didn't call for it. He set out to make a good movie, not a movie that can sell lots of toys.

Quote:
Now Uslan is saying this years after Batman and Robin was released, maybe as part of his promotion for The Dark Knight trilogy, as Batman and Robin is yesterday's news.. and it's popular to bash on it now. I will take his comments with a grain of salt. I doubt he said the same thing back in 1997, when Batman and Robin was being released.
Batman and Robin has been the black sheep not only of the Batman franchise but of comic book movies in general long before the TDK trilogy came along. He would have had nothing to lose saying this back in the late 90's or early 2000's.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-25-2014 at 11:45 AM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:47 AM   #821
Rorschach2012
I'll Cancel the Pizzas
 
Rorschach2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 16,325
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
Oh come now, you know merchandising has always been a big part of it. You're right though, Schumacher was just being honest.



If Batman and Robin were a huge critical hit, would it make any difference?

The action figures from The Dark Knight Trilogy were seriously awful.

Awful.

If there would have been some affordable figures that actually had halfway decent sculpts, I probably would've bought a Batman, Joker and Bane, but no...

I still think the best action figure line was the B:TAS/DCAU lines...

Rorschach2012 is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 12:29 PM   #822
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Yes he did. He said his job was to sell toys and make it family friendly. Those were his instructions. Or his job as he called it.

“I did my job. It was more family friendly and it sold a lot of toys, and it supported the Warner Bros. stores. But I did disappoint a lot of fans.”

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli..._batman_sequel
You don't seem to understand how attitudes and opinions change, but the bottom line doesn't. Chris Nolan, Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher all had the same job - to make a lot of money for Warner Bros, through box office, merchandising, and yes, even toys. At the end of the day, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. You can argue all day about what the intentions were, but these movies are made to make money, pure and simple. Whether you think one or the other is more artistic is not is simply your opinion.

If The Dark Knight trilogy didn't do its job and didn't sell lots of toys and make money for Warner Bros, then Christopher Nolan would be dropped faster than a speeding bullet, just like Joel Schumacher was when Batman and Robin didn't meet box office expectations.


Quote:
No you couldn't argue that because the merchandise that came from it came because the show was so popular and successful. But that came after the show was such a surprising mega success.

They didn't make the show campy because it was more likely to sell toys.

In the early 1960s, Ed Graham Productions optioned the television rights to the comic strip Batman and planned a straightforward juvenile adventure show, much like Adventures of Superman and The Lone Ranger, to air on CBS on Saturday mornings.

Former American football linebacker and actor Mike Henry was originally set to star as Batman in a more dramatic interpretation of the character. Around this same time, the Playboy Club in Chicago was screening the Batman serials (1943's Batman and 1949's Batman and Robin) on Saturday nights. It became very popular. East coast ABC executive Yale Udoff, a Batman fan in his childhood, attended one of these parties at the Playboy Club and was impressed with the reaction the serials were eliciting. He contacted ABC executives Harve Bennett and Edgar J. Scherick, who were already considering developing a television series based on a comic strip action hero, to suggest a prime time Batman series in the hip and fun style of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. When negotiations between CBS and Graham stalled, DC Comics quickly reobtained rights and made the deal with ABC, which farmed the rights out to 20th Century Fox to produce the series.

In turn, 20th Century Fox handed the project to William Dozier and his "Greenway Productions." ABC and Fox were expecting a hip and fun--yet still serious--adventure show. However, Dozier, who had never before read comic books, concluded, after reading several Batman comics for research, that the only way to make the show work was to do it as a pop art camp comedy.

Dozier didn't set out to sell toys and merch. He researched the comics and decided on the best style to do this show. The show has been out decades. It's as iconic and successful as it's ever going to get. In all the years have you ever seen anyone associated with the show say they had a merchandising in mind when they decided to make the show?
That's just not how things were done back then. Merchandising has come a long way since the 60s. Now, it's common place to have the toys ready before the movie or show even comes out, unless the movie/show is a totally unexpected success.



Quote:
I love the 1966 Batman show. It is leaps and bounds better than Batman and Robin because it was a show that set out to be a great campy pop art type of show based of the campy Batman comics. It was made to entertain. Not to sell toys. Batman and Robin was just a cash cow to sell toys because WB got their panties in a bunch after the Batman Returns backlash. They lost sight of making good movies and cared more about merchandise just like Uslan said. He should know. He was there. He was the producer. He's manning up and admitting how they screwed up.
Batman and Robin was an updated version of the tv show.. only difference is that merchandising had become much more involved by that point. In the 1960s, merchandising wasn't as big as it is now.

Quote:
Not to mention Schumacher's movies also suck because they turned a dark and serious toned Batman franchise into a campy joke.
It was a reboot of the Burton series, just loosely continued by sharing the same actors. All Batman movies are part of the same Batman franchise. It's just that the Schumacher movies weren't direct sequels in tone to the Burton movies.

Quote:
You are living in a fantasy land. What kind of stupid logic is that? The Dark Knight was made to be a great movie. It was not structured or engineered to make merchandise. The fact that it managed to sell a lot of merch anyway is just a testament to how brilliant it is and the fact that you don't need to camp up a movie to sell toys.
Who says they didn't set out to make a good movie when making Batman and Robin? That's being extremely disrespectful to everyone involved with Batman and Robin. Whether it worked or not is entirely your opinion.

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 12:49 PM   #823
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountOrlok View Post
You don't seem to understand how attitudes and opinions change, but the bottom line doesn't. Chris Nolan, Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher all had the same job - to make a lot of money for Warner Bros, through box office, merchandising, and yes, even toys. At the end of the day, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. You can argue all day about what the intentions were, but these movies are made to make money, pure and simple. Whether you think one or the other is more artistic is not is simply your opinion.
I know how attitudes and opinions change. Schumacher's movies are ample proof of an attitude change towards the Batman franchise. They changed their attitude because of the Batman Returns backlash. It scared off kids and angered parents. They lost money and merchandising. So their new attitude adoption was to make it more kid friendly to sell toys.

The only job Nolan, Burton and Schumacher had in common was sitting in a director's chair for Batman movies. Nolan and Burton didn't approach their movies thinking their job was to sell toys. Schumacher's was. That's an undeniable fact.

Quote:
If The Dark Knight trilogy didn't do its job and didn't sell lots of toys and make money for Warner Bros, then Christopher Nolan would be dropped faster than a speeding bullet, just like Joel Schumacher was when Batman and Robin didn't meet box office expectations.
Rubbish. The only reason WB would drop any director is if the movie itself failed in some way. Not if the merchandising lines failed. If there was a problem with merchandising they'd blame their merchandising producers, not the director of the movie.

With Batman Returns the problem was with the movie itself, not the merchandise. The film was too dark and scary for a lot of kids, and that was down to Burton. Schumacher was tasked with making his movie a movie that can pull in kids and make lots of toys off.

Quote:
That's just not how things were done back then. Merchandising has come a long way since the 60s. Now, it's common place to have the toys ready before the movie or show even comes out, unless the movie/show is a totally unexpected success.
That's the same way it is now. If they're making shows based off popular characters or franchises they expect it to be a success so they plan merchandise lines before they release it to coincide with the release of said show or movie.

Back in the 60's Batman was not a hot property. Last time he was on screen was in the 40's, and the comics were in danger of being cancelled. The 60's show actually saved the Batman comics from cancellation.

Quote:
Batman and Robin was an updated version of the tv show.. only difference is that merchandising had become much more involved by that point. In the 1960s, merchandising wasn't as big as it is now.
Batman and Robin was a poor imitation of the TV show. The only difference is it was made with the intent to sell toys as a primary goal.

Quote:
It was a reboot of the Burton series, just loosely continued by sharing the same actors. All Batman movies are part of the same Batman franchise. It's just that the Schumacher movies weren't direct sequels in tone to the Burton movies.
Show me a factual source that says it was intended to be a reboot of the Burton series. They even wanted Keaton back but he backed out when he saw the campy direction they were going in;

'"I knew we were in trouble in talks for the third one when certain people started the conversation with ‘Why does it have to be so dark?' ‘Why does he have to be so depressed?' ‘Shouldn't there be more color in this thing?' I knew I was headed for trouble and that it wasn't a road I was going to go down."

A wise move. Keaton passed the cape on to Val Kilmer for Batman Forever, who tends to be the on-screen Batman that nobody talks about.'

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/batm...days-of-batman

Quote:
Who says they didn't set out to make a good movie when making Batman and Robin?
Because their main objective was to sell toys. That is the furthest thing from setting out to make a good movie. People who set out to make good movies have that as their main objective. Merchandising is not even on the director's mind.

Quote:
That's being extremely disrespectful to everyone involved with Batman and Robin.
Good. I mean it. Everyone who had a hand in deliberately making the movie that way doesn't deserve any respect for it.

Quote:
Whether it worked or not is entirely your opinion.
It's the overwhelming majority opinion. Always has been.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker

Last edited by The Joker; 05-25-2014 at 06:13 PM.
The Joker is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:05 PM   #824
CountOrlok
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 702
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Joel Schumacher stating his intention for making Batman and Robin:



"My intention was just to entertain them."

CountOrlok is offline  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:09 PM   #825
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: The Official Batman & Robin Thread

Quote:
Joel Schumacher admits his Batman was just about selling toys

In a recent interview, Schumacher admitted they were just in it for the money. And that meant targeting children. "Our job was to entertain the whole family," he said. "To make it fun and sell a lot of toys. It was a franchise."
http://www.blastr.com/2012/12/joel_s..._admits_hi.php


Quote:
In regards to “Batman and Robin,” Schumacher was convinced he made “the wrong choice” but says, “I did my job. It was more family friendly and it sold a lot of toys, and it supported the Warner Bros. stores. But I did disappoint a lot of fans.”
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli..._batman_sequel

Tell us something we don't know.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2018 All Rights Reserved.