• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

Batman and Robin: Schumaker giving the middle finger to WB?

webhead921

Civilian
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
388
Reaction score
0
Points
11
Just a thought. I heard that schumaker always wanted to do a film version of year one, and that he would rather have his own franchise instead of continuing burton's. I also know that schumaker directed a time to kill and phantom of the opera, both of which I have heard are very good movies.

I was wondering if batman and robin was schumaker's way of giving the middle finger to the WB. They didn't let him do the movie he wanted, and they wanted him to try to sell toys with the movie, so instead he just went ahead and made a totally rediculous movie, knowing that he would probably still make a lot of money and ruin the franchise at the same time. Schumaker claims to be a bat-fan. Knowing that he made a time to kill and phantom of the opea, it seems clear to me that he is totally capable of making good movies. Maybe just made this (and to a lesser extent) the way it was because he was pissed about not being able to do what he wanted.

This is probably not true, its just something I was thinking. I was just surprised to see that the same person who made batman and robin made a time to kill and phantom of the opera. It doesn't seem like the same person.
 
Schumacher was ONLY interested in Year One after pissing off every single Batman fan with his crappy `97 installment of the franchise.

Everything you see in Batman & Robin is Schumacher thinking that he was making something good.

He was even quoted as saying "its called comic books not tragic books."
 
Just a thought. I heard that schumaker always wanted to do a film version of year one, and that he would rather have his own franchise instead of continuing burton's. I also know that schumaker directed a time to kill and phantom of the opera, both of which I have heard are very good movies.

I was wondering if batman and robin was schumaker's way of giving the middle finger to the WB. They didn't let him do the movie he wanted, and they wanted him to try to sell toys with the movie, so instead he just went ahead and made a totally rediculous movie, knowing that he would probably still make a lot of money and ruin the franchise at the same time. Schumaker claims to be a bat-fan. Knowing that he made a time to kill and phantom of the opea, it seems clear to me that he is totally capable of making good movies. Maybe just made this (and to a lesser extent) the way it was because he was pissed about not being able to do what he wanted.

This is probably not true, its just something I was thinking. I was just surprised to see that the same person who made batman and robin made a time to kill and phantom of the opera. It doesn't seem like the same person.

You should watch The Phantom of the Opera. It is clearly the same director. Lavish, over-dressed sets, huge attention to costumes and visuals, lovely cinematography...not much attention to the storyline. The Phantom of the Opera looks like it was based on a musical, because it was. But Batman & Robin looks even more liek it was based on a musical. Schumacher indeed has said before that Batman films should be like broadway musicals but without any singing.

And the supposedly badass, shadowy central character is not very badass or shadowy.
 
Me and my brother watched the first half hour of Batman & Robin again the other day just to see how bad it was...it's even worse than I remembered!

So you could be forgiven for thinking that maybe Joel Schumacher was trying to piss people off by making the worst movie possible, but he wasn't!
 
Oh, well. I guess Joel Schumaker just gave the middle finger to the fans instead........

As the governor of california would say, "Let's kick some ice!"
 
Yeah, I don't think this was subversive film-making at all. Schumacher was just out of his depth.

He also made Tigerland, that's an awsome film.
 
Governator : ***** you, ***hole.

Just to mix Arnie, Terminator, and the title of the thread, so all comes down together finally! lol

Schumacher surely had much company marketing pressure on B&R than any of his films, thus feeling weird that he seems to be two different directors in one
 
Schumacher was ONLY interested in Year One after pissing off every single Batman fan with his crappy `97 installment of the franchise.

Everything you see in Batman & Robin is Schumacher thinking that he was making something good.

He was even quoted as saying "its called comic books not tragic books."

I thought that everything you see in Batman & Robin was Schumacher doing what Warners told himto do...:huh:

Honestly, as not-so-stellar as the film was, "B&R" bashing has become too commonplace...and therfore boring, old and lame.

Yeah "B&R" isn't the best Batman movie, I GET IT...big deal. It was made, it holds a plce in the characters history...can we please move on now?

What I'D like to see is people finding positive points for the film (they exist). I mean at least then "B&R" discussion would actually be interesting and not this typical one-note "IT SUKS ARGHHH!" bulls**t that I have to keep reading through. I swear one more thread that talks about how bad "B&R" was and my head's gonna explode 'Scanners' style...(feel free to quote me with the actual gif).

CFE
 
Batman and Robin is a totally rediculous movie. I don't want to watch it when I want a batman movie. I watch when I want to laugh.

That being said, Batman and Robin is a really fun movie for kids. There is a lot of action, its very colorful, a simple plot that kids can easily understand, and funny one liners. One of the thing it sought out to do was sell toys. In this respect, it was a huge success. The movie was filled with bright colored costumes and gadgets and vehicles. I'll admit, after seeing this movie as a little kid, I bought razor skate robin or something. It was a chris odonnel fig that transformed into robin, complete with skates on his boots. It was one of my favorite toys growing up.
 
I thought that everything you see in Batman & Robin was Schumacher doing what Warners told himto do...:huh:

Honestly, as not-so-stellar as the film was, "B&R" bashing has become too commonplace...and therfore boring, old and lame.

Yeah "B&R" isn't the best Batman movie, I GET IT...big deal. It was made, it holds a plce in the characters history...can we please move on now?

What I'D like to see is people finding positive points for the film (they exist). I mean at least then "B&R" discussion would actually be interesting and not this typical one-note "IT SUKS ARGHHH!" bulls**t that I have to keep reading through. I swear one more thread that talks about how bad "B&R" was and my head's gonna explode 'Scanners' style...(feel free to quote me with the actual gif).

CFE

Ok, ok. I'll bite. There is one (1) good scene out of that film that really wow's me every time I see it. The rest of the film is entire crap, but there is a scene thats really good.
Batman stands over Mr. Freeze and explains that Ivy tried to kill his wife, not Batman and Robin. He then asks whats left of Dr. Victor Fries, buried deep beneath the snow and ice, if he will help him save another life.
"Help me cure Mcgregors Syndrome stage 1."
And Fries thinks for a few seconds, before opening a pocket on his wristbands and taking out two vials of glowing blue liquid.
"Take two of these...and call me in the morning."

That for me, was the one thing I could say was a Batman moment out of that film. Because what alot of people forget about Batman is that he is not fueled by rage. Alot of people think that, but for me, Batman is all about redemption. He's about second chances. A second chance for him and a second chance for the villains he brings in. That is why he doesn't kill. Because if he kills his enemy, he's denying them the chance to truly understand their actions. Obviously, in the comics thats never going to happen because we still need supervillains, but Batman keeps on trying.

And no matter how bad B&R is, I always love that ending, because Schumacher managed to display a piece of Batman that nobody ever really sees.
 
FOR ME ITS THE 'WE'RE GOIN TO NEED A BIGGER CAVE ' LINE. i actually used to use tat line when things got a bit crowded in real life
 
Ok, ok. I'll bite. There is one (1) good scene out of that film that really wow's me every time I see it. The rest of the film is entire crap, but there is a scene thats really good.
Batman stands over Mr. Freeze and explains that Ivy tried to kill his wife, not Batman and Robin. He then asks whats left of Dr. Victor Fries, buried deep beneath the snow and ice, if he will help him save another life.
"Help me cure Mcgregors Syndrome stage 1."
And Fries thinks for a few seconds, before opening a pocket on his wristbands and taking out two vials of glowing blue liquid.
"Take two of these...and call me in the morning."


That for me, was the one thing I could say was a Batman moment out of that film. Because what alot of people forget about Batman is that he is not fueled by rage. Alot of people think that, but for me, Batman is all about redemption. He's about second chances. A second chance for him and a second chance for the villains he brings in. That is why he doesn't kill. Because if he kills his enemy, he's denying them the chance to truly understand their actions. Obviously, in the comics thats never going to happen because we still need supervillains, but Batman keeps on trying.

And no matter how bad B&R is, I always love that ending, because Schumacher managed to display a piece of Batman that nobody ever really sees.

UGGHHHH I wish I hadn't read that. That scene was horrid. The memories!
 
I like the scene where arnold jumps in front of batman and says, "Tonight's forecast: A freeze"
 
I think a lot of good points have been made here. I always used to 'diss' B+R, then I watched it again with a 7 and 9 year old. They loved it. There first Batman film, they enjoyed it. Perfect, because after that they said they wanted to watch BB, and i'm sure they'll grow up to be BatFans.

Don't forget, B+R probably introduced hundreds of thousands of fans to the characters, and hopefully they moved on and realized the richness of the stories away from the gloss and neon.
 
I'm curious, what do you think a schumaker year one would look like?
 
WB pulled a lot of B.S. back then, but there's no denying that Schumacher and Co just had the wrong attitude going into it. They were making the movie they wanted to make, but seemed oblivous to the fact that it was the movie no fan wanted to see, heh.

He would start every day of shooting by telling the cast and crew "Okay, just remember people - it's just a cartoon!" Or something to that effect. Watch his interviews on the B&R dvd.

He assumed that the naturally progression, after Bruce's reconcilliation in Forever, was for Batman to become a fun-loving chap.

Clooney said something like "This guy is rich, he's a superhero. Stop crying over your parents and have fun!"
 
Yeah I remember that quote, he wanted to make like a living sixties comic book, which I suppose is quite daring and would have worked if we didn't all love Batman so much.

It's just a case of people liking the darker Batman more then the campy Batman. Isn't like the whole we prefer being scared to being happy thing?
 
I thought that everything you see in Batman & Robin was Schumacher doing what Warners told himto do...:huh:

After Batman Returns, WB wanted a more light-hearted and kid friendly movie. WB did NOT ask for nipples, neon, and chessey lines.
 
Honestly, as not-so-stellar as the film was, "B&R" bashing has become too commonplace...and therfore boring, old and lame.

Yeah "B&R" isn't the best Batman movie, I GET IT...big deal. It was made, it holds a plce in the characters history...can we please move on now?

What I'D like to see is people finding positive points for the film (they exist). I mean at least then "B&R" discussion would actually be interesting and not this typical one-note "IT SUKS ARGHHH!" bulls**t that I have to keep reading through. I swear one more thread that talks about how bad "B&R" was and my head's gonna explode 'Scanners' style...(feel free to quote me with the actual gif).

Just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't make it any less true.

It's a BAD movie. It has a few redeeming qualities, mainly Michael Gough and a fun performance by Arnie. Overall, however, it's a very poor film. Not just a poor Batman film, a poor film. It strives for something it does not achieve, the type of camp humor of the Adam West show. The actors, with the exception of Arnold, lack the charm and timing that made that show such a classic. And lest we forget genuine Ed Woodian gaffs, such as the obviously rewound shot of Robin being pulled under the water by the plants. I expect more from Schumacher, who's proven himself a good director time and again. This film, however, was one of his major blunders.

If you want to talk about the film's positives, there is at least one thread called "I liked Batman & Robin." You'll find what you're looking for there, I'd imagine.

Of course there'll always be people that pop in and out with a simple "B&R SUXS!" just like they pop in with a simple "BB IS TEH ROXORS!". If they don't back their opinion up with anything, they deserve to get called out. There are, however, real reasons for disliking the film, and a few immature posters shouldn't force you to start ignoring EVERY educated yet negative B&R comment.
 
Woah, one of the most interesting post on the Hype now-a-days. Back on topic though, I think we can all agree that this wasn't some ridiculously clever conspiracy by Schumacher to get back at WB.
 
I really don't get Joel Schumacher. This is the same guy that directed the Lost Boys, A Time to Kill, Falling Down, Phone Booth, Tigerland, and so on. He seemed like the ideal choice to succeed Burton, as his movies tend to be somewhat dark, and psychological, but he just really went off the deep end with Batman and Robin. Batman Forever can at least be defended. It has many serious flaws, sure, but I still enjoyed the movie as a whole. Batman and Robin was just plain bad.

Now, it's not that Schumacher would make a bad movie that confuses, as he's surely made some stinkers in his day (8mm, The Number 23) but even those movies maintained the brooding atmosphere of some of his better works. But with the Batman franchise is was like he decided to deliberately try to do the exact opposite of everything that had made him a successful filmmaker to that point.
 
After Batman Returns, WB wanted a more light-hearted and kid friendly movie. WB did NOT ask for nipples, neon, and chessey lines.

Someone above mentioned that they would like to see someone try to find positives in the Schumacher movies. For the record, I actually loved the look of Gotham City in Batman Forever. It was a new look for the city, for sure, but it was certainly eye-catching, and it did have a sort of sleek eeriness to it. I remember reading an interview with Grant Morrison in which he said that he thought of Gotham looking a like Las Vegas, because when he first saw Vegas at night he thought to himself, "this is what a city looks like when it's controlled by crime." That's what I think Gotham looked like in Batman Forever- a sort of gothic Vegas. It was original and familiar at the same time and gave the movie visual punctuation. I liked it.
 
I really don't get Joel Schumacher. This is the same guy that directed the Lost Boys, A Time to Kill, Falling Down, Phone Booth, Tigerland, and so on. He seemed like the ideal choice to succeed Burton, as his movies tend to be somewhat dark, and psychological, but he just really went off the deep end with Batman and Robin. Batman Forever can at least be defended. It has many serious flaws, sure, but I still enjoyed the movie as a whole. Batman and Robin was just plain bad.

Now, it's not that Schumacher would make a bad movie that confuses, as he's surely made some stinkers in his day (8mm, The Number 23) but even those movies maintained the brooding atmosphere of some of his better works. But with the Batman franchise is was like he decided to deliberately try to do the exact opposite of everything that had made him a successful filmmaker to that point.


Thats what I have always wondered, Joel has a very dark style but in his batman films his style dosent really show. Yeah as a kid I loved this film but as an adult Im confused over the cheesy factors that plaque it. Its not even a good buddy film, its just bad all around.


(I actually like the number 23, but it sucks the second time around seeing it.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"