Batman Forever: HBO First Look

[BatmanForNever]

He said people need to get out more if all they have to complain about are nipples are a batsuit.

But if Joel didn't sign on someone else would have. And we still would have gotten a Batman & Robin. Not to mention the studio rushed it out the gate, and didn't give enough down time between films. Money hungry.....rarwrrr!!!!

 

[El Payaso]

He said people need to get out more if all they have to complain about are nipples are a batsuit.

But if Joel didn't sign on someone else would have. And we still would have gotten a Batman & Robin. Not to mention the studio rushed it out the gate, and didn't give enough down time between films. Money hungry.....rarwrrr!!!!

Now, THAT's the reason why bad movies are done sometimes.

But it's not directors' money hungry in this case. it's the studios' money hungry, which I have been putting the blame on all this time.

 

[BatmanForNever]

Now, THAT's the reason why bad movies are done sometimes.

But it's not directors' money hungry in this case. it's the studios' money hungry, which I have been putting the blame on all this time.

As I have. But the reason the studio went with lighter, more kid friendly, toycentric film was ultimately caused by Burton's overly dark sequel was my point. If it wasn't as dark the studio never would have pushed for what they ultimately did.

 

[Two-Face]

Burton shouldn't be blamed, WB knew what he has with his other films.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Yes, they basically begged Burton to come back, and he told them he'd only do another Batman if he could do it his way. And they let him and then got their panties in a bunch over the reaction it got. They really did him wrong in regards to snubbing him for Batman 3 after being so enthusiastic for him to do 2. If they would have done their research on his past work, the tone of Returns wouldn't be a surprise at all, since Burton's pretty consistent in that regard.

That said, kid-friendly or light doesn't equal butt shots, bad writing or nipples. THAT you cannot blame the studios for, for it was Joel's personal "artistic" choices. And, in his own words, if you don't get nipples, you "need go out more."

Exactly. Mask of the Phantasm was kid friendly (though still darker than the series it was based off of), but can still be enjoyed just as much by adults for its mature writing. Not to mention that it didn't have Batman's love interest spouting off lame sex jokes, unlike Schumacher's "kid friendly" Batman Forever.

 

[El Payaso]

As I have. But the reason the studio went with lighter, more kid friendly, toycentric film was ultimately caused by Burton's overly dark sequel was my point. If it wasn't as dark the studio never would have pushed for what they ultimately did.

The reasons they had don't justify their decisions. I don't make stupid decisipons merely because I have reasons for it; I make them because I decide so.

WB could have easily decided for a less dark movie instead of a kid-friendly one.

If anything Burton is responsible for WB asking him to leave the franchise. That's about it. After he left it's all the studios' decisions.

Yes, they basically begged Burton to come back, and he told them he'd only do another Batman if he could do it his way. And they let him and then got their panties in a bunch over the reaction it got. They really did him wrong in regards to snubbing him for Batman 3 after being so enthusiastic for him to do 2. If they would have done their research on his past work, the tone of Returns wouldn't be a surprise at all, since Burton's pretty consistent in that regard.

Yes. If it's BR what unchained BF then it's the studios' responsibility since they allowed BR to happen.

That's how that logic works.

Exactly. Mask of the Phantasm was kid friendly (though still darker than the series it was based off of), but can still be enjoyed just as much by adults for its mature writing. Not to mention that it didn't have Batman's love interest spouting off lame sex jokes, unlike Schumacher's "kid friendly" Batman Forever.

 

[BatmanForNever]

The tone of Batman Returns lead to the studio taking the more light-hearted kid friendly approach to the two films that followed. Forever still held some darkness through-out and still felt in the same universe as the first two. The 4th film was just a cheese ball campfest.


I think the studio was willing to do anything to get Burton back since Batman did so well. They weren't prepared as to how far he would take it, and even for me, being loving the dark side, it was just to Burton for me. I actually prefer Batman Forever to BR. So I guess I should thank Burton in a way.

 

[El Payaso]

The tone of Batman Returns lead to the studio taking the more light-hearted kid friendly approach to the two films that followed. Forever still held some darkness through-out and still felt in the same universe as the first two. The 4th film was just a cheese ball campfest.

Therefore - according to your own logic - we can blame Burton for Batman Forever (which was still dark to some extent and felt in the same universe) but then we should blame Schumacher for Batman & Robin, not Burton. Since it was Schumacher's Batman Forever good numbers which encouraged the studio to go deeper in that way.

I think the studio was willing to do anything to get Burton back since Batman did so well.

And they did, and that is why they should be blamed. You can't blame Burton for doing what he wanmted if he was allowed to do so by the people who was paying him for that.

They weren't prepared as to how far he would take it, and even for me, being loving the dark side, it was just to Burton for me.

You can't say a group of experimented veteran Hopllywood executives weren't prepared to deal with a young director and expect to sound believable.

They - as any Hollywood executive - were taking a risk. And therefore full responsibility for the results.

I actually prefer Batman Forever to BR. So I guess I should thank Burton in a way.

Which is what I logically concluded in this very post. In consequence, stop blaming Burton.

That said, I find a lot of entertaining stuff in BF but can't get over the nipples, bat-butt, that circus clown dressed as Two-Face or Batman's smiling in a close-up.

 

[BatmanForNever]

Therefore - according to your own logic - we can blame Burton for Batman Forever (which was still dark to some extent and felt in the same universe) but then we should blame Schumacher for Batman & Robin, not Burton. Since it was Schumacher's Batman Forever good numbers which encouraged the studio to go deeper in that way.

Yes, and no. We blame Burton for the studio pushing for a more kid-friendly Batman film, and we blame the studio for taking it far as it went in Batman & Robin. Batman Forever preformed better than Returns. Schumacher and company had to convince people that Batman was still going strong. After the success of BF, he wanted to take some downtime and do the film adaptation to Year One. Which of course never happened due to the studio. The time line should look like this:

Burton makes Batman which performs extremely well>which causes to studio to bring him back and give him more artistic license> which cause backlash with parents and critics for being to dark>which causes studio to take the franchise in a new direction>which leads to Schumacher being hired to make Forever>Forever makes more money and is a big box office success being the 2n biggest movie of 95 only second to Toy Story>Schumacher wants to make a prequel in the vein of year one> but studio pushes for a even more kid-friendly, bigger, bolder, brighter film which they think at the time equals better film and more money>which leads to the death of the franchise until Batman Begins.

Pretty simple.

 

[Catman]

BatmanForNever just doesn't get it. WB wanted a kid-friendly movie. That's true. However, they never asked for neon lights, nipples on the bat-suit, and a Two-Face in name only. That was all Schumacher.

 

[BatmanForNever]

BatmanForNever just doesn't get it. WB wanted a kid-friendly movie. That's true. However, they never asked for neon lights, nipples on the bat-suit, and a Two-Face in name only. That was all Schumacher.

Sure they didn't develop Two-Face as well as they could have, and he acted more like the Joker than Two-Face, but TLJ did great with what he had. It was entertaining, I didn't mind the neon lights at all, and not even the bat nipples.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, and no. We blame Burton for the studio pushing for a more kid-friendly Batman film,

Which you liked better than BR. So you’re “blaming” Burton for giving you something you liked more than what he did: What’s the logic behind that, who knows.

That said, at least you admit it’s the studios who pushed for a kid-friendly Bat-movie, not Burton.

So you shouldn’t only put the blame where your own words are putting (the studios) it in spite of your mindless reasoning, but you should also thank the guy (Burton) who gave you what you liked.

and we blame the studio for taking it far as it went in Batman & Robin.

Finally.

Btw; “we”?

Batman Forever preformed better than Returns. Schumacher and company had to convince people that Batman was still going strong. After the success of BF, he wanted to take some downtime and do the film adaptation to Year One. Which of course never happened due to the studio.

So, in your words, we should thank Burton for a stronger Batman movie and blame the studios for the debacle.

For different reasons the same thing I’ve been saying for a while.

 

[BatmanForNever]

I thank Burton for making BR so dark because it made Forever which I love, and the studio took it too far so I blame them for killing the franchise, I credit Burton for the franchise getting a breath of fresh air.

 

[Cain]

BR: $162,831,698
BF: $184,031,112

Wow only a 22 million dollar difference? you serious? I always thought the way people harp on about "BF was a bigger success than BR" it would've been at least 50 million dollars more or something at the box office. I wonder now that the WB execs from that time see the success the current execs had with the franchise today if they ever ask themselves "did we really do the right thing?".

Then again society was very different in 1995 than it is now a days when it came to superhero movies, but I will say there still was a backlash on the movie even back then. I remember a lot of people saying that "they ruined it" and that "Batman got corny". Hell my best friend when we saw it on opening day came out furious. But hey thanks soccer moms, then B&R came and the people who hated BF told everybody else "we told you so".

I never had a real problem with BF though I even saw it twice in theatres only bat movie besides TDK I did that with. Even though I never enjoyed it anywhere near the extent that I do the Burton movies.

 

[Catman]

I wonder now that the WB execs from that time see the success the current execs had with the franchise today if they ever ask themselves "did we really do the right thing?".

Batman Forever was the 2nd highest grossing movie of the year and the biggest movie of the summer. So, I doubt they think that. Plus, Returns didn't flop as badly as people claim. It also was the summer's most successful movie. And it was #3 for the year.

I think people, or fanboys, tend to forget how big the first three movies were. Adjusted for inflation all three were more successful than Batman Begins.

Plus, let's not forget the merchandise. TDK broke records at the box office but with the crappy economy I doubt it did as well as the first three in terms of merchandise. The first Batman movie made $500 million in merchandise. $500 million!!! In other words...the first Batman movie made in merchandise what TDK made in the box office. Actually...more! Adjusted for inflation it's like $700-800 million.

 

[Cain]

Batman Forever was the 2nd highest grossing movie of the year and the biggest movie of the summer. So, I doubt they think that. Plus, Returns didn't flop as badly as people claim. It also was the summer's most successful movie. And it was #3 for the year.

I think people, or fanboys, tend to forget how big the first three movies were. Adjusted for inflation all three were more successful than Batman Begins.

Plus, let's not forget the merchandise. TDK broke records at the box office but with the crappy economy I doubt it did as well as the first three in terms of merchandise. The first Batman movie made $500 million in merchandise. $500 million!!! In other words...the first Batman movie made in merchandise what TDK made in the box office. Actually...more! Adjusted for inflation it's like $700-800 million.

Yes I remember I was 12 at the time and very much a kid who ran around a lot without my parents so I took myself to the movies to see it twice with friends, the soundtrack was all over the radio too that movie was almost as much a pop culture landmark as the original back then. The movie was the phenom of summer '95 It just wasn't as timeless in the long run. I also remember BR's success which is why I was confused by people saying BF was that much more successful like I've seen all over the web.

It was just 22 million dollars which is not something to sneeze at but the way people go about it I thought it'd be much more dramatic. Since I'm not the type who cares about box office numbers I just found this out in this thread and it just kinda shocked me. Maybe from a merchandise standpoint it was much more successful which I'm not even sure of but in terms of box office I think people overdo with that talk.

 

[Catman]

that movie was almost as much a pop culture landmark as the original

Not really. It was just a high-profile sequel that did well cause people liked it. No different than your typical summer blockbuster.

 

[Eric Brooks]

good stuff

 

[Cain]

Not really. It was just a high-profile sequel that did well cause people liked it. No different than your typical summer blockbuster.

What are you talking about? it was a pop culture phenomenon at the time and sold a ****load of merchandise to boot. That is easily the third largest Batman in terms of hype and impact during it's time behind the original and TDK. It wasn't something that just came out one week and went the next that's what your "typical summer blockbuster" was like in the 90's. Your typical blockbusters did not almost reach 200 million back then this was an era where reaching the 100 million dollar mark was still a huge deal. When something almost made 200 million or more it was considered a phenomenon.

 

[Catman]

it was a pop culture phenomenon at the time.

That's not what you said. You said it was a landmark movie. Which it wasn't. The only landmark movies in the `90s were Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Titanic, and Matrix. Batman Forever was a typical summer movie in the sense that every summer you're gonna have that one movie that dominates but that doesn't mean it was a landmark movie or whatever. It just means that it was the favorite.

 

[Eric Brooks]

I think you're both right. It may not have been on the level of T2, JP, Toy Story, Titanic or Matrix but at the same time, it was DAMN CLOSE

I do recall it being slightly more popular than your average summer blockbuster though, movie was huge

 

[Cain]

That's not what you said. You said it was a landmark movie. Which it wasn't. The only landmark movies in the `90s were Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Titanic, and Matrix. Batman Forever was a typical summer movie in the sense that every summer you're gonna have that one movie that dominates but that doesn't mean it was a landmark movie or whatever. It just means that it was the favorite.

I said it was a "pop culture landmark" just like the original was in 1989 not a "landmark movie" there is a big difference. BF was the movie everybody went to see that summer, Kiss from a Rose was the biggest song of that summer etc. it had a big impact on pop culture at the time. It was a pop classic but it's not a great movie like most of the ones you listed or a movie that will influence other movies like the ones you listed.

 

[BatmanForNever]

Even with it's flaws, I know it's not the best Batman film. But it's my favorite. I mean I love them all, and love each one for a different reason...but I always come back to BF.

 

[TMC1982]

The tone of Batman Returns lead to the studio taking the more light-hearted kid friendly approach to the two films that followed. Forever still held some darkness through-out and still felt in the same universe as the first two. The 4th film was just a cheese ball campfest.


I think the studio was willing to do anything to get Burton back since Batman did so well. They weren't prepared as to how far he would take it, and even for me, being loving the dark side, it was just to Burton for me. I actually prefer Batman Forever to BR. So I guess I should thank Burton in a way.

Batman: The Animated Series proved that you can make a kid friendly Batman product that still sophisticated enough to not insult or embarrass the audiences' intelligence like Batman & Robin did.

 

[Eric Brooks]

Even with it's flaws, I know it's not the best Batman film. But it's my favorite. I mean I love them all, and love each one for a different reason...but I always come back to BF.

It's definitley my favorite Bat film to date

Forever
Begins
Batman89
The Dark Knight
Returns
Batman: The Movie