Everything that's just wrong with B&R

[CFE]

lmao...

Kevin you crack me up...

CFE

 

[Castlewood]

Watching Burton's "Batman Returns" the other day, I get why B&R is what it is. "Batman & Robin" is the movie that you hate because of Tim Burton.
Burton made things WAAAAY too dark and scary for kids. Had it not been for Batman Returns... We would not have B&R.

 

[Mr. Socko]

That's not true because Batman Forever was a success and it wasn't as campy as B&R.

When do you look for nipples? Do you have a specific part of your day for it?

I don't look for nipples on the batsuit at all. I was saying it was strange that other people do.


Anyway back to B&R, I loved Freeze's suit. I think it was an improvement over the big test tube Freeze wears on his head in the comics and TAS.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Watching Burton's "Batman Returns" the other day, I get why B&R is what it is. "Batman & Robin" is the movie that you hate because of Tim Burton.
Burton made things WAAAAY too dark and scary for kids. Had it not been for Batman Returns... We would not have B&R.

Oh, boo-hoo. That whole thing was blown way out of proportion by parent groups. I dont ever remember seeing that movie in the theatre and hearing any kids cry out of fear.

Anyway, back on topic, I loved Freezes suit in B&R. I totally hate how they portrayed Bane tho, but the costume was kinda cool and creepy at the same time.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Anyway, back on topic, I loved Freezes suit in B&R.

Yeah, it was very impressive. It wasn't a flimsy costume either, it was a genuine suit of armour by a British armourist.

 

[Vile]

The helmet design was well done.

 

[dude stannis]

Oh, boo-hoo. That whole thing was blown way out of proportion by parent groups. I dont ever remember seeing that movie in the theatre and hearing any kids cry out of fear.

Anyway, back on topic, I loved Freezes suit in B&R. I totally hate how they portrayed Bane tho, but the costume was kinda cool and creepy at the same time.

Back when I started school in '93 Batman was still the in thing between kids. All the kids seemed to like Batman Returns. We where always playing with the action figures during the lunch breaks. I honestly never knew about any Batman Returns backlash until I came on da internets.

 

[CFE]

The only thing more absurd than juvenile "B&R" backlash is the backlash against "Returns."

The thing people need to realize is that everything that comes along of Batman in media is equal and valid for the part they play in Batman's history.

From the 40s serials to the 60s show; the theatrical films and animated series.

And to criticize any of it is absurd.

Akiva Goldsman said it best, I think...

"Comic Books survive over time because the characters are durable and are afforded different realizations."

The serials of the 40s best captured that era of the comics in terms of a film noir approach with an unglamorous Batman fighting the burgening threats of organizaed crime and facist sabetours.

The 60s series, and film, captured the colorful world of comic books. And of course there is an aspect to Batman's character that is campy, harkening back to the Dick Sprang books and the stories of the 50s and 60s. And don't argue against this, because camp can in fact be found, albiet much smaller doses, in the theatrical films and TAS...even Begins.

Then with the growing cynicism of the 1980s, paired with the works of Miller and Moore, Tim Burton gave us Batman and through success Batman Returns. Which needless to say captures the operatic, twisted and gothically romantic aspects of Batman. I personally feel that of every Batman-media incarnation, the Burton films have the most iconic imagery of a man disguising himself as a human-sized Bat. It's visually arresting, and contrary to what Begins-enthusiasts may tell you, there is much character development to be found.

That character development is just not displayed to you in full. Unlike Begins, which arguably may have treated its audience as if it didn't know any better, the Burton films didn't display character development through overbearing diatribes between characters. Burton showed it in a visual sense, and it takes a keen eye to pick up on them.

For instance, on one of the occasions that I watched "Returns" last year, it just occured to me that throughout the entire film, while people are in their civilian clothes out and about in Gotham City, Bruce and Selina are respectively in the Bat and Catsuits. However, when we come to Shreck's ball, where everyone is wearing masks, Bruce and Selina are not literally wearing masks...but figuratively.

Unlike Begins, which gives you everything up front upon one viewing, the Burton films have small nuiances beneath the surface that people can discover for themselves upon multiple viewings...

The Animated Series is the most successful in terms of being a melting pot, where it is truly the Batman of the comic books but with enough elbow room to allow interpretation. Plus, The Animated Series is the only media incarnation since the 40s serials to influence the comics in return. Where the 40s serials gave us the Bat-Cave and, if I'm not mistaken, the Bat Signal...TAS gave us Harley Quinn, Renee Montoya and the new Mr. Freeze origin that has been added into the Batman comic continuity.

The Schumacher films are more or less an updating of the 60s show, giving fans that theatre of the absurd, suspension of disbelief approach that is absolutely a necessity for comic book and comic book film fans. They just modernized it, making it a bit more entertaining for 90s audiences than the 60s show.

And Batman Begins, followed closely by TDK, is obviously a big shout out to the fans of the modern day Batman. The Batman given to us by the likes of Jeph Loeb, Greg Rucka, Tim Sale and Jim Lee. This is the Batman, IMO, straight out of the HUSH and YO comics. This is the Batman that we see on comic racks today, and as a result, this Batman has hit a nerve with fans big time.

But even though the Batman Nolan is giving us is what we want now...I still don't think that's an excuse to defile the legacy left behind by previous incarnations.

It's just a question of which Batman you grew up with, as Michael Uslan put.

I grew up with the Burton films, so as a result that's may favorite interpretation, Is it comic book accurate? Of course not. But doesn't it capture at least some essence of the character? Absolutely. All of it does in one way or another.

Bottom line, "Batman and Robin" is just as worthy of its place in Batman history as anything, and I don't see the point in having to keep making repeat arguments of what works and what doesn't work in the film. This thread, and others like it as a result, is absolutely unecessary.

And I'd think, if "Batman and Robin" was truly AS bad as people claim it to be...we as Batman fans would've chosen to ignore it entirely. Instead we just have to keep bringing it up.

Don't continue bringing up "B&R" if all you're going to do is s**t on its face. Obviously I'm right in my theory that it's just as valid as all other Batman media, because it seems to be keeping our attention quite well; for such an apparently bad film. You could make the argument that it keeps our attention because it's bad...but I don't really believe that. I believe more that we would've just ignored it...but we didn't, so it still holds value in Batman's history.

CFE

 

[Cain]

Nice write up CFE only one thing though aesthetically the Burton films left a huge mark on the 90's comics. Also BB has influenced the more recent comics at least Grant Morrisson's because the public Bruce Wayne in his books have a lot more in common with the BB portrayal than with any other public Bruce Wayne before that.

 

[CFE]

I've yet to read Morrison's run; I was hoping they'd collect it in a TPB. But I had always felt that Bale's portrayal of the public Wayne was already in the comics prior to Begins, which is why I felt Begins hadn't given back to the books. At least not in the way TAS did.

CFE

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Nice post CFE.

I also love the ball scene in Returns. Not only is it funny that they are the only 2 not wearing a "mask", but the deeper meaning behind it is what made that scene.

 

[Cain]

I've yet to read Morrison's run; I was hoping they'd collect it in a TPB. But I had always felt that Bale's portrayal of the public Wayne was already in the comics prior to Begins, which is why I felt Begins hadn't given back to the books. At least not in the way TAS did.

CFE

Nah he was much more obnoxious and immature than the public Bruce we had seen in any comic before. Before this movie I never would've told you that I could see Bruce Wayne pulling a stunt like the one in the hotel or the one at his party even if it meant saving lives. He always played it off as ditzy but also genuinely charming and altruistic I think TAS did a great job in showing this. Personally in the context of the film's universe I loved that they made him like that though, the changes make it much more difficult to tell whether this guy is Batman or not.

 

[CFE]

Yeah, I see. You're right Cain.

BTW nice avvy...It's unusually cool to think I'm talking to Gus Gorman...

CFE

 

[Cain]

Yeah, I see. You're right Cain.

BTW nice avvy...It's unusually cool to think I'm talking to Gus Gorman...

CFE

Still the best villain in any of the Supes movies. Not only was he very intelligent and handy with technology but he also had a great sense of humor. Could Braniac write a script with Mel Brooks in his prime and not get outshined? I think not!

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The Schumacher films are more or less an updating of the 60s show, giving fans that theatre of the absurd, suspension of disbelief approach that is absolutely a necessity for comic book and comic book film fans. They just modernized it, making it a bit more entertaining for 90s audiences than the 60s show.

Bottom line, "Batman and Robin" is just as worthy of its place in Batman history as anything, and I don't see the point in having to keep making repeat arguments of what works and what doesn't work in the film. This thread, and others like it as a result, is absolutely unecessary.

And I'd think, if "Batman and Robin" was truly AS bad as people claim it to be...we as Batman fans would've chosen to ignore it entirely. Instead we just have to keep bringing it up.

Don't continue bringing up "B&R" if all you're going to do is s**t on its face. Obviously I'm right in my theory that it's just as valid as all other Batman media, because it seems to be keeping our attention quite well; for such an apparently bad film. You could make the argument that it keeps our attention because it's bad...but I don't really believe that. I believe more that we would've just ignored it...but we didn't, so it still holds value in Batman's history.

CFE

Of course it holds a place in Batman history. It's one of only a handful of Batman theatrical films. And for that, it's relevant and will be talked about forever.

But that doesn't mean it's not a low point in Batman history. What in Batman history has it's fans ever ignored, even the low points? Not Bat-Mite. Not "Critters." Not Kelley Jones (I kid...maybe).

But forget about it's place in Batman history. How about it's place in film history? It's awfulness is the stuff of Hollywood legend. George Clooney still apologizes for it (Though it wasn't his fault, even though for a smart and really cool guy, he seems to show utter apathy towards comics as a serious medium in his interviews). People DO talk about it because it's bad. Just like they talk about Waterworld and Gigli and Cutthroat Island. It's a perfect example of what NOT to do, of how to squander great talent and millions of dollars and loads of goodwill generated from a hugely successful previous film.

And again, it wasn't a success for "what it was." It's "satire" is weak and impeded by ludicrously slick sets, costumes and visual effects. It lacks the charm of the low-tech Adam West show, not to mention the wit. It would've helped not to straddle the line between absurdity and seriousness like it did (Freeze is singing in slippers one moment and Alfred is tragically ill the next), but that was a necessary decision to ground the film in what little continuity it has with the series' previous installments. A "theatre of the absurd" Batman film would've (and still could, somewhere down the line) work as a stand alone film; one of B&R's biggest problems is that there's no possible way it takes place in the same world as Burton's original.

Which brings me to my final thought on why people are lightening up on this movie (myself included). If B&R would've truly meant the end for Batman films (at least for longer than it did), it would be even more universally loathed than it is now. But now that we have Begins and the apparent future of Batman films, Schumacher's opus has shifted from "franchise destroyer" to "just another page in Batman history." And that's why, yeah, I don't hate it as much as I used to. I've shifted my hate to movies like Catwoman which have (for the forseable future) seemed to destroy any potential for future movies.

And that reminds me of that insanely laughable nugget of wisdom from Akiva Goldsman, in which he acts like he was performing a function of nature by writing such an awful movie. Something to the effect of "If it weren't for the bad ones, we'd never get the good ones!" If you're looking for me to thank you for Begins, Akiva, don't hold your breath.