Joel Schumacher Interview on avclub.com

[TMC1982]

O: When you were working as a hired gun like that, did you feel emotionally invested in the film?

JS:

No, because I always knew that it was way beyond me. I always knew that I was the tiniest cog in the wheel. It also went from... It was going to cost $8 million, and then it suddenly went up to $30 million. It seems very overproduced.

O: Did it make you gun-shy about attempting a super-production like that as a director?

JS:

I think the only movie I've ever been involved with like that was Batman & Robin. Batman Forever had a very modest budget, considering the phenomenal profits it made, and how little we all made. We had very modest salaries. The whole thing at Warner was that Batman Returns had ended the franchise, and none of the theaters wanted it. We would have meetings with theater distributors who didn't want another Batman movie, because they had gotten burned on Batman Returns. None of the merchandising people wanted the merchandise, because they had had it all sent back. Nobody paid much attention to us, and then the movie kicked ass, and anybody who had been stupid enough to come onboard with their merchandise made a fortune. Everything was sort of contained in my life. Even though St. Elmo's Fire and The Lost Boys and Flatliners and Falling Down and The Client had all been successful--and I know I'm saying that in a very la-di-da, cavalier sort of way--they didn't cost money. So then, with Batman & Robin, everybody got really greedy. They wanted more toys, more machines in the movie, to make it more for kids. Adults think kids are too scared of Batman, so we had to make it more kid-friendly, make it funnier, make it lighter. I take full responsibility. It's all me. I know I disappointed some people, but it's a Batman movie. We're at war. Let's get over it.

O: Batman Returns is very dark and personal for a big blockbuster.

JS:

Well, [Batman Returns director] Tim [Burton] was going through a very dark period then. Tim is a wonderful person, and he's an artist. I said to Warner that I wouldn't do a Batman movie unless Tim said that it was okay, because we're friends. So I went to see him, and he said, "Please, please, I had a nervous breakdown during Batman Returns." He was going through a lot. It's very difficult when you make a huge movie and it's very successful. The pressure on doing the sequel is a whole different story. I know what Tim went through now, and I know why he said to me, "Please, please, I don't want to do another one."

O: Did you have the option to cast Michael Keaton in the third one?

JS:

Yes. We were actually making it with Michael Keaton, but his demands were so ridiculous that Warner had to fire him. I inherited him. I was given Michael. By the time he was fired, I was saying, "Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer." I was saying, "Let's go younger." I'm always saying "Let's go younger" on my movies.

O: What do you think Val Kilmer brought to the role of Batman?

JS:

Well, he was a very handsome Batman. I think that Batman Forever was an excellent Batman comic book. I think Nicole [Kidman] was delicious. I think Tommy Lee Jones was great and Jim Carrey was a phenomenal Riddler and Drew Barrymore was delicious, and it was sexy and fun, and it was the most profitable movie of the year. Everybody won. Can we move off Batman, ya think? That was years ago. I've made seven films since then.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Is that a pile of bull**** I smell? Schumacher is sure full of it.

 

[Bathead]

Why? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I think the only movie I've ever been involved with like that was Batman & Robin. Batman Forever had a very modest budget, considering the phenomenal profits it made, and how little we all made. We had very modest salaries. The whole thing at Warner was that Batman Returns had ended the franchise, and none of the theaters wanted it. We would have meetings with theater distributors who didn't want another Batman movie, because they had gotten burned on Batman Returns. None of the merchandising people wanted the merchandise, because they had had it all sent back. Nobody paid much attention to us, and then the movie kicked ass, and anybody who had been stupid enough to come onboard with their merchandise made a fortune.

Bull****. BF had a ton of attention placed on it because of Keaton not returning and because Jim Carry (who was becoming a big star) was playing The Riddler. This wasn't some unexpected sleeper hit.

Well, [Batman Returns director] Tim [Burton] was going through a very dark period then. Tim is a wonderful person, and he's an artist. I said to Warner that I wouldn't do a Batman movie unless Tim said that it was okay, because we're friends. So I went to see him, and he said, "Please, please, I had a nervous breakdown during Batman Returns." He was going through a lot. It's very difficult when you make a huge movie and it's very successful. The pressure on doing the sequel is a whole different story. I know what Tim went through now, and I know why he said to me, "Please, please, I don't want to do another one."

More bull****. Burton made Batman Returns so dark because WB pretty much gave him the freedom to do so, and when the backlash hit, it was WB that told Burton in no uncertain terms that they didn't want him back.

Yes. We were actually making it with Michael Keaton, but his demands were so ridiculous that Warner had to fire him. I inherited him. I was given Michael. By the time he was fired, I was saying, "Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer." I was saying, "Let's go younger." I'm always saying "Let's go younger" on my movies.

Damn, the bull**** is sure getting thick in here!!

WB wanted Keaton back so bad they were willing to pay him $30 MILLION. It was Keaton who walked away from it. He wasn't "fired".

 

[BatMatt]

Actually my understanding is Keaton was not happy with the way the franchise was going so he demanded an exuberant amount of money that he knew WB would not give so he was free to walk

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

haha we all know he hates talking about it, its very funny. Keatons demands werent ridiculous, he just wanted them to change the script as little and thats it!!

 

[Crook]

Actually my understanding is Keaton was not happy with the way the franchise was going so he demanded an exuberant amount of money that he knew WB would not give so he was free to walk

Truth.

Keatons demands werent ridiculous, he just wanted them to change the script as little and thats it!!

False.

 

[TMC1982]

I think the only movie I've ever been involved with like that was Batman & Robin. Batman Forever had a very modest budget, considering the phenomenal profits it made, and how little we all made. We had very modest salaries. The whole thing at Warner was that Batman Returns had ended the franchise, and none of the theaters wanted it. We would have meetings with theater distributors who didn't want another Batman movie, because they had gotten burned on Batman Returns. None of the merchandising people wanted the merchandise, because they had had it all sent back. Nobody paid much attention to us, and then the movie kicked ass, and anybody who had been stupid enough to come onboard with their merchandise made a fortune.

Bull****. BF had a ton of attention placed on it because of Keaton not returning and because Jim Carry (who was becoming a big star) was playing The Riddler. This wasn't some unexpected sleeper hit.

Well, [Batman Returns director] Tim [Burton] was going through a very dark period then. Tim is a wonderful person, and he's an artist. I said to Warner that I wouldn't do a Batman movie unless Tim said that it was okay, because we're friends. So I went to see him, and he said, "Please, please, I had a nervous breakdown during Batman Returns." He was going through a lot. It's very difficult when you make a huge movie and it's very successful. The pressure on doing the sequel is a whole different story. I know what Tim went through now, and I know why he said to me, "Please, please, I don't want to do another one."

More bull****. Burton made Batman Returns so dark because WB pretty much gave him the freedom to do so, and when the backlash hit, it was WB that told Burton in no uncertain terms that they didn't want him back.

Yes. We were actually making it with Michael Keaton, but his demands were so ridiculous that Warner had to fire him. I inherited him. I was given Michael. By the time he was fired, I was saying, "Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer, Val Kilmer." I was saying, "Let's go younger." I'm always saying "Let's go younger" on my movies.

Damn, the bull**** is sure getting thick in here!!

WB wanted Keaton back so bad they were willing to pay him $30 MILLION. It was Keaton who walked away from it. He wasn't "fired".

I'm sure that Joel Schumacher took things personally over Michael Keaton supposedly disapproving of his ideas over what he wanted to do with Batman. So naturally, Schumacher is going to attempt to bury Keaton with the "diva" tags.

 

[TMC1982]

Actually my understanding is Keaton was not happy with the way the franchise was going so he demanded an exuberant amount of money that he knew WB would not give so he was free to walk

Keaton was likely upset that Warner Bros. didn't want Tim Burton back. Burton was the first person to have Keaton's back, when it was first announced that he would be playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. And of course, the fanboys instantly became unglued over the prospect of "that guy from Mr. Mom" playing the Dark Knight. So when Burton was out of the picture, Keaton felt that he lost an ally and somebody, whom he could easily trust.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I love this notion that added pressure is an excuse for a crappy follow-up. If it's so hard to pull off a great follow-up, then perhaps Joel needs to ask Chris Nolan for some pointers.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Can we move off Batman, ya think? That was years ago. I've made seven films since then.

 

[panda_eater]

This guy obviously doesn't give a sh-t about Batman.

 

[OctaviusINC]

Kinda OT, but why does everyone think Batman Returns was so darn dark? B89' was Darker IMO.

 

[Cain]

Kinda OT, but why does everyone think Batman Returns was so darn dark? B89' was Darker IMO.

lol cause Tim Burton has said the exact same thing.

People say The Penguin scared kids but I saw this movie in theatres when I was 9 I had seen worse by then it was nothing to me and I don't remember any crying. I think what it it really was is the Batman/Catwoman thing a lot of their scenes were filled with innuendo. Very sexually charged and they had S&M type suits especially Catwoman that threw parents into a frenzy.

My mom & dad were seperated but both watched R rated movies with me. My mom was into Schwarzenegger and Seagal. My dad loved Mel Gibson movies like Mad Max and Lethal Weapon. But the minute you see the early nipple in Lethal Weapon he'd be like "look away", Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor get it on "look away", Alex Murphy gets his brains blown up it's fine my 6 year old eyes could see that lmao.

See all the violence you want and listen to all the cursing kid but the moment there's a butt cheek on screen you better not look. Those were my parents lol I love them for it too I grew up very imaginative cause they never "censored" me from everything. LOL damn flashbacks my point is I think a lot of parents have issues with sexual content around their kids so that right there to me was the main backlash.

 

[Borat]

Well, if Joel wants to forget about it, then we should all forget about it too. t:

 

[JerseyJoker]

lmao at the guy saying that making script changes is no big deal.

 

[Bat Attack]

God, he is such a smug bastard. I bet he had that stupid smirk on his face the entire interview. The same one he had in the Anthology interviews.

 

[JerseyJoker]

Yeah, **** Joel for not being a miserable bastard and not forever harping on a failed movie he was part of more then a decade ago, what a loser.

 

[panda_eater]

Schumacher was a nobody until Batman and he hasn't made anything good since. Like The Dark Knight for Nolan... Batman & Robin is his legacy and what made him a household name. When he passes away the networks will say "Joel Schumacher, the director of Batman & Robin has died at the.." ect.

 

[Evil_Meanie]

I love how Schumacher acts like Batman Returns was a huge failure, and no one ever wanted another Batman movie ever again. I thought that it was McDonalds who put up such a stink, and considering that they were a huge sponsor, WB listened to them.

Burton was pretty candid about how he got off the project on the SE DVDs. He talked about how he went into a meeting pitching ideas for the third film. Nervous breakdown? Yeah, right. It wasn't "dark" because Burton was going through a "dark" period. It was dark because Burton wouldn't come back unless he could make the movie his way. Batman Returns is pretty much in the same vein as all of Burton's famous pictures. It's certainly no darker than Sweeney Todd. So I guess Burton has been having the same nervous breakdown his entire career?

Joel doesn't seem to like the fact that people still want to talk about his Batman films after all of these years. However, when you take a character as iconic as Batman, and screw it up so badly that people say, "wow, the franchise is dead," then you simply can't be surprised that people want to ask you about it years later.

He loves to pass the blame, and that's just so silly. Are we really supposed to believe that Burton wasn't hearing the same thing from toy companies when he was making his movies? Are we really supposed to believe that it took three Batman movies before people got greedy? Apparently, Burton handled the pressure a litlte bit better, and didn't see to cave. Joel obviously did, and no matter how much he wants to pass the blame, the films have his name on them..therefore he should take responsibility. He never does this. Even in his "apology" on the Batman and Robin DVD, he always needs to talk about toy companies and whatnot. It's ridiculous. Lots of directors take their names off of the films and throw on "Alan Smithee" when they are dissatisfied with the finished product. Why didn't Schumacher?

 

[TMC1982]

I love how Schumacher acts like Batman Returns was a huge failure, and no one ever wanted another Batman movie ever again. I thought that it was McDonalds who put up such a stink, and considering that they were a huge sponsor, WB listened to them.

Burton was pretty candid about how he got off the project on the SE DVDs. He talked about how he went into a meeting pitching ideas for the third film. Nervous breakdown? Yeah, right. It wasn't "dark" because Burton was going through a "dark" period. It was dark because Burton wouldn't come back unless he could make the movie his way. Batman Returns is pretty much in the same vein as all of Burton's famous pictures. It's certainly no darker than Sweeney Todd. So I guess Burton has been having the same nervous breakdown his entire career?

Joel doesn't seem to like the fact that people still want to talk about his Batman films after all of these years. However, when you take a character as iconic as Batman, and screw it up so badly that people say, "wow, the franchise is dead," then you simply can't be surprised that people want to ask you about it years later.

He loves to pass the blame, and that's just so silly. Are we really supposed to believe that Burton wasn't hearing the same thing from toy companies when he was making his movies? Are we really supposed to believe that it took three Batman movies before people got greedy? Apparently, Burton handled the pressure a litlte bit better, and didn't see to cave. Joel obviously did, and no matter how much he wants to pass the blame, the films have his name on them..therefore he should take responsibility. He never does this. Even in his "apology" on the Batman and Robin DVD, he always needs to talk about toy companies and whatnot. It's ridiculous. Lots of directors take their names off of the films and throw on "Alan Smithee" when they are dissatisfied with the finished product. Why didn't Schumacher?

The one of the key problems that certain people had I believe, with "Returns" was that it was way, way too dark, violent, depressing, weird, and nasty for mainstream audiences. The first one was dark too, but at the very least, Tim Burton was put on a leash. You can't really compare something like "Sweeny Todd" with "Batman Returns", because "Returns" had a lot of publicity, anticipation and merchandising behind it.

 

[Evil_Meanie]

I'm not saying that it wasn't dark or that it had mainstream appeal. I'm saying that Schumacher makes it sound like it was a failure, and no one ever wanted to see another Batman movie again. That's quite an exaggeration. I can see the problems with the movie, and with its mainstream appeal, but to say that the franchise was dead? That's ludicrous. Batman: The Animated Series came out along with Batman Returns. Interest was still there, the franchise was very much alive. Schumacher makes it sound like Burton's movie killed it, and Batman Forever brought it out of the depths. That's what HIS movies did, not Burton's.

 

[aragen]

Schumacher was a nobody until Batman and he hasn't made anything good since. Like The Dark Knight for Nolan... Batman & Robin is his legacy and what made him a household name. When he passes away the networks will say "Joel Schumacher, the director of Batman & Robin has died at the.." ect.

I can hear it now:

"Batman fans rejoice! Joel Schumacher, the director of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin died at the age of-"

Of course no one would care.

Anyway. ****maker- I mean Schumacher said that Returns killed the franchise? Bull. Shumacher HIMSELF killed the series!

 

[I Am The Knight]

Schumacher was a nobody until Batman

Wrong.

He was a promising enough director who worked with top actors, prior to Batman. Box office wise, He had been more succesful than Nolan was prior to BB.

and he hasn't made anything good since.

That's entirely debatable....Tigerland and Phone Booth were good films. A Time To Kill came out after BF.

Like The Dark Knight for Nolan...

Most directors will never have a Dark Knight in their resumes.

Batman & Robin is his legacy and what made him a household name. When he passes away the networks will say "Joel Schumacher, the director of Batman & Robin has died at the.." ect.

Perhaps. But who cares? Anyone with a brain knows that B&R is hardly representative of Joel Schumacher as a director, overall.

He loves to pass the blame, and that's just so silly. Are we really supposed to believe that Burton wasn't hearing the same thing from toy companies when he was making his movies? Are we really supposed to believe that it took three Batman movies before people got greedy? Apparently, Burton handled the pressure a litlte bit better, and didn't see to cave. Joel obviously did, and no matter how much he wants to pass the blame, the films have his name on them..therefore he should take responsibility. He never does this. Even in his "apology" on the Batman and Robin DVD, he always needs to talk about toy companies and whatnot. It's ridiculous. Lots of directors take their names off of the films and throw on "Alan Smithee" when they are dissatisfied with the finished product. Why didn't Schumacher?

Because maybe he likes the cinematography and production design. Because in the end, he is responsible for it, and he knows it, and he's not denying it. Probably because, as far as I can tell, WB never took his film and edited to the point of it not being Schumacher's film anymore. It's his film, period. And he knows it.

I'm not saying that it wasn't dark or that it had mainstream appeal. I'm saying that Schumacher makes it sound like it was a failure, and no one ever wanted to see another Batman movie again. That's quite an exaggeration. I can see the problems with the movie, and with its mainstream appeal, but to say that the franchise was dead? That's ludicrous.

Because that's the way studios think. They look at the bottomline. And the bottomline was: BR was not as well received as B89, it made arguable $100 less in box office revenue than B89, the parents where complaining, the licensing companies were complaining....The franchise was "Dead" in the sense that, the next one was going to very like underperform badly if they made Burton's Batman 3 unless they revamped it somewhat. They had to change the tone to attract the kiddies again.

Batman: The Animated Series came out along with Batman Returns. Interest was still there, the franchise was very much alive. Schumacher makes it sound like Burton's movie killed it, and Batman Forever brought it out of the depths. That's what HIS movies did, not Burton's.

They both did. Burton brought back Batman from camp hell, but in the studios's head, after BF, Schumacher brought Batman back from weirdo hell. Simple as that.

 

[mclay18]

I don't see why people are continuing to bash Schumacher eleven years after B&R came out. He seems to have learned his lesson (or rather the WB), and my take is that he's more humble and apologetic in the B&R SE.

Although I wonder if BR didn't get the public backlash back in 1992, maybe Schumacher would've have more reign to do what he wanted and not what the studio wanted. Heck, he could've done something less campier than the likes of BF and B&R -- but I'm just fine and dandy with what Nolan did with the franchise anyway.

Speaking of which redfirebird2008, Nolan was a nobody when BF and B&R came out -- his short film "The Following" didn't come out until a year after B&R came out. During that period, he had even less credibility than Schumacher.