Re-evaluating Geekdom! Batman And Robin (1998), Are You Game Enough!

[Movies205]

READ THE POST FIRST

First off, I apologize for my tardiness on this thread, I have been exceptionally busy with the end of the semester work. Now on to the thread.

To participate in this thread, you need to track down a copy of Batman and Robin, watch it, then send me a PM with a or , opinions are optional. If you'd like you can participate in the thread and discuss whether your opinion changed or not.

POV: The chief critisim against Batman and Robin was that it was far too light and goofy, obviously being compare to the darker incarnations of the Dark Knight, the challenge is to look past that, and see if Batman can work as a light character.

GOOD LUCK!


THREAD CLOSES ON THE 15th

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Simply, the movie is not about Batman.

It doesn't add anything to his character, he learns nothing, he progresses in no way. He's the eye of the storm in the movie, the calm centre while the chaos goes on around him.

Clooney himself said something along the lines of, "Batman is not the star of these movies. The villains are the stars, Batman is like the chat show host who gets the best out of them."

Batman, Returns, Forever and Begins all have development for Batman, emotional investment, and a personal threat. B&R has nothing. Clooney could have played any superhero.

 

[GhostPoet]

hah. I actually watched this last week.

And you know...I think it works. In one aspect anyway. It's suppose to be light and campy and infact takes more than a little of a nod at the classic campy series from the 70's. (it was the 70's right?)

you have the crooked angle camera style for the bad guys and the over-the-top villains and action sequences.

I would say it actually rips pages from the very EARLY batman era.

was it lighter and goofer than the other films? Absolutely. And I think that was the purpose by the director. I think he wanted to create something that was true to the original series...which was in turn true to the campy classic era Batman comics. So in that way...yes...the movie had substance...it relayed all the emotion and substance that was conveyed in the classic era.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

hah. I actually watched this last week.

And you know...I think it works. In one aspect anyway. It's suppose to be light and campy and infact takes more than a little of a nod at the classic campy series from the 70's. (it was the 70's right?)

No, it was the 60's. Can you not tell just by looking at the fashions which decade something is from?

you have the crooked angle camera style for the bad guys and the over-the-top villains and action sequences.

I would say it actually rips pages from the very EARLY batman era.

was it lighter and goofer than the other films? Absolutely. And I think that was the purpose by the director. I think he wanted to create something that was true to the original series...which was in turn true to the campy classic era Batman comics. So in that way...yes...the movie had substance...it relayed all the emotion and substance that was conveyed in the classic era.

I understand your point, but your sources are incorrect.

First of all, the first Batman stories ever created were dark detective stories with elements of gothic horror. It began to lighten up after a while, and became absolutely ridiculous sci-fi nonsense in the 40s and 50s (Robin must get Batman elected President even though he's been turned into a zebra, etc).

B&R looks positively restrained next to the insanity of this era of Batman comics, which you'll find most fans are not even aware of.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

lmfao this movies awful.

 

[Movies205]

The original Batman Comics, could of been called "Murder She Wrote" and no one would know the difference.

 

[The Shape]

Simply, the movie is not about Batman.

It doesn't add anything to his character, he learns nothing, he progresses in no way. He's the eye of the storm in the movie, the calm centre while the chaos goes on around him.

Clooney himself said something along the lines of, "Batman is not the star of these movies. The villains are the stars, Batman is like the chat show host who gets the best out of them."

Batman, Returns, Forever and Begins all have development for Batman, emotional investment, and a personal threat. B&R has nothing. Clooney could have played any superhero.

Well said. Even if this film was made in a more serious tone and it didn't look like one big toy commerical, it would still be a terrible Batman film. Well, just a terrible film, because it's not even about Batman.

 

[livrule]

Clooney seems very self aware through the whole thing ... like hes not sure what hes doing there.

At least Kilmer and and Keaton 'let go' and went along for the ride.

A shocking film ... in every way possible.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Clooney seems very self aware through the whole thing ... like hes not sure what hes doing there.

At least Kilmer and and Keaton 'let go' and went along for the ride.

What could Clooney do? Seriously, Clooney did all anyone could have done. He did well to retain any sense of dignity. Put Keaton in that role, or Bale, or Brando or Cary Grant or anyone, the result would have been the same.