Well nothing says mature like "ROFLMAO"...
Forgive me, but when something so stupid is said to me in a serious manner, I cannot help but laugh.
The bulk of Batman's fanbase is attributed to children...and I recall several accounts from fans on this board about enjoying the film "when they were children."
Never seen anyone say that.
Although, only child mentality could appreciate a movie like that.
If every single bit of Batman-related media were dark and more adult-oriented, kids would be too scared to relate.
I guess Nolan's movies are doomed then.
Speak of the devil, here's an example of you being narrow-minded right now. Do you even know what I mean by "Cinematography" ?
Yes, I do. And, since you failed to give an example of this wonderful cinematography you mentioned, I'm wondering do you know what it is.
Well clearly you agree since you couldn't find a loophole to keep you from admitting that even you found a set in the film to be decent.
There's a difference between
decent and
amazing. You called it amazing.
The sets for "Batman & Robin" are high quality and over the top. Given the subject material not only do they fit, but they were built quite well. And there's no denying the hard work and passion that went into it, is there?
No, they were well built. They just looked camp and stupid, and totally out of place in for Gotham City.
AGAIN with the whole "not reading" thing...
Given the fact that Warners said "Your job this time around is to provide a brighter, child friendly and family-oriented film," I'd say Schumacher accomplished that in spades.
The film's success is what you're talking about...not the director's.
The film's success is down to the director, since he directs the movie. He decides the tone and feel of the movie. How the actors perform their roles, how sets and stuff should look etc.
I don't think Warner Bros told him to make a campy, ridiculously over the top movie that everyone would hate, and would be ranked as one of the worst superhero movies, and one of the worst movies of all time, do you?
Yeah, Schumacher failed.
"Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" were set with a serious tone? Since when?
Since they're sequals to Batman 89 and Batman Returns. This was supposed to be a serious approach to Batman. Not a camp fest of stupidity.
Seriously, B&R rivals the 1966 Batman movie in the camp department. Even the villain's plans in the 60's movie made more sense than Freeze and Ivy's.
I didn't say Bane...I'm not focusing on specifics. The film, in general...that means as a whole...is a non-direct nod to the Batman comics of the mid 1960s.
And it shouldn't have been. One of the many reasons why it's horrible.
We left campy interpretations of Batman back in the 60's.
Bane however I will agree with you on...but this lends itself to the fact that I've been saying all along that the film is the least well done of the franchise. You're the one thinking I'm trying to say it's absolute gold. I'm just making points that it isn't nearly as bad as you want to believe.
I know what you're trying to say. And, I disagree with you. This movie was horrible because it took a franchise that had a serious, dark Batman tone, and turned it into a mockery.
Yeah...because given both the era this film was trying to translate and the way the franchise was going...Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, Poison Ivy and Robin were entirely out of character...
What the hell have they got to do with Mr Freeze?
And, you accuse me of not reading.
I personally find the "Batman Returns" suit to be the best of the franchise as well. But the "B&R" costumes are of higher quality and manufactured in a superior manner.
I disagree.
A good portion of the points I made deal not with the film itself, but with the process by which it was produced, which is clear you really don't know that much about.
LOL! Are you for real?
If we gave movies merits for the production processes, some of the most dire movies in history would be deemed good.
Who gives a damn how much they spent on costumes, or how long they spent designing them etc? The finished product of the movie itself is all that counts.
1: Sky Surfing.
2: The Chase down the Statue's Arm.
3: Batman saving the Astrologist while hanging onto the telescope hurtling toward the ground.
Yeah you're right...these weren't entertaining to watch at all...
Hang on a second, you keep changing what you're saying. You said you found the action to be, and I quote, exhilarating. If you found Batman and Robin sky surfing, or hanging out of a telescope, or driving down a statue arm thrilling, then you're easily excited, IMO.
Entertaining is something else entirely.
No, it just means I have a more well-rounded approach to this subject than you do.
No, it just means you're more easily entertained.
Agreed. But "Batman & Robin" isn't bad.
Yes, it is. It's very bad.
This goes alongside what I said for Schumacher.
Given the material these actors were given, I feel they did as best a job as they could. Give Clooney a better script, and you'd easily have a better Batman. This is also rienforced by the fact that outside of this film, Clooney, Thurman and O'Donnell have given amazing performances and have proven their valor as talented actors. As for Schwarzenegger, it's not like he was Oscar-worthy prior to "Batman & Robin" so I don't see how you could suddenly expect him to be any better here.
Silverstone is the only one I'll grant you.
Why are you going on about 'What ifs' and outside performances by the actors? That's the same as that other ridiculous logic about worse movies out there somehow making B&R better.
It doesn't matter if every actor in this movie were multi Academy Award winners. They gave horrible, hammy, over the top performances in this movie. Michael Gough is the only one who retained his fine quality of acting.
We didn't get a better script. We didn't get the usual high standard performances that Thurman, Clooney etc can give. So, it's pointless on dwelling on 'What if' scenarios.
If anything, you're just compounding the fact that this movie wasted so much potential.
No...just more open-minded ones.
Yes, looking at how well they designed the sets is a much better way to making yourself be open minded about a movie. That will help eclipse the horrible script and performances.
Find I'll admit that. "Catwoman" didn't live up to the potential that it could have and as a result it suffered.
That's putting it mildly.
I'd rather watch "Batman & Robin" though...I have a feeling deep down, you would do the same given having to choose between the two.
Yeah, I would. Though, that's not saying much given the choice.
Btw, so much for you dropping this "stupid arguement"
LOL! I can't believe I'm having a debate with someone who's defending Batman and Robin. Just when you think you've seen everything
I certainly don't like the Schumacher Batman movies because they're good films. That much merit just isn't there. I just like them as ridiculous campy takes on Batman, in all their neon glory. I find Forever and B&R both quite fun to watch, but I definitely see why some people, more specifically Batman fans don't like them at all.
