Schumacher's revision of Batman lore

[Kevin Roegele]

Two things really interest me about the Schumacher/Goldsman take on Batman, and these are rarely if ever mentioned. We all know Burton had Napier kill Bruce's parents, Schumacher did something just as drastic...

1. In Forever, Bruce is cured. We learn exactly why Bruce is Batman, and it isn't vengeance, it's guilt. Once Bruce realises he's not guilty, the story could just end there, but instead....well, he just becomes Batman again anyway. But no longer because he has to be - because he chooses to be. His nightmarish psychoses are instead given to the Riddler, locked away in Arkham.

2. In B&R, the whole Nightwing storyline is dismissed. Robin does become Nightwing (there is a deleted line of dialogue where he tells Alfred that's his new name), goes solo, but it's shown as petulance on Dick's part, and soon he is back at Bruce's side.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

1. No. They tried to fix things and made Batman from a psycho into the superhero he is.
2. Strange. I am not going to defend the B&R crap, but the real Nightwing origin needs Superman, so that's too much for a movie.

 

[El Payaso]

1. No. They tried to fix things and made Batman from a psycho into the superhero he is.

And the results are there.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

And the results are there.

yeah, a good movie who could have been the best Batman movie if they changed the stupid portrayals of the villains.

 

[El Payaso]

yeah, a good movie who could have been the best Batman movie if they changed the stupid portrayals of the villains.

And the neon and O'Donnell and the nipples and the bat-butt shots and Gordon in PJ's and Kidman acting like crap and Two-Face's girlfriends or whatever they were, etc.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i would have liked to see what Schumacher would have done with no studio interference. his non-Batman movies are actually pretty good and pretty gritty. he was already frustrated that they pushed a kid-friendly agenda on him for Batman Forever...when they said they wanted an even more kid-friendly Batman, the result was B&R.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I never knew that Robin was supposed to become Nightwing, thats pretty cool!

 

[Riven]

I never knew that Robin was supposed to become Nightwing, thats pretty cool!

Yeah, apparantly he was referred to as "Nightwing" throughout the whole script, after the "breakup". Then somebody remembered the movie was called "Batman and Robin" and marketed as such, so they changed it back at the last minute.

i would have liked to see what Schumacher would have done with no studio interference. his non-Batman movies are actually pretty good and pretty gritty. he was already frustrated that they pushed a kid-friendly agenda on him for Batman Forever...when they said they wanted an even more kid-friendly Batman, the result was B&R.

I don't remember him ever expressing frustration at being asked to make BF kid-friendly. What he did say is that he was asked to do moreso for B&R and that he admits he thought he was making a genuinely entertaining movie. See the B&R dvd commentary, Schumacher explains nobody forced him to do anything, he stepped into it with open eyes and made his own choices.

Sure, WB's marketing trauma over Batman Returns made them eager for a lighter movie, but I don't think BF and B&R would have turned out any differently had they kept out of the creative process alltogether. Schumacher would have made pretty much the same choices.

 

[Riven]

Two things really interest me about the Schumacher/Goldsman take on Batman, and these are rarely if ever mentioned. We all know Burton had Napier kill Bruce's parents, Schumacher did something just as drastic...

1. In Forever, Bruce is cured.

Actually, that's not a very drastic departure from the comics at all. For a loooong time (pretty much throughout the 40ies, 50ies and 60ies), Bruce was "cured" in the comics as well. He had gotten over his parents death at some point in adulthood and had moved on succesfully. Being Batman was a choice, not a mission or a curse. Then in the 70ies the tone of the comics darkened once more and the grief came back. Especially in the 80ies (influenced by DKR) and 90ies Bruce had completely reverted back to being angst-ridden, traumatised and consumed by guilt.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Actually, that's not a very drastic departure from the comics at all. For a loooong time (pretty much throughout the 40ies, 50ies and 60ies), Bruce was "cured" in the comics as well. He had gotten over his parents death at some point in adulthood and had moved on succesfully. Being Batman was a choice, not a mission or a curse. Then in the 70ies the tone of the comics darkened once more and the grief came back. Especially in the 80ies (influenced by DKR) and 90ies Bruce had completely reverted back to being angst-ridden, traumatised and consumed by guilt.

I'm talking about storyline. Sure, in the post-Seduction of the Innocent era, Batman toned down so much he was strolling around in the sunshine, smiling at happy Gothamites. But that's not the same thing as in Forever. In Forever, he realises exactly why he's Batman - the overbearing guilt he's always had - and releases it. That's not what happens in the comics.

 

[DACrowe]

It's just a bad movie.

 

[Spoonman]

EDIT

Double post..sorry

 

[Spoonman]

Yeah, apparantly he was referred to as "Nightwing" throughout the whole script, after the "breakup". Then somebody remembered the movie was called "Batman and Robin" and marketed as such, so they changed it back at the last minute.


I don't remember him ever expressing frustration at being asked to make BF kid-friendly. What he did say is that he was asked to do moreso for B&R and that he admits he thought he was making a genuinely entertaining movie. See the B&R dvd commentary, Schumacher explains nobody forced him to do anything, he stepped into it with open eyes and made his own choices.

Sure, WB's marketing trauma over Batman Returns made them eager for a lighter movie, but I don't think BF and B&R would have turned out any differently had they kept out of the creative process alltogether. Schumacher would have made pretty much the same choices.

I know, but after the success of BF, WB wanted the fourth movie to be even more kid friendly..yo yes, Schumacher made his own choices based in that premise, I'm not trying to take away the guilt from him becasue he even admited it..but there was studio interference, it seems there was more of it (even toy companies) in Batman & Robin. In the commentary for Forever, it sounds as if Schumacher and his team were kinda left alone and did the movie under the WB comisionment of making it more family friendly..but in B&R everybody got greedy and wanted BF x10..and that backfired, Scumacher, unwisely said "well, if thats what they want I'll give it to them", which is unfortunate because I do like him as a director and I'm sure he could've made a good Batman film if the premise from the studio was "Ok, do your dark and personal take on Batman, you can adapt Year ONE given thats your favourite Batman comic" but it wasnt like that unfortunely..

 

[Chris Wallace]

i would have liked to see what Schumacher would have done with no studio interference. his non-Batman movies are actually pretty good and pretty gritty. he was already frustrated that they pushed a kid-friendly agenda on him for Batman Forever...when they said they wanted an even more kid-friendly Batman, the result was B&R.

I got the impression that he made the movie he wanted to make, based on the following quotes.
"They're called comic books, not tragic books."
"Life is grim enough!"
"Bruce Wayne has a great life. He has lots of money...and gets to kick butt as a vigilante."
"If you knew someone whose parents died a long time ago and they were still brooding about it, you'd say 'Get over it already'."
I don't think WB pushed him to do anything he didn't want to do. If anything they gave him too much freedom. "Make it kid-friendly" doesn't say "Make it look like a kid wrote it" or "Fill it with homo-erotic subtext." He did that on his own.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I don't think WB pushed him to do anything he didn't want to do. If anything they gave him too much freedom. "Make it kid-friendly" doesn't say "Make it look like a kid wrote it" or "Fill it with homo-erotic subtext." He did that on his own.

Ha haa, that's so true. I've said that myself here repeatedly. Warner Bros wanted a family-friendly toy advert. Absolutely they did. They did not for one second ask for the script to be constant puns, for the costumes to have nipples, for the gay under (and sometimes over) tones. Indeed, Warner Bros would hardly endorse the last one.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I would hope not, at least. There's been too much speculation about Batman & Robin's sexuality over the last 60 years as it is.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Sure, WB's marketing trauma over Batman Returns made them eager for a lighter movie, but I don't think BF and B&R would have turned out any differently had they kept out of the creative process alltogether. Schumacher would have made pretty much the same choices.

his Batman movies are very inconsistant with the rest of his movies. it's very clear that, regardless of him showing frustration, he was under WB's kid-friendly influence when making Batman Forever and B&R. if he had been given more freedom, we might have ended up with a Batman movie more in tone with Burton's....seeing as how Schumacher has done many serious, dark, and gritty films.

I got the impression that he made the movie he wanted to make, based on the following quotes.
"They're called comic books, not tragic books."
"Life is grim enough!"
"Bruce Wayne has a great life. He has lots of money...and gets to kick butt as a vigilante."
"If you knew someone whose parents died a long time ago and they were still brooding about it, you'd say 'Get over it already'."

which all go against the style and feel of the rest of his movies. even if he wasn't frustrated, it's clear that WB wanted him to make a more kid-friendly Batman. those quotes could have easily been the result of him not wanting to look like a hypocrite (wanting a darker Batman and directing a light-hearted Batman), at the risk of him looking like he doesn't know Batman.

I don't think WB pushed him to do anything he didn't want to do. If anything they gave him too much freedom. "Make it kid-friendly" doesn't say "Make it look like a kid wrote it" or "Fill it with homo-erotic subtext." He did that on his own.

WB might not have forced him to insert overly corny dialogue and batnipples, but that doesn't mean that he would have put those in the movie had he been given more freedom. if you watch the rest of his movies, none of them are anything like Batman...in fact, most of them are darker in nature.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

WB might not have forced him to insert overly corny dialogue and batnipples, but that doesn't mean that he would have put those in the movie had he been given more freedom. if you watch the rest of his movies, none of them are anything like Batman...in fact, most of them are darker in nature.

Very true. Schumacher is a man of extremes. 8MM and Falling Down are about as dark as mainstream Hollywood gets.

 

[Spoonman]

I tottally agrree with DorkyFresh, whatever free decision Schumacher made or whatever comment he said was still under the premise of "you got to make it kid-friendly". Knowing the rest of his movies its highly unlikely Schumacher would've resisted making a more personal and dark film had WB told him that he had the freedom to do that and not to worry about the kids.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

The nipples aren't really so much about "gay erotic", it was more like "greek statues".

The ass shots...however...well...

 

[Mr. Socko]

I got the impression that he made the movie he wanted to make, based on the following quotes.
"They're called comic books, not tragic books."
"Life is grim enough!"
"Bruce Wayne has a great life. He has lots of money...and gets to kick butt as a vigilante."
"If you knew someone whose parents died a long time ago and they were still brooding about it, you'd say 'Get over it already'."
I don't think WB pushed him to do anything he didn't want to do. If anything they gave him too much freedom. "Make it kid-friendly" doesn't say "Make it look like a kid wrote it" or "Fill it with homo-erotic subtext." He did that on his own.

Ha haa, that's so true. I've said that myself here repeatedly. Warner Bros wanted a family-friendly toy advert. Absolutely they did. They did not for one second ask for the script to be constant puns, for the costumes to have nipples, for the gay under (and sometimes over) tones. Indeed, Warner Bros would hardly endorse the last one.

But conversely, Joel has also said he wanted to make a darker Batman film and originally wanted to adapt Year One. If that had happened Keaton may have stayed on board and it could have been the perfect prequel to Batman'89 but alas...

I believe as Joel states on the SE of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin....He accepts all the blame, he wanted to make a dark Batman film but WB wanted something lighter so he listened to them and took it to the extreme and we ended up with Batman & Robin.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I tottally agrree with DorkyFresh, whatever free decision Schumacher made or whatever comment he said was still under the premise of "you got to make it kid-friendly". Knowing the rest of his movies its highly unlikely Schumacher would've resisted making a more personal and dark film had WB told him that he had the freedom to do that and not to worry about the kids.

exactly...when you look at the rest of his films, it's ridiculous to think that he would have made his Batfilms the same way he did if he had been given more freedom. i'm sure they would've had similarities, but they probably would have been more like Phantom of the Opera. maybe not as operatic or fancy, but similar in tone.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Dark doesn't necessarily equal good. Whatever the case may be, Forever wouldn't have turned out THAT much different than the version we got. Lost Boys is darker comic book like but filled with tons of cheese. That's just Schumacher's style. Nipples on the suits, ass closeups, Riddler playing baseball in the Batcave.. that's not WB demanding it.. that's what Schumacher likes.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Tigerland, 8mm, Phone Booth, A Time to Kill, Falling Down, the Client....all serious and gritty films directed by Schumacher that didn't have tons of cheese. we didn't exactly see anything like his Batfilms in his rendition of Phantom of the Opera even though it's a film that would have been more appropriate for such things.

the things that made his Batfilms bad seem to be him just having fun with it while soaking up a paycheck because he was contractually obligated to. none of his other movies have stupid stuff like in his Batfilms. to say that all the negative stuff from his Batfilms is just 'what Schumacher likes' is simply ignoring his other films.

 

[Alchemyst]

I agree with you Dorky, the first 2 Batman films were pretty dark, to the point where kids were kinda afraid of his portrayal. WB wanted to continue on with the franchise, but they wanted to go in a lighter direction.