Schumacher's revision of Batman lore

[DorkyFresh]

thanx...WB wanting a more kid friendly Batman is pretty obvious. however, people seem to think that Joel Schumacher would have put neon lights, corny dialogue, and crazy gadgets in a Batman movie had WB told him to do whatever he wants....but not many people know that Schumacher originally wanted to adapt Frank Miller's Batman: Year One.

regardless of who took over Batman after Tim Burton, the series was doomed to fail simply because WB made it a point to make a movie that would sell more toys rather than a movie that would sell more tickets.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

I agree, none of the movies mentioned above are cheesie so is not "Schumacher style" plain and simple, again..I'm not defending the guy to the point of completely excusing him but just like the way he did his Bat films he could've made them the other way around, he is a versatile director, hit or miss if you want to call it like that but at least between the parameters of Hollywood he's quite risque in that he doesn't necesarily chooses the same type of projects..I do believe he is miles above of the likes of Michael Bay for example.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I agree, none of the movies mentioned above are cheesie so is not "Schumacher style" plain and simple, again..I'm not defending the guy to the point of completely excusing him but just like the way he did his Bat films he could've made them the other way around

exactly, totally agreed...the series would have gone downhill regardless of who directed it after Tim Burton. if there's anything to blame Schumacher for, it's not having the backbone to tell WB to kiss his ass. he's guilty for going ahead with the projects, but i wish people would stop acting as if Schumacher was the sole reason for the end of that saga when it was really WB's decision to aim Batman towards children.

 

[Caladbolg]

Just revisited Batman Forever and while I find Jim Carrey amusing in it, its almost unbearably ridiculous. The sillyness and low IQ'ness actually makes you queasy after the ride lol.

Still its the most coherent of the 2 goofball Batman films.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Dark doesn't necessarily equal good.

Sometimes I think only about 50% of Hype! members understand this.

It's almost gotten to the stage where people are saying, "Hey, I saw Movie X yesterday, the writing, direction, acting, pacing, editing and music were probably Oscar worthy, but I didn't like it because there were some funny scenes that should have been cut - and it should have been darker."

 

[DarkKnight88]

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.

Just because the man directed A Time to Kill doesn't mean his Batman movie would be in the same style as A Time to Kill.. even if he had taken it as seriously. So what if he wanted to adapt Batman: Year One.? You're assuming it now wouldn't be a NEON Gotham? Those are the designs he chose. WB sure as hell didn't.

Listen, I like Batman Forever.. I'm just saying how one director makes one film, doesn't mean that's how he'll direct another. Schumacher saw Batman as a comic book. Schumacher saw Batman: Year One as a comic book. Closer to the genre of Batman to Schumacher are his films The Lost Boys and Phantom of the Opera (and yes, Phantom had some cheese.. did you miss the nipples on the statues?) There's even evidence to his odd choices in 8mm and The Number 23 (ie the book sequences).

The fact is we'll never truly know what a "dark, gritty" Joel Schumacher Batman will be like.. but who really cares at this point. He had his shot. He can talk all his wants of what he wanted to do but the fact remains he gave us Batman & Robin. I'm not saying he's a bad director.. but he's just not suited for Batman.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Closer to the genre of Batman to Schumacher are his films The Lost Boys and Phantom of the Opera (and yes, Phantom had some cheese.. did you miss the nipples on the statues?)

after reading that, i can no longer take your arguments about this subject seriously anymore. sorry...

 

[DarkKnight88]

after reading that, i can no longer take your arguments about this subject seriously anymore. sorry...

Whatever dude. Your problem not mine.

What I'm referencing is how the look of his Gotham and the look of his Opera aren't that different from one another.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

after reading that, i can no longer take your arguments about this subject seriously anymore. sorry...

LOL, me neither....

 

[DorkyFresh]

Whatever dude. Your problem not mine.

What I'm referencing is how the look of his Gotham and the look of his Opera aren't that different from one another.

*sarcastically* yes....because nipples are something that people hardly ever include on statues. you're not reaching at all!

 

[DarkKnight88]

*sarcastically* yes....because nipples are something that people hardly ever include on statues.

THAT wasn't the point I was trying to make. I wasn't bringing up the fact that there was specifically nipples on the statues. The point was that there was an extreme close up of said statue near the start of the film along with some other over the top looking set pieces.. it looked like Schumacher's Gotham. My point was that the complaints towards Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were more than just their tone but the design of the world (nipples on the batsuit, Neon Gotham, over the top set pieces) that might not necessarily fit in the world of Batman. Now just because he would adapt a darker Batman story like Batman: Year One doesn't mean that those problems would disappear.. it doesn't mean the film would look like A Time to Kill or Falling Down. The "fantasy" Joel Schumacher films have always been extreme looking is all I'm saying (ie The Lost Boys, Phantom of the Opera, the book sequences of The Number 23)

 

[I'm Duffman]

Hi new poster here.

Anyway for me, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, are indirectly, the best thing that has happened to the entire Batman movie franchise. I love B89 and BR as much as most Burtonites (as they seem to be called) and would've enjoyed nothing more than to see a 3rd installment. However with that we wouldn't have the Nolan franchise, which looks like it will quickly overtake the Burton's films.

Yes BF and B&R are rather poor (one much poorer than the other), but in exhange we've been given a franchise 500% better than both of them, as well as still having the 2 very good Burton films.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Hi new poster here.

Anyway for me, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, are indirectly, the best thing that has happened to the entire Batman movie franchise. I love B89 and BR as much as most Burtonites (as they seem to be called) and would've enjoyed nothing more than to see a 3rd installment. However with that we wouldn't have the Nolan franchise, which looks like it will quickly overtake the Burton's films.

Yes BF and B&R are rather poor (one much poorer than the other), but in exhange we've been given a franchise 500% better than both of them, as well as still having the 2 very good Burton films.

Welcome aboard

 

[Spoonman]

Just because the man directed A Time to Kill doesn't mean his Batman movie would be in the same style as A Time to Kill.. even if he had taken it as seriously. So what if he wanted to adapt Batman: Year One.? You're assuming it now wouldn't be a NEON Gotham? Those are the designs he chose. WB sure as hell didn't.

I disagree, I think its proof enough that he could handle a dark and gritty (and more importantly a good) Bat film if he was allowed to..I find it implausible that the guy could've resisted the chance (again, given his resume) if WB had told him "there you go, you have a ton of budget and the freedom to do a dark adaptation of Year One for the older Batman fans"..I'm not a director but I guess that would be like a dream situation for someone like him. So you're saying that just because the rest of his movies are dark doesn't mean he would make Batman dark, I find that hard to believe it because of his resume, it may sound simple but its enough IMO...and if he had the chance and freedom to do a dark Bat film I can't find a reasonable way he wouldn't took that.

 

[Superhobo]

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.

And they're all horrible horrible films. He's one of the lowest rated directors on RT, you know.

 

[Spoonman]

And they're all horrible horrible films. He's one of the lowest rated directors on RT, you know.

Well, I do like those films and not everybody cares about RT ratings, just say you don't like them I can respect that, seriously, but whats with people always bringing up ratings and all that suff?.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Hi new poster here.

Anyway for me, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, are indirectly, the best thing that has happened to the entire Batman movie franchise. I love B89 and BR as much as most Burtonites (as they seem to be called) and would've enjoyed nothing more than to see a 3rd installment. However with that we wouldn't have the Nolan franchise, which looks like it will quickly overtake the Burton's films.

Yes BF and B&R are rather poor (one much poorer than the other), but in exhange we've been given a franchise 500% better than both of them, as well as still having the 2 very good Burton films.

welcome to SHH and i totally agree with every word you posted.

And they're all horrible horrible films. He's one of the lowest rated directors on RT, you know.

it's funny you bring up RT, because with the exception of 8mm (which i only brought up because of it's tone, not it's critical praise) all of the movies that you quoted got more than 70% on that same website...


....so much for those movies being horrible, horrible films.

 

[Superhobo]

welcome to SHH and i totally agree with every word you posted.



it's funny you bring up RT, because with the exception of 8mm (which i only brought up because of it's tone, not it's critical praise) all of the movies that you quoted got more than 70% on that same website...


....so much for those movies being horrible, horrible films.

Ah, well.

The Number Twenty-three has an eight percent.

Flawless has thirty eight percent.

Dying Young has twenty nine percent.

So does The Babysitter.

His total rating on RT, as a director? Thirty-five percent.

So, yes - he's a horrible director. With some okay films. Could he pull off a serious Batman film? No. I don't think he could. I really, really don't/

 

[Mr. Socko]

Just because the man directed A Time to Kill doesn't mean his Batman movie would be in the same style as A Time to Kill.. even if he had taken it as seriously. So what if he wanted to adapt Batman: Year One.? You're assuming it now wouldn't be a NEON Gotham? Those are the designs he chose. WB sure as hell didn't.

Listen, I like Batman Forever.. I'm just saying how one director makes one film, doesn't mean that's how he'll direct another. Schumacher saw Batman as a comic book. Schumacher saw Batman: Year One as a comic book. Closer to the genre of Batman to Schumacher are his films The Lost Boys and Phantom of the Opera (and yes, Phantom had some cheese.. did you miss the nipples on the statues?) There's even evidence to his odd choices in 8mm and The Number 23 (ie the book sequences).

The fact is we'll never truly know what a "dark, gritty" Joel Schumacher Batman will be like.. but who really cares at this point. He had his shot. He can talk all his wants of what he wanted to do but the fact remains he gave us Batman & Robin. I'm not saying he's a bad director.. but he's just not suited for Batman.

You have come very close to rendering yourself a laughing stock after that comment. I suppose the statue of David sculpted by Michelangelo is a very cheesy work of art, right?

 

[ABongHalloween]

I gotta agree with "I'm Duffman" here, sure actually living thru the Schumacher films was depressing ,even tho as a kid I didnt think BF was horrible just crap compared to the first 2 Batman movies, look where we are now! if freaking Tim Burton himself was directing a 3rd Bat-movie I probably wouldnt be as excited for it as I am TDK.

 

[El Payaso]

I gotta agree with "I'm Duffman" here, sure actually living thru the Schumacher films was depressing ,even tho as a kid I didnt think BF was horrible just crap compared to the first 2 Batman movies, look where we are now! if freaking Tim Burton himself was directing a 3rd Bat-movie I probably wouldnt be as excited for it as I am TDK.

Everything has a positive side man.

For me is that I see that black eye circles and make-up in Ledger's Joker and it reminds me of Burton's characters traditional make-up.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Ah, well.

The Number Twenty-three has an eight percent.

Flawless has thirty eight percent.

Dying Young has twenty nine percent.

So does The Babysitter.

first off...he didn't direct Babysitter, second...Flawless is a comedy and Dying Young is a romance. nice try...but those movies don't exactly illustrate how dark and serious he can be. i'll admitt that Number 23 wasn't all that great, but it was definitely dark in tone.

His total rating on RT, as a director? Thirty-five percent.

So, yes - he's a horrible director. With some okay films. Could he pull off a serious Batman film? No. I don't think he could. I really, really don't/

most of his crime/thillers have gotten above a 70% on rottentomatoes and a crime/thriller (plus action) is pretty much what i would describe a Batman movie to be. i understand that his overall rating isn't very good, but when looking at the movies he's done that are dark in nature, most of them have gotten good reviews.....which leads me to believe that he COULD have made a fairly decent Batman movie had he been given more freedom.

 

[DarkKnight88]

You have come very close to rendering yourself a laughing stock after that comment. I suppose the statue of David sculpted by Michelangelo is a very cheesy work of art, right?

Right, a laughing stock on a comic book movie message board. Oh no! You might want to go back and read the followup to what I meant.

 

[ABongHalloween]

Joel Schumacher really isnt a bad director, its just that we're all obviously more into the darker more realistic batman, we didn't wanna see the 60's camp back in super full force!
I mean what was with the scene where they suddenly all have new vehicles that literally last on screen for less than 5 minutes...god only knows what kinda money and talent went into those pointless creations. Ofcourse anyone could literally go on and on about the crapfest that is B & R. Why include Bane at all?!?! ok I gotta stop myself!...

 

[The Guard]

I see no reason to believe his Batman would have been too much darker with less studio interference. He viewed Batman as most of the world views him, an absurd concept, a comic book character. As it is, though, Schumacher dealt with some pretty dark and serious themes in BATMAN FOREVER.