Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Batman World' started by Thread Manager, Sep 3, 2015.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]296837[/split]
I like the movie despite the horrible acting from George Clooney. I love the Bane in this movie even though he's only a lumbering brute & I absolutely love Arnold's Mr. Freeze & Chris O'Donnell's Robin. I'm glad he actually came back to portray Robin & I'm glad we at least got Bane, even though he was just a lumbering brute.
Ah, but what cool toys they were!
I actually liked George Clooney a lot as Bruce Wayne, but no much as Batman, if that makes sense.
I recently discovered that some of my friends have NOT seen this movie, and they are comic book fans. My mind is kind of blown. I will need to plan a Batman & Robin night or something, because I'd love to see their reactions to everything.
My fondest memory of B&R, though? The Pop Tarts. The Mr. Freeze ones were my favorite, but all of them were delicious. I ate soooo many Pop Tarts that Summer. t:
The merchandise and Blu-rays still sell fairly well, so there must be an audience for it.
Yeah Arnold was great.
I think offering them some context would help here. Possibly showing Batman Forever first. I wouldn't necessarily put it in a bad light either. Just let the film come to them and see what they think. I would be curious to know what they think. This would be a good case study to see how a new age sees the film without any negative press to it.
This film may be weird and odd, but it doesn't have batmobile sized plot holes, the characters have arcs, the relationship between Bruce and Alfred is very good, mr. freeze has the Nora story, his character has a redemption, batman reasons with the villain, appealing to his better nature, which plays into his arc about asking and accepting help.
God bless everyone!
You're right. It has BatBus sized plot holes.
I don't see how.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I think the general concept of Batman is filled with so many implausibility's that we could find an unending array of "plot holes" for any installment in the movie series. I liked how Nolan went through the trouble of making the Batcave look like a practical cave without the light show that Schumacher gave it. Yet the Batmobile is a military vehicle created from Wayne Enterprise's developmental department that apparently no engineer can identify on television.
Arguing validation of plot as it pertains to logic or rational premise is a lost case here for any of the films. I think if you can accept the fact a man is fighting crime dressed up as a bat, there should be a rather large reservoir of suspended disbelief checked in at the front door for everything else that accompanies that story.
Ultimately both Schumacher films embrace more of a vintage comic book flavor that celebrates the cosmetic themes of the Batman legacy. I'm not sure where people can separate realism since our upcoming Batman interpretation is going to sell the notion Bruce Wayne can armor himself and go toe to toe with a being that can spin a mountain on his pinky. Yeah... THAT'S believable.
The Schumacher films are like all of the others. You have to just let them come to you and decide which one entertained you more. I've enjoyed all of them to some degree or another. But neither Burton, Schumacher, or Nolan approached these with the same vision, so I give each of them their due space to create the world they want. Personally I think the more brooding they make him the more they lean towards unintentional camp. I think you can only take this idea so far, then you have to back off and have some fun with it.
That makes sense. I just don't want to sit through Batman Forever with them, though. I find it less watchable than B&R because it's not an enjoyable trainwreck (if that makes any sense). It's not good enough to be a decent film, but it's not bad enough to be a "so bad it's good" film. B&R is "so bad it's good," in my opinion.
What's funny is that my friends and I are "80's kids." A few years ago, I "forced" them to watch the '89 Batman because they had never seen it before. It blows my mind; if you're an 80's kid, then you should remember that '89 bat symbol everywhere! I was only 3 years-old when Batman '89 came out, but I remember that Summer vividly. I can't fathom not having seen that movie if you were alive at the time! Haha.
Man, while I'm at it, I think I need to get my friends to watch Batman Returns as well. Crazy! A lot of my friends didn't really get into comic books or comic book movies until Nolan Batman and the MCU.
I completely understand and mostly agree with your assessment between those two films. In some ways, Forever has moments that make my point about taking the concept too seriously. When you have an actor talking sternly in a bat costume about the fact the "Bat Signal is not a beeper" to someone who is a psychiatrist with a strange sexual disorder for molded rubber... eh... well you get my point. It ceases to carry the value of entertaining camp and becomes more demeaning in poking fun at the production values.
Batman and Robin is 100% focused on being a cartoon/comic book. To some degree that is refreshing for being so unorthodox in a series that tries so hard to make a man dressed like a bat be a tragic hero. I almost wish we could have seen "Batman Triumphant". It would have been fascinating to see the suggested tonal switch Schumacher had in mind for that installment. Perhaps Clooney's reputation in the cowl would have done a complete 360. It's a shame we'll never know. I think he played an excellent Bruce Wayne and could have been a great Batman had Schumacher given him just a touch of intensity. I liked his look just fine. I think allot of people do too, but won't admit it. What is missing is that angst that justifies him being in the cowl. Nonetheless, I accept Batman & Robin as is. It's always fun and most people who love or hate it can quote more lines from this film than any of the others. Now THAT is a statement.
I just fired up B&R on netflix. After getting through the opening credits, I was visually assaulted by gratuitous butt shots, where the camera lingers just a little too long on Batman and Robin's intimate parts.
It had been ages since I had seen this movie. It is even worse now than when I first saw it. And I absolutely hated it then.
When that film was originally released, the hero genre was still in it's infancy where the DC license, mainly Batman, was really the only notable bright spot from the comic industry. Comic fans wanted respect for their heroes. So a Batman movie had to carry not only the hopes of every Batman fan out there, but the perceived 'dignity' of comic fans everywhere. Schumacher's miscue was going completely lighthearted, when fans wanted the notoriety of a Dark Knight film. Fans felt betrayed and insulted based on those expectations.
But the grand irony to all that is Batman Forever set the stage for this next installment. When you had fans and critics alike pumping their fists in acceptance of a movie that played to those ideas of fun and a removed seriousness that the Burton films had anchored themselves to, it was a collision of unintended treatments that found their way into this film. In short, the studio gave what was perceived as more of what was liked in Forever.
18 years later the industry and fan sensibilities are much different. You have television shows, Netflix exclusives, monster big budget hero films and Marvel is sharing in that success. Add to that a slew of different treatments of Batman in cartoons and the resurgence of Batman '66, this film no longer has to carry the expectations of an entire nation of fans demanding respect. In short, I think the film is beginning to be viewed on it's own merits instead of what fans felt like they needed back in 1997 when comic book material was still frowned on. Note the auction for a diamond prop used in this movie...
Sure, you still have that pocket of fans that feel some odd desire to shout their hate of this film, which I find kind of suspect. Because in an era where there are SO many iterations of heroes, many of which are not successful, this one seems to be watched the most, which tells me its a guilty pleasure for many. It's a good looking film, even if fans are divided on it's treatment. In many ways, it's one of the films in this series that visually holds up the best. And that could be what brings people back to it so much. After all, Batman is a visually fascinating hero and this movie plays to those comic images in a creative and colorful fashion that I believe fans enjoy. I honestly think if Schumacher had given Clooney a gruff voice as Batman, replaced Bane with henchmen, and removed so many of the ice puns for Arnold, you might have a film people celebrate today.
I just happened to stumble upon this thread when researching modifying my Panther cowl into the Onstar cowl I make.
Glad to see other people can appreciate it. I am not a giant fan of the movie but I actually think in some ways it is better than Batman Forever. Suit was a better design overall, the characters werent as over the top as Tommy Lee Jones or Jim Carrey were (even though I love both)
I prefer to look at BF and B&R more as stand alone movies than sequels. That is strictly my view though.
^^^ Great Gotham skyline comparisons! Thanks Kane52630!!
Bad Puns Podcast Episode 4 - We Just Killed the Franchise (Batman & Robin)
I want to see this movie again very soon I know I've said it before, but I just can't hate it...it was the best Batman movie ever when I was nine years old. I loved Batman 1989 (still do) and Batman Returns (not so much today), but this movie was bigger and much more fun (I saw Batman Forever after B&R. Read the comic adaptation first, though).
The stunts were cooler, Batman acted more like a hero, Gotham City wasn't as claustrophobic, the villain didn't just threaten Gotham, but the entire world...
I didn't even know it was considered a bad movie until I got an internet connection back in 2001. "Oh, it's a bad movie? The critics and true fans hate it? Well, I guess they're right...". But now I don't give a crap, it's not a masterpiece, but it's still "damn good television". I've said it many times, but I'll say it again: I think many people hate it just because it's popular.
I really miss those days when we had comic book movies like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Uncomplicated stories about goodguys in costumes who punched badguys in the butt (kicking butt is so 2015).
Don't get me wrong, I love The Dark Knight trilogy, Winter Soldier and all that stuff, but come on...now matter how much real world stuff and politics you bring into a superhero story, it's still about grown men in weird costumes with names like Moose-Man, Purple Spatula and The Mantastic Man-Man. Let's have some fun with it.
Fair enough. I accept this movie as the crap as it is, because well it is. But I don't get up in arms, hold up my crucifix and curse this film like most. I've gotten to an age where I don't give a crap and it's in the past. Then realizing the history in how it was a rushed product, the film took all the idea from toy designers instead of filmmakers. Meanwhile Schumacher was smart enough to borrow TAS Mr. Freeze but failed in directing Clooney on playing Batman. I actually enjoy it as a bad B movie piece of crap for shameless entertainment. I enjoy it more than that piece of crap Batman Returns. At least B&R resembled a plot and knew what it wanted to do (sell toys, not a noble goal but at least it had one) where Returns is well... I have no god awful idea.
I don't mind Clooney as Bruce Wayne, and although I HATE puns I can't help but enjoy all those horrible ice puns recited by the Austrian beefcake Governator. Also I'm a fan of John Glover and love his over the top performance.
What's crap about it? Nothing really. It's just stuff that is silly ridiculous and things some people don't like. It's fine, not great, but fine.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Batman Returns is (pardon me) Tim Burton *********ing.