Batman & Robin The Official Batman & Robin Thread - Part 1

I definitely had that blanket.
 


This company are working on the Keaton and Affleck Batmobiles for 'The Flash'. Might we see Clooney's?
 
Last edited:


Had probably 80% of these.


Same here! I know I had the Hover Attack Batman, Batgirl and Frostbite from that photo. I also had the (deluxe) "Ice Terror Mr Freeze", "Glacier Battle Robin" and the "Brain vs Brawn" Batman/Bane combo, but must have lost the Batman relatively quickly because I only really remember the Bane figure. (And yes, I looked them up, haha)

Fond memories as a kid playing with Batman figures.
 


Had probably 80% of these.

I definitely had Hover Attack Batman, Iceboard Robin and Iceblast Mr. Freeze even though I wanted the more movie accurate regular Mr. Freeze (seen in the lower left of the pic) but I couldn't find it. Even as a kid, I was only interested in the movie accurate figures and I saw no use for a gimmicky Batman that was neon yellow. But I remember I got those figures as birthday gifts that summer. I wasn't really actively collecting them because Star Wars and The Lost World: Jurassic Park drew more of my attention in Toys R Us at that time.
 
As bad as everything is in this movie, the humour, the tone could have worked if some things were shifted. I feel like the Batgirl and Bane stuff should have been cut. Clooney was also so wrong for this role. The brushcut, his horrible timing, constant smirking. It should have been Alec Baldwin because his comedic timing and straight faced delivery is so good. He would have been a great successor to Adam West. Maybe with these updates this campfest would have been more watchable.

But overall it was a poor take on the West/Ward side of Batman & Robin. What's worse is Long Halloween came out around the same time, which shows how backwards & clueless Warner Brothers were. It was time to be dark and psychological with this mythology. Batman Forever was better in every way and it was a nice balance (especially the director's cut from what I hear). So Forever could have been the final straw.

WB were such morons because they should have ditched Schumacher if he didn't want to work with Kilmer. They should have just went to Val and said "do you want to keep playing this character if you don't have to work with Joel anymore? Why don't we try to bring Michael Mann in for the next one and you guys can take this franchise any direction you want?". Make no mistake, Joel made BF what it was, but Val was now the face of a very successful Batman flick. If they could get Keaton back with a different director, they would have done it, but Michael said no once Burton left. So why not give Kilmer the same credit? Did he cost the studio money? I'm sure it was just a professional beef between Val and Joel. So let Joel walk. Seems like a no brainer to me. If a Michael Mann or whoever doesn't like working with Kilmer then it's time to toss him out but it seems like they never fought for the guy.

THAT is the biggest let down of Batman & Robin. Adam West worked. George Clooney didn't. And Val Kilmer had 1 or 2 more movies left in him.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Val Kilmer notoriously difficult to work with? He'd had fractious relationships with many directors up til that point in his career. I'd imagining that the studio thought it would be easier in the long run to simply stick with the director who'd played the game the way they wanted and delivered a fairly light summer blockbuster, and instead get shot of a notoriously difficult actor who'd potentially end up being a problem for basically any director they could have hypothetically replaced Schumacher with.
 
I will say David Duchovny, also considered to play Batman in B&R, in '96 looked *a lot* like Kilmer.
 

It's just that his expectations are a lot lower especially in terms of it being at all a drama.

I'm on the record as loving the Batman movie with the trained exploding shark. So what makes that ridiculous so much better than this ridiculous?

Even if it actually wasn't, it *felt* much, much more affectionate. And West and Ward, let alone Meredith and Gorshin, were much better comic actors.
 
I think a part of it also stems from how the sixties series came about organically and always set itself out to be that way, whereas Batman and Robin is the cynical result of executive meddling as its absolute worst, and ultimately a major comedown from what we started out with, with the '89 film.

But then it seems only natural that the further away we get from that historical context, the more people tend to look on B&R a little more fondly. More and more once cold hearts are starting to thaw (heh) and warm up to it, whereas newcomers obviously don't even have the historical baggage to overcome.

Time really does heal all wounds. :pcg:
 
I think a part of it also stems from how the sixties series came about organically and always set itself out to be that way, whereas Batman and Robin is the cynical result of executive meddling as its absolute worst, and ultimately a major comedown from what we started out with, with the '89 film.

But then it seems only natural that the further away we get from that historical context, the more people tend to look on B&R a little more fondly. More and more once cold hearts are starting to thaw (heh) and warm up to it, whereas newcomers obviously don't even have the historical baggage to overcome.

Time really does heal all wounds. :pcg:
I started looking more fondly towards Batman and Robin once Batman Begins and The Dark Knight came out and it was proven that the character could endure some low lows cinematically and still thrive.
 
But then it seems only natural that the further away we get from that historical context, the more people tend to look on B&R a little more fondly. More and more once cold hearts are starting to thaw (heh) and warm up to it, whereas newcomers obviously don't even have the historical baggage to overcome.

Time really does heal all wounds. :pcg:

Well I don't blame anyone at the time--comic book movies were still a curiosity for Hollywood rather than their own genre, so a failure of adaptation on the level of B&R felt like "that's it, pack it in, Batman as a film series will never return." It felt so much more severe back then. Same with people nitpicking inaccuracies in adaptation, like the Joker killing the Waynes. Now we're at a point where we can judge an adaptation on its own strengths, apart from the source material, knowing that if you don't like this version, you might like the next one.

As Bruce Wayne once said: "It just doesn't... hurt so bad anymore."
 
c4655cb982a8678e8c272570315b168028ac5758.gifv
bcf37c699fff79d86682831ae01a7bca4095d3c1.gifv

e67c8925be553ad47250f8479cce2fac6d1ad637.gifv
375646678c01512560d20499a5ac967346e770a7.gifv

cae5e8f921765b647a78693fb21c055dfa365bf9.gifv
0f7a38eb3191786324249a8d3e787398095ede85.gifv

71050b0a97eee9eefd58f871524d3139cd74d1bd.gifv
236726c215d40754eac327082ee3f45ca2677b1b.gifv

c2aa4b74e55a64dbf74b039440c8941dfa68857f.gifv
235c20e0750f0fd7be0136f389effbcfdcfeaccf.gifv
 
Do people find Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy to be sexy?
 
Such a crazy time capsule of the home video market.

 
I was watching this movie last month and I think I can definitely say that Thurman’s performance as Poison Ivy is the best villain portrayal in the Schumacher films. She’s over the top and cartoony, but at the same time I don’t think she goes overboard with the camp and comedy in the same way that Carrey and Jones did in Batman Forever. Thurman is aware that this is a live action cartoon and that’s how she plays the part. Within that context I think it’s a good performance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,135
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"